"What if he actually did it?" by Amanda Knox in The Atlantic

"Hammel, [Söring] said, was an obsessive troll, a crackpot conspiracy theorist."

Today The Atlantic published a long piece by Amanda Knox entitled “What if he actually did it?”. In it, she tells the tale of how she first came to know of Jens Söring in 2019. The Sundance Network hired her and her husband (they have a joint media-production company) to produce a companion podcast to the 2016 documentary Killing for Love, which advanced a passel of now-discredited theories, while casually outing “alternate suspects” who had nothing to do with the crime. The movie revealed to millions of viewers that these people, who had nothing to do with the crime, were gay and/or had criminal records unrelated to the Haysom murders. The movie actually shows the correct date of birth of one of the “alternate suspects”. This always struck me as a low blow — but I digress.

Knox then read the 2017 book A Far, Far Better Thing, a collaboration between Söring and Virginia journalist Bill Sizemore. The first part of that book consists of a condensed version of Söring’s 1995 E-book Mortal Thoughts combined with essays by Sizemore about various case-related theories such as the Deadly Drifters, the sockprint, judicial bias, etc. This convinced Knox she was on the right track, and in 2019, she released an 8-part podcast on Söring’s wrongful conviction, drawing on many interviews with Söring himself. During the podcast, Knox developed friendly feelings toward Söring, who was witty and engaging, like talking to a “professor at a dinner party”, as she writes for The Atlantic. She felt a special bond with him because she had been wrongfully convicted based on a false confession.

She heard of his release from prison in late November 2019 while shopping for bread, and was overjoyed. They stayed in touch during 2020 and 2021. I was topic in their conversations: “Jens was particularly concerned about a man named Andrew Hammel, whom he described as a persistent troll. He’s trying to destroy my life, Jens told me. He keeps writing article after article saying I’m guilty.” She responded: “I told Jens to ignore Hammel; the people who mattered were those who believed in his innocence.”

As soon as Corona restrictions eased, she visited Söring in Germany:

In November 2021, as the pandemic abated, Chris and I flew to Hamburg with our four-month-old daughter to meet Jens and do a follow-up interview with him for our new podcast, Labyrinths, which told stories of people who’d felt lost or trapped and how they’d found their way again. It was an emotional few days. We strolled together through Hamburg, and Jens showed us his first-ever apartment and the decor he had carefully chosen; after three decades in the ugliness of prison, he’d embraced the chance to make his own space beautiful. He reflected on the years and opportunities he’d lost, and teared up while holding my infant daughter in his arms.

The Europe trip resulted in a podcast episode called “The Ultimate Putz”.

While in Germany, Knox gave an interview to a German journalist named Charlotte Theile about Knox’s own case. Theile heard Knox talk about the Söring case and began researching it on her own. By this time, the podcast The Soering System had been released (originally in German). Theile listened to it, and came away convinced that Söring was “very likely guilty”, in Knox’s words. As Knox notes, “The podcast, produced by Alice Brauner and Johanna Behre, featured interviews with Andrew Hammel, the man Jens had warned me about, and with Terry Wright, the British detective who’d taken Jens’s confessions in London.”

Theile urged Knox to read the Wright Report. Knox didn’t have time to do so immediately. Knox writes: “In the meantime, Jens was telling me to avoid Hammel at all costs. Beware, he may try to reach out to you. Don’t respond. Hammel, he said, was an obsessive troll, a crackpot conspiracy theorist. I had grown to trust Jens, so I took his word for it.” When she finally read the Wright report, she was expecting it to be a caustic indictment of Söring and all his works: “[I was] prepared to encounter what I was certain would be half-truths and mischaracterizations. That isn’t what I found.” The most important part of the report for Knox was Wright’s discussion of the DNA evidence supposedly showing two unknown males had left DNA at the crime scene.

This was the “bombshell” which had initially convinced Knox (when she learned of it) that there must be something to Söring’s story. After all, if DNA evidence disproved the state’s theory, what more was there to say? Knox was intimately familiar with DNA evidence, since a flawed DNA test had helped convict her, and other DNA results, properly interpreted, had led to her complete exoneration by Italy’s Supreme Court in 2015.

Now Knox began to have serious doubts. Her research, she writes, “led me next to Jens’s biggest critic, Andrew Hammel. I had at first assumed that Hammel must be part of the niche online movement of ‘innocence fraud’ activists…a loose cluster of podcasters and YouTubers who seem to believe that Innocence Project lawyers and advocates are working to free killers because they’re hopelessly deluded.” In their last email exchange, Söring warned Knox against any contact with me: “‘You, of all people, should be distrustful of reporters…and you, of all people, should be distrustful of reports and documents produced by people who are strongly motivated to prove a defendant’s guilt.’” Söring finds your buttons and pushes them.

Yet Knox could not resist tasting of the forbidden fruit: “But when I actually read Hammel’s writing, including his book Martyr or Murderer: Jens Soering, the Media, and the Truth, he didn’t come across as the troll I was expecting. He was more of a provocateur. Of course, that didn’t mean his arguments were correct. But he seemed to be a logical thinker and a thorough researcher who engaged with evidence in good faith.” Provocateur? Sure, why not. But in my view, I’m more provoked than provoking.

Knox says that in the interview, which you can listen to here,

I “made a compelling case for Jens’s guilt, [my] arguments mostly tracking those in the Wright Report.” I also gave her “one more lead”, to Dan Krane, the biologist consulted by 20/20 in 2018 and by German public broadcasting in 2023. Knox contacted Krane and spoke to him at length. Krane, Knox writes:

gave no credence to the theory advanced by Jens and his experts—linking the DNA to the blood itself and pointing a finger at two unknown male contributors … [t]he two-unknown-males theory, Krane said, requires a combination of virtually impossible events: Unknown male No. 1 (the supposed source of the type O blood) would have to have DNA consistent with that of unknown male No. 2 (the supposed source of the type AB blood), and both of their DNA profiles would also have to be consistent with that of Derek Haysom (the source of the type A blood). ‘that these three people would have the same combination of alleles—that’s just staggeringly unlikely,’ Krane told me.

This is why the DNA issue isn’t complicated once you understand the statistics behind it. After thinking about it for a while, I came up with what I think is a pretty good analogy. Imagine you picked 3 people totally at random from the street. They all agreed to let you weigh them with an ultra-precise machine. What are the odds that they will all weigh exactly 85.74 kilograms? That (approximately) is how likely that Derek Haysom and the “two unknown males” would all happen to share the DNA markers at the Haysom crime scene.

Of course, there was blowback to Knox’s change of mind:

Unsurprisingly, the release of my interview with Hammel caused strife among advocates who still support Jens. Some of them are unwilling to reexamine their beliefs about what the DNA evidence actually shows in this case. Some worry that I have damaged the innocence movement by giving critics a platform. And after 33 years in prison, hasn’t Jens been through enough?

I invite any and all of these people to contact me directly. I will be happy to talk with them at length about my background, qualifications, and motivations. I’ll explain why I’m doing what I’m doing. As you can see, Amanda Knox spoke to me and survived. I’m not a troll, a “crackpot”, or a fanatic (except about cheese and scotch). If you take issue with anything I’ve written, I am eager to discuss it with you. As Hume said, “Truth springs from argument amongst friends.” That’s my motto and life’s mission.

By the way, my offer to debate the case with any Söring supporter, at an time, in any language we both speak, still stands. John Grisham, how about a nice respectful exchange of views?

I’ll wrap up with a few thoughts. First, we again see Jens Söring’s fecklessness. Knox doesn’t cite a single argument or new piece of evidence Söring mentioned when contesting my claims, just his near-hysterical warnings about talking to me. As the old lawyer saying goes: “If you have the facts, argue the facts. If you have the law, argue the law. If you have neither, pound the table.”

We also see Söring’s tactic of (soft) emotional blackmail: The first thing he does is gets people to like him, using his not-inconsiderable personal charm and his tragic¹ life story. Only then does he begin highlighting his innocence story. Most of the time, his new friend will be only too happy to overlook any doubts. Yet if doubts do crop up, Söring sends a clear but subtle signal: If you seriously challenge my story, this friendship is over. Söring has refined this tactic over the decades and deploys it with skill, although not much subtlety.

Second, all respect to Amanda Knox. I’ve really enjoyed all of my interactions with her and her husband Chris Robinson. They’re smart, thoughtful, polite, and take truth and justice seriously. They’ve displayed more courage and integrity than almost all other people who once boosted Söring’s narrative. I happen to know of several people in that category who have concluded Söring’s claims were not credible, but who lack the cojones to come forward and correct the record. For now.

Jens Söring convinced a lot of talented people of good will to spend thousands of hours in a doomed, pointless effort to prove his innocence claims. Off they went, on one wild goose chase after another. All the while they could have been searching for cases of genuine injustice. I hope this whole sorry story induces them to pause for reflection and bring a little more healthy skepticism and common sense to the table.

1. Just to be a pedantic (I studied English lit in college), Söring’s story is indeed tragic. A tragedy occurs when a character is in some respects admirable, even good, is brought down by a tragic flaw — a hamartia, if you will, and I think you will. Söring’s tragic flaws were arrogance, lack of conscience, and excessive anger. The murder of the Haysoms, by contrast, was no tragedy, it was simply the vicious murder of two completely innocent, unsuspecting human beings.