Why I Don't Buy the 2-Perpetrator Theory

In two words: Occam's Razor.

A visitor to my website recently wrote the following:

Dear Andrew Hammel,

I hope this letter finds you well. My name is **, and I am writing to you as an ardent fan of criminal cases. For many years, I have been deeply engaged in the case of Jens Söring, diligently studying all the files and watching documentaries on Netflix and NDR.

Your detailed knowledge and commitment, especially as a counterbalance to Söring's manipulative contributions in the media, have not only impressed but also inspired me. However, your comments in the NDR documentary regarding whether the crime could have been committed by both Söring and Haysom simultaneously left me quite surprised. From my perspective, there is substantial evidence supporting this theory:

1. Christine Tan {name changed by me]'s close involvement with both perpetrators, including an intimate relationship with Haysom, her role in crafting an alibi, her presence at the funeral, and her consistent avoidance of journalistic inquiries for many years.

2. Physical evidence at the crime scene, like the cigarette butts, shoe prints, and a hair strand, all point towards the involvement of both individuals.

3. Inconsistencies in Söring's confessions, where he occasionally slips up or expresses doubt about his sole participation, further fuel this speculation.

4. Elizabeth Haysom's apparent inability to accurately recount key details about the movie tickets and hotel booking, coupled with the improbability of Jens Söring daring or being capable of single-handedly murdering two people, especially considering the varying depth of the stab wounds indicative of two different perpetrators.

Given all these factors, I personally believe that both Söring and Haysom drove to the crime scene, possibly under the influence of drugs, which might have contributed to the brutal and unrestrained nature of the crime. This remains speculation, but it's the only way I can make sense of such a heinous act.

I am eager to hear your thoughts on these points.

First, thanks for the compliments! Let me go through your points:

1. Christine Tan’s close involvement with both perpetrators, including an intimate relationship with Haysom, her role in crafting an alibi, her presence at the funeral, and her consistent avoidance of journalistic inquiries for many years.

First, we have no information at all suggesting that Elizabeth’s relationship with Tan was “intimate”. They were close friends and compatible roommates; we have no evidence the relationship went any further than that. If they did fool around, this is not necessarily a sign of a committed romantic relationship. Female college students experimenting with lesbianism is so common in the USA there’s an abbreviation for it: LUG (lesbian until graduation).

Tan didn’t have any role in crafting an alibi, she simply took down a rough timeline dictated to her by Haysom and possibly Söring in which they described what they had done in Washington, D.C. over the murder weekend. The way it went down is simple: Söring and Haysom come back to UVA, the bodies are later discovered, at some point they say: “Hey Christine, the authorities are probably going to ask us what we were doing on the murder weekend, so let’s get it down on paper while it’s still fresh in our memories. We’ll talk and you write it down.” The timeline she transcribed was of course nonsense. Since nobody argued it was accurate, it played basically no role at the trial.

Nobody has ever suggested Christine went to Washington to create an alibi because this idea is utterly insane. Why on earth would she sacrifice a weekend of her life hanging around alone in Washington, D.C. while her friends do some unspecified errand? Also, if Christine and Elizabeth were such a hot number, why would Christine help create an alibi so that Elizabeth could spend days uninterrupted with Jens, who was a rival for Elizabeth’s affections? And assuming Christine did go to Washington to create an alibi, how likely is it she would remain silent once it became clear, on April 3, 1985, that she had unwittingly assisted in a murder plot? She would have done what any well-bred, law-abiding, highly intelligent college student would have done: Run straight to the police.

Nothing about the “Christine helped” story makes any sense, and there’s no evidence to support it.

Christine showed up at the funeral along with 5-6 other UVA students for the reason anyone would: to support her good friend in a time of grief. As for avoiding press inquiries, that has been her consistent policy since day one, and she even convinced the prosecution and defense not to call her to the stand. In avoiding the press, she has shown more good sense and sound judgment than anyone else in the case. She wanted to pursue her career without constantly being bugged and harassed about a crime she had nothing to do with. I would have done the same thing. Some people crave publicity, others hate it. She’s one of the latter. She is very, very smart and has the right priorities.

Also, Elizabeth wrote the following note on Marriott hotel stationery:

This note, in Elizabeth’s handwriting, reads “Jennifer Cinema 1 & 2, 10:00”. The two numbers are the PIN codes for her bank card. She testified that on Saturday, she had tried to remember the code for her MOST bank card, but couldn’t, so she called up her dorm to see if someone would go find it, presumably in a letter from her bank. Five local and one-long-distance calls were made from the hotel room. Of course all of these calls and notes could have been made, and room service ordered, and movie tickets bought, outside the time between 3:00pm on March 30th, 1985 and 2:30 AM on March 31st of 1985, but how likely is that? Occam’s razor says “not very”.

2. Physical evidence at the crime scene, like the cigarette butts, shoe prints, and a hair strand, all point towards the involvement of both individuals.

The cigarette butts were found outside the house, where Elizabeth usually went to smoke. They were her favorite brand, “Merit”. She left them there the weekend before the murders, which she spent at Loose Chippings to celebrate her father’s birthday. She lived at the house for long periods, so indications of her presence there were all over the place. The only actual bloody shoe print was a very partial print created by the Vans sneakers (most likely brand) Söring wore during the crime, and which he disposed of later.

There were no other bloody shoe prints found at the crime scene. The “other” shoe print is a barely-recognizable smudge which was not obviously created by blood and could have been left there at any time by a visitor, worker, gardener, or even a careless detective. Over decades, dozens of detectives pored over the photo of the “footprint” and found it meaningless. They were right.

The hair strand is also a red herring. It was found in the downstairs bathroom, which would have been used by hundreds of guests who had visited the home over the years. It was found in a blood smear, but that hardly proves it was deposited during the murders; Söring likely unwittingly touched it while cleaning himself up, and it stuck to his sticky, bloody hand and then when he touched another surface it stayed there.

3. Inconsistencies in Söring's confessions, where he occasionally slips up or expresses doubt about his sole participation, further fuel this speculation.

These are nothing more than minor slip-ups. As any detective or psychologist will tell you, it is impossible to tell the same story over and over and keep all the details perfectly consistent, unless you’ve memorized it completely beforehand. Söring repeatedly tells detectives that he committed the crime alone and that Elizabeth stayed in D.C. He even warns them not to believe her if she tries to play the “hero” and claim she committed the murders. His reference to “our” trip is just a random slip of the tongue; he’s probably referring to the fact that they had both planned the crime together. For every random reference to “our” trip or murders, there are 100 references by both Haysom and Söring to Söring committing the crime alone while Elizabeth stayed in D.C.

4. Elizabeth Haysom's apparent inability to accurately recount key details about the movie tickets and hotel booking, coupled with the improbability of Jens Söring daring or being capable of single-handedly murdering two people, especially considering the varying depth of the stab wounds indicative of two different perpetrators.

Haysoms’s vagueness and inconsistency on these points was intentional and strategic. She wanted to convince Judge Sweeney, and later Söring’s jury, that she was whacked-out on hard drugs for most of the weekend. Why did she make up this lie? To reduce her culpability for her part in the murders. This was her answer to the question of why she didn’t call up her parents and warn them. Her defense was “I was so high I could barely even think during the four hours it took for Jens to drive down to Loose Chippings”. I have posted her testimony about this at both trials on this blog; you can see exactly how she implemented this stupid strategy (her words) and why it backfired.

As for one person being able to stab two people to death, this happens every single day, and often one attacker can kill 5 or 10 people with a knife within minutes, even on an open street with plenty of escape possibilities. That’s why the experienced medical examiner saw no evidence for multiple perpetrators. Söring attacked two elderly people who were drunk (.2 BAC) with complete surprise. He and Derek Haysom were the same size. He attacked them in an enclosed area with no escape routes.

The variations in the stab wounds were caused by the fact that both victims fought back, shoving and pushing and running away and slipping in their own blood, as Söring chased them and stabbed at any location on their bodies which was undefended. Again, the medical examiner saw no proof of multiple attackers, so I’m going to go with the guy whose job it is to make these judgment calls every day.

As for Söring being capable of murder, he explained at length in his confessions exactly what his mental state was, and what led him to “freak out” and commit the crimes. He was clearly fascinated by violence even before the crimes, and after the crimes plotted to murder Ricky Gardner and make a living as an international hit man. He would not be the first scrawny nerd to erupt into unpredictable violence in a state of extreme emotional distress, and he won’t be the last.

Thanks for your questions. If I’ve left anything out, let me know in comments!