Jens Soering Update

Fuck the lawyer bullshit. Excuse me...did i just say that?!

Have you tried talking to Jens himself?! You KNOW i have friends in low places, not connections or anything. But you could write to him. I know some states have it online where you can find people in prisons address. They even have the whole friggin' story of what they did and so forth and so on. How long they were sentenced and all that shit. If you haven't written him yourself I would look for his address on the web somehow. I could try and do some research and I'm sure Sherry wouldn't mind either. These damn lawyers and shit don't give a fuck, it ain't their asses in there, ya know? Let me know....I just wouldn't quite give up unless I talked to HIM my-effin-self.

WE DO APPRECIATE all you do!! Shows what great character you have!
Hugs

--
Seen in ibelongupthere home page (?)

You're absolutely right, Sara - how could I have forgotten that? I guess, that could be a good thing to do over the holiday season, as I don't see too much else coming up for me - beside my taxes and subsequent payments ... :( Thanks, especially for your support!
P.S.: The address is on his website - no need on your part to do anything, but thanks for offering so.

Yes, I would at least do this one last thing. And THEN if you don't see anything positive or he doesn't write back then I would leave it alone. You can only do so much, you know? Also, you can't help anyone that doesn't want to be helped. But we will soon find out won't we?
One more thing...I dunno...maybe you already know...but I'll tell you anyways...it takes twice as long for them to receive a letter and send it back than regular mail...usually. Only my experience here...but just letting you know. So don't give up hope so quick, if it takes a bit longer. =)

--
Seen in renovatio06 home page (?)

Thanks, Sherry. Yeah, I guess both of you, Sara and you, are right: I could use some more endurance after little setbacks - I'll be practicing THAT, ok. Thanks for your encouragement, ladies!

I took a look around your site -including the correspondence with someone familiar with the case and there are some loose ends I'm trying to figure out. It seems you've formed your opinions based on watching a short television show on the Soering case and reading some articles on the internet. That seems a very narrow basis for deciding that the American judicial system is completely bonkers ("they'd rather have him electrocuted") and that a murderer (Jens Soering)should go free. A bit arogant on your part, no? Are we to assume that an opinion based on a television show and a few articles is more accurate than the opinions of 12 jurors who heard the evidence first hand over the course of days? I assumed you would have some exculpatory evidence to offer if you were appealing for clemency but almost all of your ideas about his innocence were easily refuted by Alan's facts. And, by the way, Alan never said that Soering "confessed" on the stand. He said that Soering laughed about the murders. My memory from the newspaper accounts at the time was that he also laughed at the prosecutor's "hillbilly" ways and fet he could outsmart them all. "Local yokels" he called them. Alan is also right about the hit lists Soering had. I think you need to research this thing a bit more. It's also possible that you haven't heard from Soering's attorney because she did one quick Google, found your site, and saw all that superficial and childish banter and thought it was all a joke.

It seems you've formed your opinions based on watching a short television show on the Soering case and reading some articles on the internet..

Correct, that's about the information available to me.

That seems a very narrow basis for deciding that the American judicial system is completely bonkers.

I don't know, what you derive that conclusion from. I'm not about saying that the American judicial system is bonkers - if you had read all my correspondence with Alan, you'd have known that. Plus, I'd have appreciated you to acknowledge my making an effort, which is to collect at least *some* facts first. My sources may not be as comprehensive as yours, but I didn't just rush to any premature conclusion out of the blue, either. And: At the end of the day, both yours as well my take on this matter are opinions, not die-hard, 100% knowledge. Even prosecution and the jury and the judge didn't have ALL information, which would have been a DNA sample. I can't help but read your comment any different, but you thinking you have a better right to have an opinion on this than I do. Are you actually saying this? And while we're at it: I do not appreciate you calling me arrogant for having and expressing my opinion. Or are you saying, freedom of speech has become an anachronism to you?

("they'd rather have him electrocuted")

Mr. Soering was extradited on the precondition formulated by the European High Court that he would not be convicted of the death penalty. Since the death penalty is still in effect in Virginia and based on the fact that Mr. Soering had been charged with double homocide, such a verdict would have been very likely. If not, there wouldn't have been any need for European authorities to make that postulation.

Are we to assume that an opinion based on a television show and a few articles is more accurate than the opinions of 12 jurors who heard the evidence first hand over the course of days?

I don't have the slightest clue, why and what from you're reading this into my initiative. To avoid any further misunderstanding: I don't *mean* to say anything else but "have mercy on the guy". According to my lexicon that's the very nature of clemency in the first place.

I assumed you would have some exculpatory evidence to offer if you were appealing for clemency.

I wouldn't need to ask clemency on his behalf, if I had that evidence. If I indeed had exculpatory evidence, I - or rather lawyers - could go for an appeal. See above - in my understanding, clemency doesn't require that prerequisite. E.g., Wikipedia is offering this definition:
"Clemency is an associated term, meaning the lessening of the penalty of the crime without forgiving the crime itself. "

...without forgiving the crime itsself. I read that as "while it is being acknowledged that a crime was committed and an according penalty imposed, sovereign parties can nonetheless lessen the penalty." There is no mention of exculpatory evidence.

And, by the way, Alan never said that Soering "confessed" on the stand.

And from where do you derive that I assume him (Alan) having said so? For your convenience, here's a direct quote of the paragraph you seem to be referring to:

(Alan:)The key pieces of evidence in Soering’s conviction were
(...)
3) his multiple confessions.

I can't find the very paragraph, where I counter a (potential) statement made by Alan. Alan didn't make that statement in the first place and I don't go at him about this either.

but almost all of your ideas about his innocence were easily refuted by Alan's facts.

I must repeat myself: Apparently, you haven't thoroughly studied Alan's and my discussion - or failed to see exactly what he and I agreed or disagreed on. As to "all of my ideas refuted by Alan's facts": While I had to admit that he had more and in some cases stronger facts than me, I concluded that he had managed to shake some of my initially firm belief, but hadn't completely overturned it. And in that context I need to repeat myself another time: At the end of the day, neither you, Alan or I had ALL the facts in and are left to making assumptions to bridge the gaps in order to form an opinion. Now, are you saying that your assumptions are more accurate than mine and hence "better"? To me, they're still assumptions and if you're indeed about saying, that any one persons assumptions are better than another one's, then you have just accused yourself of the very quality you're accusing me of: Being arrogant... (However, I am flattered by the fact that you went to the trouble of registering on ipernity, just so you could leave a comment here... ;-))

He said that Soering laughed about the murders. My memory from the newspaper accounts at the time was that he also laughed at the prosecutor's "hillbilly" ways and fet he could outsmart them all. "Local yokels" he called them.

I have clearly said in my discourse with Alan that this exact quality in Mr. Soering has me lose some of my sympathy for him. As far as laughing about the murders, I would assume that a situation as stressful as seeing onesself being charged with double homicide and potentially facing a death penalty may well cause some hysteria - which might have expressed itsself that way, i.e. the laughing. I have watched those parts of the trial videos, which were available to me, and he comes across as openly panicking to me. But then - what I do I know, right?

Alan is also right about the hit lists Soering had.

Ok, and I haven't argued that.

I think you need to research this thing a bit more.

I have as best as I can and what time and budget allow for. And again, I don't see why I need to become a legal expert in general and on this case in particular first, when asking for clemency on Mr. Soering's behalf. After all, it's just that: The belief that a given person has done enough of their penalty and should either be acquitted or some of their penalty being lessened. In my understanding of the definition, anyone can ask for that.

If you had closely studied the most enriching exchange I had with Alan, you could have realized towards the end, that we parted in a mutual understanding of "agreeing on disagreeing" in certain aspects. However, I was able to learn from this discussion with him that the American public and particularly local and regional public feel strongly about this case. While I respect that, I had thought there'd be room for different views on this, namely mine and that of the supporting minds on my stream here. Contrary to that, you seem to be making a point in that only then do I have a right to have an opinion, if I present stronger facts than the ones that have been presented so far. If not, I'm being a joke in your understanding and can't be all real. Well, I must say that this is a most sad and uneasy finding, but it confirms a predominant feeling I have been having all along, ever since learning about Mr. Soering's case: At the end of the day, presumption seems to outweigh hard evidence - which Mr. Soering's example tragically seems to prove. For the lack of best evidence there could have been, which is a DNA sample taken from the crime scene, Mr. Soering was convicted on a series of cleverly arranged second- and third-best evidence and depicted in a light that makes him a sociopath and ruthless double-murderer, devoid of respect for co-residing citizens, authorities, and ultimately laughing at everybody else's value system but his own. From what facts I was able to gather, people WANTED to see him this way in the first place and continue to hang on to that image of him - because he and his lifestyle as well as personal background weren't conforming to the locally or regionally accepted lifestyle . I may not have strong enough facts to prove my point beyond a doubt, but I'd flatter myself into thinking I do possess *some* capability of judgement and forming a founded opinion. If you deny me that, than we really don't have any common ground of talking and my above attempt at countering your above exceptions is just a waste of my time.

Is that the message you mean to be sending to me and the ones standing behind me? If so, Mr. Soering is clearly doomed to be rotting in jail unto his death. But I would like to spare him that, particularly in as hostile an environment as you're revealing by your judgement on my initiative here.

Well...I will put my 7 cents in here. Not going to debate you about this...but to ask you where are your manners or do did you leave them in the psych ward where you came from? Werner here has friends/people that care about him and don't appreciate someone coming to his site and being disrespectful to him. It is all good that you have your own opinion which is different that his, but don't come here being rude and obnoxious or you will be put in your place. I am sure Werner can take care of himself on this matter but like you so boldly did, I am just stating my opinion.

OMG...I don't have to come in on this do I? I am usually the one that just cusses the people out and put them in their place...not very much information needed on my part. =) I think you and Werner took care of the great information stuff...since I can't read all of Werner's response (ADD)..I am assuming you did. I did read yours which pretty much you said what I had to say...just a *little* nicer. ;) Pffffffff...people just don't understand how we work.

--
Seen in my account recent activity (?)

Just to correct a few statements. I was in no way referring to the exchange between Alan and Werner as being childish. Their conversation was the part of the blog I found interesting and fruitful. My comments about childishness referred to the ridiculous comments (having nothing to do with the subject ) made by Sherry and Queen Bee...whoever they are. My point was that this blog is supposed to be about a very serious subject matter . I clicked onto it to find out what it was all about (being from Virginia and knowing about the Haysom murders) and found the comments left by Sherry and Queen Bee to be beyond insensitive and juvenile. Not to mention horribly disrepectful to the Haysom family. I certainly hope neither of you ever lose a loved one to a senseless murder and then see people setting up blogs about it and bantering like bored teenagers on a Friday night. Like this classic line from Queen Bee:

I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU HAD TO WORK SO DAMN LATE...:((((((((((((((( THAT HAS TO FUCKING SUCK...YOU. BUT I THINK YOU LIKE YOUR JOB...SO THAT IS GOOD. I AM FIXIN TO GO TO BED, HUZZY.....I'VE DID MY GOOD DEED FOR THE YEAR. ;)))) DID U HAVE A GOOD DAY?

What in the world does that have to do with a serious story on crime and punishment. Grow up.

And for Sherry, I'm sorry for you if you find the word "exculpatory" to be a large vocabulary word. It's actually a fairly basic word, one I believe I learned in my teens. That was in response to a posting YOU had placed in regard to a question Alan asked. Again, in a childish way, you reponded to his perfectly harmless question "What is your resonable doubt?" in this manner...

"Hi Alan…well I think it only necessary to state I have reasonable doubt… So I will just say that yes I not only have reasonable doubt …but much more than that…I believe in Jens Soering’s innocence. That is *my* opinion, so I will ask that you honor that."

Is that the depth of your thought on this matter? 'I believe in his innocence but I'm not going to tell you why so na-na-na-na-na.' Ridiculous.

Well..Biaaaaccchhh...if you would keep your fucking nose where it belonged...and get the whole fucking story before you knew what the fuck you were talking about...maybe you'd make a little fucking sense. But since you can't seem to do that let me tell you a little something.
First of all if you were any kind of woman if you had a problem with me and OR Sherry you should've came to us. As for us being childish...well of course we are...but that's our business and no one asked for your two fucking cents in the matter. THIRDDDDDDDDDD.....and this is where your ass pisses me the fuck off.....is that we...SHERRY and I ....were trying to make Werner's blog get to the number 1 spot "What's Hot" here so it could get the attention it needed because of the IMPORTANCE OF THE MATTER!!!!! Adding all the unnecessary comments...because comments/visits is what gets the blog posts to number one. See if you wouldn't have had your nose stuck up your ass....you would've known what the fuck was going on.

One last line for you...which is probably more "classic" than my line up there.

"Fuck you and kiss my fucking ass!"- from the QueenFuckingBee

Hi Cathy,

My point was that this blog is supposed to be about a very serious subject matter .

It is and I have reassured you of that repeatedly. I also did my best to explain to you, why those comments are there in the first place and I'll do so again: Their contents may not be exactly connected to the rest of this blog post and the reason for this being so was the underlying idea of gaining momentum quickly. While it may have been the "better" way to say something substantial in each comment, it may not have been quick enough for this blog post to get as many comments as it did - and the top ranking in this site's index would have been easily missed. Like I said before, the method of doing so may be debatable, but it came from good intentions and from people wanting to show their support for me in this matter. I find those intentions noble and serious enough - and you seem to be all about being serious. In other words: Take my word for it, nobody meant to harm anyone with this or hurt anyone's feelings.

While we're at it: I wouldn't go as far as to say that mine got hurt over that remark of yours, where you call me arrogant, but it didn't exactly please me, either. And until now, you keep ignoring the questions I asked in my reply to your complaints about this blog. I don't find this very productive on your part and if you're about being serious, as you repeatedly state, it was about time to show some substance of what's coming across as lip service until now.

If you want to talk - fine, I'm all ears and always willing. If you're about getting at people repeatedly, beginning with me and now continuing with Sherry and Queen Bee - go away and stay away.
P.S.: I posted my reply *before* knowing of your reply to Sara's. In other words: While I was typing, you had posted another entry I only got aware of AFTER having finished and submitted mine. You can still talk to me. However, until now, you seem to prefer not to.

I AM well aware that you made all of those comments in order to try to get the blog to number one. Werner explained that. And when you say "I should have come to you" I have no idea in the world who YOU are (thankfully) except someone who cannot seem to get their thoughts across without a foul, childish mouth. Maybe that replaces your idea of a vocabulary?

And, btw, you claim to be wanting to help your friend Werner out but all you do with these threatening, trashy, non-intellectual postings is make a joke out of what he is trying to accomplish. You create a violent air to his blog....something I'm sure he did not intend, especially given the subject matter. You certainly don't sound like someone who has his best interests at heart. If you had kept your ridiculous and crass silliness off the blog it would have made for a very interesting place to exchange ideas on crime, punishment, etc. and may very well have gained a small audience. Instead, you have single-handedly seen to it that it has become just a typical teenager's place of F-this and F-that and Kiss-my-whatever. You should try being a better friend to Werner and stop making HIS blog all about you, both in your comments to me and your silly exchanges with your friends.

I am not going to keep arguing with you because you are not worth the breath I breathe. I have told Werner specifically that he can delete my comments if need be. So again...keep your nose where it fucking belongs. I am grown and can say whatever the FUCK i feel like. Too bad we couldn't have this conversation face to face cuz believe me you wouldn't get one word across. So again...read my last sentence in the post above.

LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! I heart you soooo!! =) Childish we may seem...but by friggin' gaaaaaaawwwwwwwddddd we are fun! =) I guess not too fun to some....especially those that piss us off! =))

As requested I will try to answer Werner's questions to me without further engaging with the teenage girls.

You say that you never insinuated the American Judicial system was completely bonkers however, at the very start of your petition, you state the following:

"This site is dedicated to the benefit of Jens Soering’s release from the US penitentiary system and his transferral to Germany. Jens Soering has been incarcerated for 21 years for a crime he never committed. He is a classic “a pawn for a king” case in maintaining the status quo on how the US jurisdiction and penitentiary system works - and according to the powers-that-be is supposed to continue to function".

That statement is indeed a general indictment of the US judicial system.

You also state on this blog's introduction...referring to "Americans"....

"In short: They'd rather have him electrocuted in the first place, but seem to be determined to see him rotting in jail unto his death, because many people - including the Parole Board - believe him to be guilty".

Again, an ugly and narrow summing up of all Americans.

You also say in the intro. to this blog that Alan makes reference to Soering's confessing on the stand.

In your words...."This individual by the name of Alan, posting his take on Soering on the blog, alludes to a video of Soering's confession during trial."

I corrected you on this fact, saying that Alan never said such a thing. Rather, he said that Soering was laughing about the murders on the stand. You then state that you never said Alan spoke of a confession. Yet, again, it is in your own words right above. Alan did speak of Soering's numerous confessions to the London police.

You say that you are simply seeking clemency for Soering -not exonoration- but you state categorically in your petition blog that Soering did not commit these murders (see above quotation). This is what I meant by your arrogance. You are stating that Soering never commited these murders based on a short tv program and some articles you have read. I do indeed believe it to be arrogant that you deem him innocent based on such superficial knowledge. You are saying that you know better than the 12 jurors, the judge, the Haysom family, the police, the detectives, the district attorney, the parole board, Soering's own family, etc. Now, if you were to say that you have doubts about his guilt that is another matter. But you outright say he did not commit these crimes. Yes, that is extremely arrogant.

You say that noone has all the facts because only DNA can provide all the facts. This is a very naive position to take. First of all, even DNA evidence is commonly refuted in courts. DNA evidence is only as good as the detectives that collected it and the lab that tested it. Even people who have been charged or convicted on DNA evidence will refute it. Eyewitness evidence is the worst evidence in the world because of natural human error. The best overall evidence is circumstantial evidence...exactly what was used to convict Soering. A coming together of many pieces of evidence that, when looked at in totality, leave no other reasonable explanation but guilt. This is what makes or breaks the truth of a conviction. Not DNA evidence. And btw, even in these modern times, DNA evidence is available in only a small number of crimes. To suggest that DNA would be the only way to ascertain Soering's guilt is not in any way correct.

Finally, you make the following statement to me in regards to Alan's knowledge of the case versus yours....

"you seem to be making a point in that only then do I have a right to have an opinion, if I present stronger facts than the ones that have been presented so far. If not, I'm being a joke in your understanding and can't be all real".

Again, I never said in any way that you or your opinions were a joke or not for real. I said, repeatedly, that I think those silly, immature girls are a joke and not for real and that I believe they are being incredibly disrepectful to the Haysoms and to the seriousness of this crime by their juvenile attitudes.

Hi Cathy,

As requested I will try to answer Werner's questions to me without further engaging with the teenage girls.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

You say that you never insinuated the American Judicial system was completely bonkers however, at the very start of your petition, you state the following:

"This site is dedicated to the benefit of Jens Soering’s release from the US penitentiary system and his transferral to Germany. Jens Soering has been incarcerated for 21 years for a crime he never committed. He is a classic “a pawn for a king” case in maintaining the status quo on how the US jurisdiction and penitentiary system works - and according to the powers-that-be is supposed to continue to function".

That statement is indeed a general indictment of the US judicial system.


You're right. I failed to read that section before replying and I apologize for having said otherwise, i.e. that I did NOT address the US judicial system in its entirety. I have in this statement, correct.

You also state on this blog's introduction...referring to "Americans"....

"In short: They'd rather have him electrocuted in the first place, but seem to be determined to see him rotting in jail unto his death, because many people - including the Parole Board - believe him to be guilty".

Again, an ugly and narrow summing up of all Americans.

I can't seem to find, where I'm summing all US citizens up by addressing them as Americans. To refer to "they" was a bit sloppy on my part, agreed, and my apologies for that. When I used the pronoun "they", I had meant to refer to those being involved in the trial and reaching the verdict, i.e. witnesses, the judge, the jury etc.

You also say in the intro. to this blog that Alan makes reference to Soering's confessing on the stand.
In your words...."This individual by the name of Alan, posting his take on Soering on the blog, alludes to a video of Soering's confession during trial."

I corrected you on this fact, saying that Alan never said such a thing. Rather, he said that Soering was laughing about the murders on the stand. You then state that you never said Alan spoke of a confession. Yet, again, it is in your own words right above. Alan did speak of Soering's numerous confessions to the London police.

Again: My apologies for having gotten mixed up a bit here. I believe, I had been confused over Alan's original statement already, where Alan meant to address Soering's confession to his former friend Mathias and indeed wasn't referring to the trial on US soil. From the exchange I had with Alan, I take it he was talking about a different video, which I apparently never got to see. Alan and I were able to sort that out in the process of our discussion.


You say that you are simply seeking clemency for Soering -not exonoration- but you state categorically in your petition blog that Soering did not commit these murders (see above quotation). This is what I meant by your arrogance. You are stating that Soering never commited these murders based on a short tv program and some articles you have read.

That and his own final statement in court, where he states: "I'm innocent." I am basing my statement on these aforementioned sources, yes. What are your sources by the way?


I do indeed believe it to be arrogant that you deem him innocent based on such superficial knowledge.

OK, granted you call me arrogant and the outcomes of my attempts to collect some facts first "superficial knowledge". I want to ask you this: Thanks to exactly which sources is your knowledge of the facts of this case more profound than mine? I have openly laid out, what I base my view of this on, you haven't. To give you an idea: Have you spent hours on end at the local library, talked to former investigators of this, met with Jens, gone over taped media coverage of the time, read law-school final papers dealing with the case, gathered with family etc. etc.? Or could it be, you are basing your opinion of this on similar sources than I do? In which case, I could as easily be disqualified as just deeming me unworthy of forming, having and then articulating my opinion of this? Based on... the fact that I'm not a local or US resident? Which is it? According to you, I seem to get no credit whatsoever for at least attempting as best as I could to equip me with some facts from a variety of sources, including, but not solely relying on Jens' site as Alan had assumed?


You are saying that you know better than the 12 jurors, the judge, the Haysom family, the police, the detectives, the district attorney, the parole board, Soering's own family, etc.

OK, I think I'm beginning to see, where you're coming from and why: It must be this following statement that I seem to have angered you with: "Jens Soering has been incarcerated for 21 years for a crime he never committed." I must admit that I pondered over this form of expression for a while, but then decided to leave it this way, in order to get people's attention. It is a bit provocative, I must admit, and I chose to leave it that way for rhetorical reasons. In other words: It sounds exactly like a yellow-press headline - and was supposed to sound this way, so people would read on. I had hoped to give good enough reasons for this as you read along and counted on the empathy and presumed intellect of readers coming to this site. It seems, I was wrong about this. I offer you my apologies, if my way of expressing my take has hurt your feelings. I reassure you, I never meant to hurt your nor any other US resident's or - God forbid - the Haysom family's feelings.

And as to the knowing "better": That is not my point at all. But I reserve the right to form, have and express an opinion based on the same principles that you or anyone familiar with, but not directly involved in this case employs: Being presented with facts, piece them together and come to a conclusion. As for me, the number and variety of facts may be smaller than yours, but I thought them to be enough, to get an idea - MY idea - of what must have gone on. Neither you, nor Alan nor me were on site, nor have we talked to the suspects, nor have we talked with family - correct me, if I'm wrong, please. Hence, we form our opinion on second- and third- and fourth-hand evidence, preselected and arranged in a specific way by professionals, who are trained and experienced in making a crime look one or the other way. Can we at least agree on that?

Now, if you were to say that you have doubts about his guilt that is another matter. But you outright say he did not commit these crimes. Yes, that is extremely arrogant.

Is above explanation apt to scatter this belief of yours, at least to some extent?

You say that noone has all the facts because only DNA can provide all the facts. This is a very naive position to take. First of all, even DNA evidence is commonly refuted in courts. DNA evidence is only as good as the detectives that collected it and the lab that tested it. Even people who have been charged or convicted on DNA evidence will refute it. Eyewitness evidence is the worst evidence in the world because of natural human error. The best overall evidence is circumstantial evidence...exactly what was used to convict Soering.

And where did you get this? Can you let us in on how you arrive at this conclusion? Is that common knowledge, is it latest law school material, is it from extended reading on comparing capital crime and verdicts being reached, scientific findings on the ratio of crimes committed and judicial correctness or failings? I'd love to hear that. Or could it be, it's just a statement of your own. In which case - it could be ... superficially reached?


A coming together of many pieces of evidence that, when looked at in totality, leave no other reasonable explanation but guilt.

OH MY GOD "...when looked at in totality?" You call THAT the best overall evidence? And then looked at by whom? Forensic experts, scientists, people not at all linked to any of the victims or suspects or the case in the first place and who present their findings from as neutral a place as possible? Or looked at from a laymen's - in other words: your or mine - perspective? And in that case, can you completely rule out that those presenting the evidence to you could have followed a certain plan in mind? Can you rule that out beyond a doubt? I can't. Hence, I reserve the right to have a say, just like you or any other human being capable of listening, reading, thinking. Thank you.

This is what makes or breaks the truth of a conviction. Not DNA evidence.

May the Lord help us, Jesus Christ! DNA evidence is THE gold standard of proving at least this: A suspect murderer having been at the crime scene at a close enough time, when the crime happened. In Soering's case, they based that finding on a bloody sock print, noone was really all too sure about, whom it belonged to in the first place. They even introduced the possibility of a third suspect, so little did they know.

And btw, even in these modern times, DNA evidence is available in only a small number of crimes. To suggest that DNA would be the only way to ascertain Soering's guilt is not in any way correct.

See above: I never mentioned it as the ONLY way to ascertain or rule out his guilt. But it would have proved his PRESENCE at the site at the time in question. They pinned him down based on that sock print, however. You call this BEST evidence? I rest my case...

(I had to split the comment up, apparently we reached the maximum length technically allowed):
Finally, you make the following statement to me in regards to Alan's knowledge of the case versus yours....

"you seem to be making a point in that only then do I have a right to have an opinion, if I present stronger facts than the ones that have been presented so far. If not, I'm being a joke in your understanding and can't be all real".

Again, I never said in any way that you or your opinions were a joke or not for real.

Agreed, I added the "joke" part, but you said this: "Are you all for real?". Hence, I took the liberty of adding the "joke" statement for rhetorical reasons.

I said, repeatedly, that I think those silly, immature girls are a joke and not for real and that I believe they are being incredibly disrepectful to the Haysoms and to the seriousness of this crime by their juvenile attitudes.

I think, we've been to this enough.

You seem to want me to state what experience or knowledge I have of the case that makes my opinion any more knowledgeable than yours. I am a graduate of the UVA School of Law and a life long Virginia resident. As such, I was exposed to the crime from the time it first happened through the search for the perpetrator through the trial on an almost daily basis via newspapers, television broadcast of the trial on a local station (which I watched in its entirety), and some actual reading of court transcripts in a course I took on the appellate process. While this does not make me nearly as knowledgeable about the case as say the judge, the jurors, the DA, the families, the investigators, etc. I feel 100% confident in saying that it makes me exponentially more knowledgeable about the case than you. Watching a brief television show about it and reading some articles on the internet does not in any way make you capable of stating that Soering is in prison for a crime he did not commit. It also does not make you an expert on the American judicial system and what the "general public" in America does or does not believe. I would never consider making a sweeping generalization about Germans (and, believe me, there are many who do - based on Germany's 20th century history) simply because I have visited Germany and read lots of history books, etc. Likewise, I would not presume to read a few articles about a trial in Germany and then decide that the German justice system got it all wrong.

My guess, from reading your blog and your dialogue with Alan (along with the bizarre entries of your friends), is that you are young and easliy swayed. While this is just a theory on my part, could it be that this is why you feel an affinity for Soering? Perhaps you see him as someone who, as a young man, was swayed by a domineering and steel-willed woman and got in way over his head thus ending up in a situation not entirely of his own making? The women who have been writing such crass and immature postings on your site seem to have some of that same sensibility as people saw in Eliabeth Haysom. "Stronger" women dominating a "weaker " man, taking over your blog for their own silly writings, showing a tendency toward violent thoughts (one of them suggested that if we were face to face she would make sure I was unable to speak), etc. Perhaps you recognize a bit of yourself in this case and that is why you wish to excuse Soering for whatever he did - no matter how brutal and inhumane? Just a thought.

Well, first: Many thanks for complimenting my age/youth, I appreciate that. While your qualifications read impressively, your methods of forming an opinion fall short of them by far - or so it seems. Apparently, close reading and responding to an opposing view by directly responding to points being made and countering them with a stronger point wasn't on the agenda at UVA - too bad, really. Following simple rhetorical rules, such as making accurate quotations doesn't seem to have made the cut, either. Instead, you keep coming back to your attitude of "intellectual muscle flexing", referring to your law-school degree, your residential status and the same old arguments (childish teenage girls) with no end. What is more, you seem to select those points of any argument that suit you best and keep picking at them over and over. And, in establishing a founded opinion for yourself, you seem to content yourself by following a rule of 'quantity over quality'. To me, you have failed to demonstrate any capability of collecting facts, bringing them in a logical order, questioning them by seeking opposing facts, review those again and then come to a conclusion, thus step by step attempting to rule error out as best as you can. Instead, you are referring to your qualifications and background on this, expecting them to speak for themselves as far as your general intellectual capacity. This is not arrogant, no? To me, an attitude of talking other people down (me! For Pete's sake, let's not start with the "teenage" comments again...) by stating "I know better than you" is the epitome of arrogance. I may not have as many facts as you, true - and I'd die to have them and review them and put them in perspective for me. But I can say that much: I have listened to your points, I have done my best in responding to them individually, laying out, where my thoughts on a given point came from or why I have preferred one form of expressing my views over another. Bottomline: I have done my best to show respect for you - which sadly, I can't say of you. Instead, you offer some speculations as to my motivation. Again, to me that reads like a vivid embodiment of arrogance on your part.

If you deny other people to have an opinion on something in the first place, I guess you're in the midst of undermining a key element (correct me, if it's not) of the US judicial system: Randomly selected citizens - people like me and the ones supporting my idea and initiative here - make a jury and are the very ones, who at the end of a trial have the say in "guilty" vs "not guilty" - wasn't that part of the curriculum at UVA?

Again, too bad. I feel sorry for you...

P.S.: For your information: One of the "teenagers" (thanks Sherry) found this on the conclusiveness of DNA samples/testing: www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/01/03/dna-release.html - aww wait , sorry, that's a Canadian source, they're not from Virginia, they can't be for real.

Since you chose to once again ignore your own words, read the below quotation from YOU to refresh your memory on why I let you know that I am a lifelong Virginia resident and UVA Law grad. I stated it because YOU ASKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your quote - "Thanks to exactly which sources is your knowledge of the facts of this case more profound than mine? I have openly laid out, what I base my view of this on, you haven't. "

When I then answer your question and tell you where my knowledge of this case comes from you respond with this.

"Instead, you keep coming back to your attitude of "intellectual muscle flexing", referring to your law-school degree, your residential status and the same old arguments.....you are referring to your qualifications and background on this, expecting them to speak for themselves as far as your general intellectual capacity. This is not arrogant, no?"

Don't ask me to provide you with information and then ridicule me for doing so.

Finally, this is something I can work with. So here goes: I'm sorry, you're right, I have asked for this information and I apologize for not having credited it enough.

The crucial aspect remains the same: I'm being denied my actions by you, since you feel you're better equipped with info and have a better founded position. And hence you find, I should shut up until I have more facts in. Well, sorry to insist, but the main objective NEVER WAS to find the ultimate truth in this, as for doing so, I'd indeed have to dig somewhat deeper and allot many more ressources than I have. The objective of my initiative is and has been that Mr. Soering be deported, because from what I've read on his case and from the amount of time he has done, I find him eligible for that. And I'm not the only one. In fact, people much more familiar with the facts of his case find him eligible for that and have initiated measures to that very end. I had meant to help with that. That's the bottomline. You find him guilty and would like to see him doing his full two life sentences. I get you. And I disagree and ask for being given that opportunity (to disagree) and support efforts to get him deported. Very simple. And I *think*, I have already elaborated on why I chose to leave the term "innocent" in the initial introduction to the other site, I have deactivated for the time being upon request. I reserve the right to reactive it, though.

And you never replied to this. Don' tell me now, this is because you ran out of good points - I'd have to feel sorry for you in that case..., because then .... this would mean your education mayyyybeee should have come at a ... discount? I'm pretty sure, you're still monitoring this. But, yes - I can't supply anyone of us with new findings, either, I agree.