Free Speech not suitable? Jens Soering Update II

I really don't understand all of this. Really. I think everyone has the right of free speech. So if they felt so strongly they could still email/get in touch with the governor and tell them their opinion. So why remove the link? I guess because you don't want to feel responsible, which is a good reason. I still say forget what everyone...EVERYONE...(including friends and family) says and go to the source. Only Jens himself can tell you what he believes to be true.

--
Seen in ibelongupthere home page (?)

I think I'll finally go ahead with this now, yes, and turn to the source.

For clarification, maybe I should add that the person - or at least the account, her email was sent from - seems authentic. (www.petitiononline.com/arthur1/petition.html - her name and email are being mentioned in the fine print). In order to avoid diminishing Jens' whatever dim chances of pardon he might have, I might just do as she suggested and keep a low profile, until having written and hopefully having received a reply by Jens. I must admit, I am in cold chills over that apparently humonguous wall of unreflectedness, which seems to surround his case and fate...

Like Sara, I can’t understand why the link to the petition form had to be removed. Were there submissions from the “wrong” people? What would “wrong” mean?

I do understand that opposing views aren’t particularly welcome: anything making Jens Soering less than holy is bad, if not for legal procedures to come (where blog entries should be irrelevant, and hopefully are), then for the morals of Jens’ supporters. Nevertheless, I found that you dealt with “Alan” in a candid way, and I can’t imagine that you’d suppress his views, or shut down the blog altogether.

What is truth? I find it very hard to determine who’s right. The dissenter reacting to your blog didn’t make the impression of trolling, and made some interesting points. On the other hand, the evidence in favor of Jens seems to be strong too.
The jury who established Jens’ guilt “beyond reasonable doubt” may have made a serious mistake, but what if they didn’t? I don’t know if you remember Matthias Rust, the German teen who flew a small aircraft to Moscow and landed it near the Red Square. He was hailed as a hero when he eventually was allowed to return to Germany. Few years later, he hit the headlines again after a knife attack on a nurse who had spurned him. Apparently, he wasn’t a hero, but only a disturbed boy.
This is just one example of public opinion frivolously embracing someone. (I can’t help but wondering how the Madeleine McGann case will turn out.)

If Jens is innocent (as he claims to be) his case should be reopened, and he should be acquitted. That would be great, both for Jens himself and for justice. Asking for clemency, however, would imply that he’s guilty, and though I think it would be a good thing if he wouldn’t have to die in jail, it would clearly be a less honorable way of leaving it –and unacceptable to him, if he’s an honorable man... So a new trial is the only real option.

Thanks Kees, for taking the time to read into some of this.

Well, I removed the link upon request of a party, who had expressed their concern over diminishing Jens' chances for pardon. The originator of this request indicated that the petition form on Governor Kaine's site had been misused to place complaints about my initiative. A link to the petition form was placed on Jens' site, in one or two of my posts here and on the clemency-site I set up with wordpress.com. The originator *seems* to be linked to Jens' network of supporters and friends, but I have not too many other options of crosschecking, but to simply ask that person - and she hasn't replied to my mails yet.

As for the truth: You're making a good point by introducing Matthias Rust as a parallel to this. And believe me, at times I felt great discomfort over the possibility of simply being very wrong about Jens Soering. However, from what knowledge I was able to gather on his case, it appears as if a blatant miscarriage of justice has occurred in his case. While I'm not a person trained in matters of the law, others, who are legal experts (e.g. Ms. Gail Marshal, who pushed for reopening the case and filed letters for appeal on Jens' behalf) come to the same conclusion: Miscarriage of justice. Before taking any actions, I went at some lengths in collecting whatever facts I was able to find, pieced them together and built my opinion that way - that is a legitimate process of forming an opinion, isn't it? And at some point I decided to go ahead with my initiative as there is no guarantee in life that one can be 100% right all the time. And even, if I had more or ALL the facts in, like the dissenters suggest, there'd still be a possibility, I'd read them wrongly. Still, I felt I had a right to have and express my opinion. Likewise, I can't deny others, i.e. dissenters, to do the same: Have and express their views. And so I welcomed Alan on my site and we exchanged our points back and fourth. I did the same with this individual, who registered as Cathy Miller, although she seems to deny me to have and express my opinion about this and repeatedly insulted me as well as Sara and Sherry and failed to make her point conclusively or reply to the points I made individually and carefully.

As for reopening the case to establish Jens' innocence: From what I have read on his site, he seems to have run out of whatever legal options he had. It appears, as if all legal bodies ever involved in his case see him guilty based upon the outcome of the trial and don't see - or "want" to see - any possibility of miscarriage. There is but one "joker" left and that is pardon being granted by the Governor of Virginia. This is, what his remaining supporters are going for and this is what I wanted to help with in setting up the blog and the call for supporters among my visitors and online friends. From what I understand, reopening the case is NOT possible any longer, as even the US Supreme Court has ruled against it. In other words: Like I said, all legal bodies involved see him guilty and don't see any possibility for miscarriage of justice. HOWEVER - there is what I believe to be strong evidence for this, i.e. his innocence and in turn, a miscarriage of justice.

For me personally, it isn't even that much about finding the truth. I see his verdict, I see his history of having been locked up for more time than he was given to live in freedom, I see a reformed and remorseful person, EVEN IF he had indeed committed those crimes, and I see his most modest wish of touching a tree once more before he dies and seeing a bit more of the sky than the rectangle that the Brunswick Correctional Center allows. And I would like to make a modest contribution in seeing to his wish fulfilled.

But - at least in the case of Cathy Miller it so appears, as if she didn't think I had a right to ask for mercy on the guy, because I don't have a sufficient amount of facts as she claims. She also seems to find her own feelings of bewilderness over the "hyper-commenting" Sara initiated more important than the overall purpose of all these actions. I disagree on both points and I will leave the blog up for now, until I have an authentic statement by Jens or a close friend of his advising me otherwise.

:D You may be a teenager, Sherry, but you managed to make the same points as I - at less than a third of the number of words I used LOL - let me in on this :D
Seriously: I have the same understanding from what I've read into the case, which is that reopening it would only be possible, if new evidence was found. And since prosecution had already allowed for important, exculpatory evidence to be destroyed prior to the trial (the check cashed at the Marriott Hotel, which would have proven his ABSENCE from the crime scene at the time the murders occurred), I am not too optimistic about anyone being able to find that new evidence. Other evidence - a hair found in the sink of the Haysom's mansion - hadn't even been tested for. Mind you: A hair is a DNA sample and could be positively linked to or away from Jens. Prosecution didn't feel they needed to test it (this Cathy-person even thinks, of all evidence, circumstantial evidence is THE gold standard, when there is a number of stories like this one, where miscarriage of justice could be identified and remedied based on DNA samples - thanks for finding and sending me the link)
And as you stated, he is at least guilty of having been an accessory to the crime, and he has admitted to that, expressed his remorse over that and has APOLOGIZED to the Haysom family for having failed to avoid the crime by getting Elizabeth professional help in the time before the crime was committed. Plus, he has served 21 years in jail in total, so yes, I also think that he deserves clemency being granted.
But what do I know? I may not be a teenager, but I'm still arrogant, don't have a UVA law school degree and most importantly, I haven't been a lifetime VA resident. Luckily so, I should add...

Hmm, really strange, I have to say!

Yeah, and very sad, too. Remind me to skip Virginia, should I ever travel US East-coast-ish...

Well, I removed myself from dialoguing on this site because I felt like I was being subjected to nothing but foul language from your friends and subtle threats of violence. Not something I'm interested in being a part of. I did, however, receive an e-mail from you taking me to this page. I deleted the e-mail so am not sure if it also contained any specific questions. Though I will no longer post here about the case and be ganged up on by your "friends" I did want to assure you that I am in no way linked to anyone involved in Jens Soering's legal battles nor do I have any peripheral ties, etc. to anyone involved in his life. As you could tell from my posts, I believe absolutely in his guilt and in the fact that he received a fair trial and all rights of appeals. However, I give you my 100% guarantee human being to human being that I know nothing about a person wanting you to shut down your petition site. I do know that Soering's supporters in America have a history of shutting down any site that contains any negative info. about Soering or any facts about the case that they do not want others to know or remember. They only want you to read what Soering or his supporters have to say. To do otherwise is to allow rational people to conclude that he is guilty as hell.

One final thought. I find it interesting that you refer to me as someone who continually insulted you and your friends. I was called a bitch, told to "f-off" multiple times, "spoken" to in a very threatening manner by one of your friends, etc. I NEVER used foul language toward any of you, spoke in threatening tones, gathered friends together to gang up on all of you the way you seem to enjoy "ganging" up (like playground bullies) on others, etc. I simply engaged in heated dialogue regarding a very controversial issue the way that often happens on blogs. I'm quite baffled that you would engage yourself in a mission to free a convicted double-murderer and not expect that a number people are going to find that very upsetting. Did you think everyone was going to just blindly jump on your bandwagon? Did you think there wouldn't be anger?

One final thought. Though I think the primary reason Soering's supporters probably want you to remove the site is because people like me, Alan, etc. are bringing up all the evidence that his supporters don't want the public reminded of, I would also guess that they find the language and mentality your friends use to be very dangerous to his case. Why would they want Soering's case associated with a site that is, without question, the most angry, unwelcoming, verbally violent site I have ever visited. I brought that up to you earlier in our dialogue (that I thought you were making a big mistake by allowing those women to overtake you and your site) but I was slammed for this. Just something to keep in mind. If I was a Soering supporter (which is hard to even imagine) I would be horrified if I saw your site and its language and mentality.

With that, and my complete assurance that I have nothing to do with this other party's request for the dismantling of the site, I'm done. I find you all truly scary and violent.

HI Cathy,

I appreciate you clarifying your position. I appreciate you having expressed and expressing your opposing view. I understand that you don't like being referred to in a certain language. I understand you're feeling/seeing him to be guilty of the crimes he was convicted of. And I take your word for not being linked to any person or legal representatives involved in this case.

As to the use of certain language and the discourse getting heated, maybe you can understand that you came on pretty strong here in the first place, registering on this site for the sole purpose of commenting on this particular little series of posts revolving around the Soering case, and calling me arrogant for wanting to help him getting deported to Germany - not necessarily FREED. I went at some lengths in trying to explain to you the nature of a number of comments. I never denied you an opposing view, in fact I welcome controversy for the sake of diversity. But I never felt, I got that from you in return - quite different to the discourse I had with Alan. What is more, you haven't really engaged in a discussion with me, but kept resorting to your feelings of being baffled by the nature of those comments, calling my supporters and friends immature and a variety of other things. Can you see that this was the exact moment when the "discussion" - which it never really was in the first place - went offtrack? In short, all I ever asked for was to be given a right to hang on to MY version of how I see the Soering case. And you didn't seem to give me that - again, quite the contrary with Alan.

I still find some of your points interesting (e.g. Soering's supporters shutting down sites when too many opposing views are being posted and I don't like that, believe me) and I think, I have admitted to Alan that there is always a possibilty of me erring in deeming him innocent or at least not AS guilty as deserving two life sentences.

To this day, you have failed to acknowledge me, grant me a right to have a differing view and frankly, reverse-bullying me by simply denying me the capability of forming a well-founded opinion. Believe me, I didn't feed my awareness of the case SOLELY from Soering's site, I know my way around Google. Contrary to Alan, you haven't demonstrated a general willingness of questioning your own arguments and position and simply not accepted me on eyes' level. Me, as well as loyal visitors have expressed their discomfort over this - each in their specific way and with their own words. You may like it or leave it, but they have a right to do so. We're not making any progress here, because you don't seem able to respond to opposing views in an accurate fashion yourself. In saying so. I don't refer to use of language, but quoting accurately, responding to each point of argument individually etc. While I did my best to appreciate your opposing view, I didn't exactly appreciate the way you tried to get it across. And you found disapproval of this not only from me, but those supporting my position. What's that expression? We reap what we sow, right? Well...
On a last note: I don't know, what you mean by me sending you an email and taking you to this site? I wouldn't know how to send you an email, as I don't have your email-address and I haven't used ipermail (built-in messaging system of this site) to alert you to this site.
In closing, I find it very sad to experience "brickhead mentality" again - trust me, I am always open to dialogue based on certain prerequisites people of some culture usually establish and respect first. After all you've demonstrated of yourself here, you don't seem to fall into that category.

I opened up my e-mail and there was an e-mail from Inpernity linking me to you and this recent page. I'm not sure how the whole Inpernity thing works but there it was in my in-box.

To clarify, I originally went on your site because I saw that there was a petition for clemency for Soering and wanted to see what it was all about. I then found all of the offensive babbling I've referred to. I felt the need to comment on it becaue I found it very disrespectful to the Haysom family. I also found your "summary" of the Haysom crimes and the American justice system arrogant, as I've said before. You stated right off the bat that he is serving a life sentence for a crime he did not commit and then made disparaging remarks about our legal system. Of course I was peeved. I did NOT go on the site and call people a bitch, tell people to F-off, etc. I DID make clear how inappropriate I thought the comments were given the serious nature of the matter and. expressed to you that I thought even Soering's supporters might agree. Apparently, this is correct. The discussion of a horrible double murder and two people serving near life-sentences is NOT a place for the kind of chat that your friends were engaging in. If you disagree, fine. But you should not be surprised if people are offended and speak out.

If you re-read that blog the dialogue turned ugly when one of your friends called me a bitch. I have taken part in a number of blogs, some of them about legal matters, some of them about politics, some of them just light and fun. NEVER, even when opinions varied hugely and emotions ran a bit high, was I called those names nor have I EVER used that language toward anyone else.

You think Soering is innocent, I don't. I get that. I agree absolutely that you are entitled to your opinion. I just ask that you consider fulfilling your beliefs and goals re: Soering in a way that is respectful to the Haysoms.

One further tidbit. I believe you are misunderstanding my discussion of DNA vs. circumstantial evidence. Yes, DNA is the gold standard of blood, hair and fluid evidence. It is not, however, the way the majority of criminal cases are solved. Often, there is no DNA. Or the defendant will argue that the DNA was planted or mishandled. DNA can indeed be very important in exonerating people, especially in rape cases. But it is not the be all and end all of solving homicides. And, sometimes, even when an abundance of DNA evidence is present (i.e. OJ Simpson) an acquittal can still happen. Homicides are more often solved by circumstantial evidence. Phone records, computer searches, alibis or lack thereof, prior statements, writings, purchases, GPS tracking devices on autos, etc. You state that the only evidence that can ever answer the truth of the Haysom murders is DNA and that is simply not true. What would DNA prove in this particular case anyway? If Elizabeth's DNA is at the scene that means nothing as she lived there and had been in the house just one weekend before the murders. If an unknown source was found what would that mean? It could have been from a maintenance person or worker. To my knowledge there was no DNA mix ever found...i.e. one of the Haysom's blood samples mixed with another. That would be good evidence but it never existed. This case was solved the way MOST murder cases are solved. By a lengthy investigation. A ruling out of other suspects. Confessions. Rental car mileage. The purchase of a knife. Injuries on Soering's face immediately after the crime. His fleeing the country as soon as police wanted his DNA. Writings on their murderous thoughts, motive - he wanted to win Elizabeth's love, etc. etc.

If you believe the American justice system to be so flawed and Soering to be such a sympathetic figure who has been wrongly convicted then you should, of course, continue on with your crusade. But it would help if you would encourage your friends to refrain from their gang attacks and if you would maintain respect for the Haysom family.

I can only speculate as to why there was a link to my blog in your inbox: Probably so, because you have come to this post through Google, read the comments, meant to comment yourself and had to register first, where ipernity tracked your last "point of entry", roughly something like that, I guess.

Again: I have explained in great detail the nature of those comments. I have also expressed my firm belief that noone ever meant to be disrespectul towards the Haysom family. I say so again on behalf of anyone having commented on this particular post: The idea never was to disrespect the Haysoms or initially anyone else.

As to my introduction: I am pretty sure, this thread would have gone entirely different, if you had refrained from a personal value statement in your initial comment. To make your point about me not having a large enough number of facts according to your view, it would have been entirely sufficient to say or question JUST that, e.g. by asking "Are you sure, you have a sufficient amount of facts to base your opinion on?" - and I could have replied to that. There never was no need to deem me arrogant and call me that. After all, you don't know me. I might be arrogant or not, but to flat out reduce my very personality to this one spot on the web is simply not good style on your part. And I didn't feel like letting you get away with that.

As to the US judicial system: It gives me indeed some discomfort to see randomly selected people decide over the life and death of another being, yes (death, because he could have been convicted to the death penalty in light of his crimes, if not previously ruled out so before his deportation). I fully admit this. This is my very personal feeling and I might be right or wrong. I guess, it would merit some empirical and comparative analysis as to whether such a system is superior to other systems (not necessarily ours) or not. I find it the crucial problematic aspect, indeed. It is so easy to sway - for avoiding to say "manipulate" - people one way or another - especially when strong feelings are involved, which certainly was the case with the Haysom murder trial or any capital crime trial. To be more specific: Rhetorically well-trained professionals (attorneys) present the facts on a certain case using their full command over wording, intonation, body language and other means of communication, while the jury have to sit there for long hours or even days and listen, and can't even aks back to clarify certain aspects and narrow them down THEIR way. I have a LOT of discomfort picturing such situations, yes. Now I've said it, go ahead and slay me for not being an expert or law-grad and having no right to express my view on this. But this is exactly what I have problems with in general and in Soering's case in particular.

However, rest assured: You along with Alan have raised some excellent points, some of which give me indeed quite some discomfort over my position - not because I wasn't prepared to finding anger or opposition, but because I really can't positively rule out for myself, that Mr. Soering might have committed those crimes. But again: We're digressing. My point is NOT to find the ultimate truth, much less debate on pro's and con's of any given legal system. My point is very simple: The guy has been incarcerated for a very long time. All he wishes for is to be able to touch a tree before he dies. And I think he deserves being given this very simple last experience based upon the sheer length of his incarceration as well as his clean record of conduct. He might have this opportunity when being deported to Germany. Simple as that. No second or hidden agenda of any kind. According to me, he's been in jail long and "well-behaved" enough to earn him this most modest "pleasure".

Thanks for specifying your position on DNA evidence. This indeed casts a totally new light on the point you've made and I don't intend to argue with you over that, as I'm positive you have a larger body of knowledge on the mere number of cases being solved based on different kinds of evidence. For all I know (and Sherry has shared at least one such source with us), there have been quite a number of cases, where wrongly convicted suspects could be exonerated. But again, this is not my main point.

In closing, I'm fairly confident that there'll be no more use of strong language. For argument's sake, can I ask all of us to refrain from it and from attacking anyone personally? Like I said above: I believe such language would not have occurred, if you hadn't come on to this site in a rather aggressive way. You had expressed your concern with those comments and I have made quite an effort to set the record straight with that. And there again, you weren't even willing to SEE me making an effort.

Can we eventually settle this now?

While I agree that it is no fun to be called "arrogant", please keep in mind that my comment to that effect came well AFTER I was called a "bitch", etc. It is difficult to understand why I was expected to maintain a polite decorum after being referred to in such a manner. My initial "aggressiveness" on your site -as you call it- was simply a reaction to the disrespect I saw happening toward the Haysoms, etc. But, as you say, enough on all that. I agree that it is best to stay away from assumptions about others characters and stick to the topic at hand, clemency for Jens Soering. I will respect your very reasonable request to refrain from personal attacks and strong language.

I am confused about your position on jury trials. That does not mean I am slamming your position. I am just confused. In the U.S. misdemeanors are tried by a judge. With felony charges, a defendant has the choice between trial by judge or trial by jury. Most defendants choose trial by jury as they would prefer that 12 people need be convinced of their guilt rather than just one (a judge). If Soering wanted to be tried by a judge he certainly had that right. He CHOSE trial by jury. And all 12 of them found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

As to Soering's length of incarceration, there are two factors at work here, fact and opinion. The facts are that he has been convicted of 2 counts of first degree murder. There is virtually no state in the U.S. where 17 years would be considered a lengthy enough sentence for double homicide. That would equal just 8.5 years for each count of first degree murder. There are people serving longer sentences than that for manslaughter. Yes, he has had a good record while incarcerated but that does not wipe out the seriousness of his crimes. Clemency after 17 years for two counts of 1st degree murder in the U.S. will just never happen. Now, you can argue that this seems unfair but the vast majority of Americans would disagree with you. There was a fairly recent case in Bali where an Australian citizen was sentenced to 20 years for bringing 4 kilos of marijuana into the country. Does that strike me as a very harsh sentence? Certainly. But those are the laws of Bali and I respect their right to their own laws. I am not familiar with average sentencing laws in Germany. Perhaps 8.5 years for a count of 1st degree murder is average in Germany?? If so, that is the law of your country and I respect it as such. But it is certainly not the law in America.

As to the thought of Soering "deserving" to touch a tree before he dies, I would counter that the Haysoms deserved to touch a lot more trees before they were subjected to such brutal and terrifying deaths. When you slit two people's throats you lose the right to "deserve" much. As a fellow human being, I do believe that Soering deserves to be treated humanely while incarcerated, to be given the full right of the legal process, to receive visitors and correspondence, to exercise, write, meditate, sleep, receive health care, watch television and movies, etc. But I don't believe he deserves to be let out. He gave up that right when he made the choices that he did.

I am curious as to whether you have read any of Elizabeth Haysom's columns from prison? They are available on he internet. What comes across in these columns is a very spiritual, humble, reflective woman who has als been a "model prisoner." Now, if you believe Jens Soering's "story", not only did Elizabeth Haysom kill her parents but she is allowing an innocent man to spend the rest of his life in prison for a crime he did not commit. Not only an innocent man but a man who, according to Soering, did nothing but try to help her and save her. If this is true than Elizabeth Haysom is not only a murderer but a spiritual monster with no soul. You say that Soering's writings show a person who has undergone a deep spiritual transformation however so do Elizabeth's. But one of the "transformations" can not be real given their stories. I am curious for you to read her columns and to share your thoughts on this. Is Soering the truly transfomed and Haysom the monster? Which is the true transformation, if either?

Let me just add one further food for thought. According to Soering, this is what you need to believe in order to buy his story. Elizabeth and he went to Washington for a romantic weekend. After they'd been there just a few hours Elizabeth announces to him that she has gotten herself into debt with a drug dealer and, to erase the debt, must pick up some drugs while there to bring back to UVA. She does not want Soering to come with her as he is too "clean cut looking" and will look suspicious to the drug dealers. As she is leaving Soering, she asks him to buy 2 tickets each to 2 movies...a late afternoon and an early evening show...then return to the hotel room and buy 2 room service meals...then go to the a midnight movie where she will meet him. In other words, she will be gone for many, many hours. According to Soering, she asked him to do all this so that if her parents ever found out about her meeting up with the drug dealers she would have an alibi. He says he did all that she asked him to, without questioning it. She never showed up at the midnight movie so he returned to the hotel where she eventually arrived with blood all over her, stating that she'd killed her parents. This is Soering's story.

The first thing that jumps out from his story is the idea that a boyfriend who has gone off for a romantic weekend with his girlfriend just accepts her story of going off for 9 or 10 hours to get drugs. Does this ring true to you? Wouldn't you be afraid for your girlfriend and demand to go with her even if you made arrangments to stay at a distance so that the dealer would not see you? Washington has one of the highest crime rates in the country. Why would he be okay with his gilfriend disappearing for this amount of time, well into the night, in a dangerous city- to engage in a drug deal, no less? And what about the story of his purchasing multiple tickets and dinners at her request? Why would someone do such a thing without wanting an explanation? They were both so short on cash, according to Soering, that Elizabeth was pawning jewelry that weekend to pay for the hotel room, etc. Why then woud he just blindly spend money on 6 movie tickets and 2 room service dinners if they barely had any cash? He also conveniently leaves out that, earlier that day, they'd bought a knife. I believe he says, now, that it was a birthday present for his brother. He also leaves out that, in the days following the murders, he had wounds on his face - seen by numerous witnesses. Where did those come from? He never says. Might be an interesting question to ask him if you write to him. Of course, my guess is that you would receive either no reply or a very angry and defensive one. Or maybe he'd just try to tell you he had no wounds, the witnesses were all lying. Soering has stated repeatedly that, had he known Elizabeth was going to her parents to confront them about the relationship, he would never have allowed her to go by herself. He would have either gone with her or demanded that he go and she stay in Washington. So, according to him, he had no idea that's where she was going. Yet, also according to him, they were so close that she corresponded with him about her desire to see her parents dead, disclosed all of her past trubles to him, immediately confessed the murders to him, ran off to Europe with him, etc. But somehow she never told him that she was going to be driving 8 hours round-trip to her parents? Makes zero sense.

One of Soering's letters introduced at trial quotes him as saying that he has "yet to kill" but can imagine the desire to do so. He now says that was just youthful, poetic ramblings on his part. Okay, but let me ask you how many times you or anyone you know has written such things AND, miraculously, a short time later two people are indeed murdered and you are all wrapped up in it. That's gotta be one of the biggest coincidences possible. Why did he confess, not only to the police, but to his friend Matthias? Matthias has no impetus to make up a confession. In fact, it took him a long time (past the trial) to come forward because he was so burdened by turning on Soering but his conscience won out and he did the right thing and has reported the confession to the parole board. And, according to Matthias, Soering not only confessed but bragged. He was proud of what he'd done.

Why did Soering develop a hit list that included the prosecutor, chief investigator, and a Haysom brother? That seems to me the work of a sociopath who enjoys the prospect of murder. When they were arrested in England, Soering had a large stack of Soldier of Fortune magazines. I don't know if you are familiar with these but their content is all guns, knives, hit-men stories, how to commit the perfect crime stories, etc. These things don't fit in very well with his tales of innocence and naivite. Why did his own father and brother finally turn on him and "disown" him? My guess is that, not only did they believe him to be guilty, but they could no longer tolerate his lies and manipulations.

I believe the evidence shows the following. Soering was madly in love with Haysom. She began to express doubt about the depth of her feelings for him (introduced into evidence via a letter she'd written him shortly before the murders). He knew she hated her parents and fantasized about them being gone from her life. He saw killing her parents as an opportunity to win her love and devotion - to tie her to him forever. She agreed with his plan and stayed behind in Washington to create an alibi. Once arrested, reality began to set in for her. She saw the pictures of the crime scene for the first time. She saw how violent Soering could be and began to fear him. Their relationship began to unravel. She accepted h

You are quoting from something I wrote well into my postings. I am referring to you (or Queen Bee) having called me a bitch and telling me to f-off LONG before that post was ever made. The places where you did that were on the initial blog when I FIRST joined in...the blog that has now been dismantled due to Werner's concerns. All I had said until that point was that I found your postings to be insensitive and disrespectful given the nature of the blog. I had also questioned whether they were legit. I am trying very hard to get back to a place of discussing the issue at hand. I hope you will do the same.

I'm not sure I have any idea what the second paragraph of your posting means but I will respect your right to say it. Please feel free to point out to me any fact or issue (pertaining to the Jens Soering case) that I have not responded to and I will do my best to respond. I've no idea what you mean by my recent post being laced with the attitude that I am right and you are wrong. My recent post is a synopsis of the evidence. Werner has expressed an interest in gathering as much info. on the case as possible so I am providing what info. I have. Is this now wrong as well? If so, I will choose to let him tell me that first hand.

As to the first paragraph, there is no point in continuing to lob back and forth about who insulted who first. Clearly, all involved felt insulted. I am choosing to respect Werner's request that we refrain from personal attacks, strong language, etc. and stick to the topic of the Soering/Haysom case.

I believe my post was almost finished anyway when the last bit was cut off. My final thoughts were that Elizabeth pled guilty, returned to the U.S., and cut all ties with Soering. Once this was done, Soering changed his story completely and came up with the bizarre "Elizabeth said she was going on a ten hour drug deal mission and I just blindly did whatever she told me" thing. It was his only way of explaining why they had bought all those movie tickets/two dinners, etc.

You say that I am not allowing others to have their beliefs with regard to this case. However, I am here blogging and engaging in a free speech forum. It is apparently Soering's supporters who do not want dissenting voices heard or for this forum to continue, not I.

I will happily exchange ideas with Werner and others but no longer with you. There is no point.

And saying that I am "incapable of admitting when I am in error and then correcting it" is honoring Werner's request to refrain from personal attacks how?

okay, just so I'm clear about the rules and standards here...

If I say that someone is being childish or teenager-like or arrogant then it is a personal attack. If you say that I am incapable of admitting an error and correcting it then it is just "an observation"?

My statement that it is pointless for us to exchange ideas comes from the fact that we are not discussing the topic of this blog at all. I first posted today with a lengthy amount of information regarding what I know about the case. Werner has expressed an interest in gathering as much information as he can. If you would like to discuss the case, fine. If you want to continue going back and forth about who delivered the first insult to who then it is pointless. I have conceded that all parties felt personally insulted by the initial exchanges. You, Werner, myself, etc. Why do you want to continue lobbing it back and forth? For what purpose? I am also being mindful of the fact that this is Werner's blog...not ours. The purpose of his blog is to discuss the Haysom case and Jens Soering. I am interested in sticking to that.

As to the sequence of events: This may come as a shock to you, Cathy, but I recall it the exact same way as Sherry has specified: Your first post on THIS blog (not to confuse with the Wordpress/clemency blog, where I don't remember you having posted anything, at least not using the same name) was your expression of disapproval over the hyper-commenting and asking, whether we were for real. Your second comment was the one Sherry quotes above. It was this:

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 recall it that exact way, as well and I have crosschecked based on the time stamps associated with the comments. And while I have replied to your first comment in a very neutral way, my second reply expressed some dissatisfaction over your wording and the underlying attitude that seems to have sparked your choice of words. I am really getting tired of THAT part of the discussion, and I will no longer bicker back and forth over "he said, she said, you said, I said". If anything was teenage or even infants' standards, it's this.

As to the Soering case and your offering of more evidence along with your interpretation of them: Again, I agree with Sherry in that you add some interesting points, which I haven't mentioned in my own take on things or entirely overlooked/not known. So, thanks for introducing these aspects. I also agree - and have previously and repeatedly admitted so - that despite my conviction of his innonence in committing the murders (while he is at least guilty of having lied at some point), there remains a feeling of unease over some of the dots that I find hard to connect. In particular Soering's confession to his former friend Matthias is giving me a lot of discomfort as well as your mention of stacks of "hitmen" magazins/literature. In addition to that, I find the hitlist he produced not helping an idea of his innocence, either.

But, let's face it: We could go on for years to come and pick certain evidence, present our opinion over a particular piece of evidence and then either agree or disagree. Even if we managed to do so without having to establish a common ground of demeanour over almost every post, we might eventually come to a position of partial agreement on his innocence or not. I believe I have come to that position of partially agreeing on some aspects with Alan, and I found this to be a gratifying experience. I am not all too sure, whether we'll be able to establish the same process. To be honest: I am very doubtful in that regard.

Regardless of all that, I believe this exchange has yielded at least two crucial insights: Personal feelings get in the way of an accurate, fair judgement. If anything, this somewhat lengthy thread has established this finding as a fact. It might be an inconvenient one for one or the other party, but it can't be looked away from when being serious about all of this or when being serious in general. To give you an example: Your initial motif seems (how I hate to speculate....) to have been to "protect" the Haysoms in some way, as you have stated our hyper-commenting to be disrespectful of their feelings of grief. This is a personal statement of your feelings, UNLESS you have talked to the Haysoms, presented them with this blog, asked them "Do you find this disrespectful?" and having received a personal "Yes" by them. In which case, it would render another above statement of yours of not being linked to neither the Haysoms, nor prosecution/judge, nor the suspects false.
Because if you are not linked to any of the suspects or victims as you have stated above, If you haven't talked to them and received this reply, your initial post is an expression of your own personal feelings and nothing but that. It is a valid expression, nonetheless and I have respected it by replying to you and explaining myself and my supporters.

Second and as a result of the first finding: If personal feelings coming from an attachment with a given party get in the way of a neutral judgement solely based on facts, there is no way of avoiding bias/prejudice. As I recall part of an article, the presiding judge in the Haysom/Soering trial was a personal friend of the Haysom family. In my country, such a judge would be OBLIGATED to reject presiding a criminal case - and a high profile one as this all the more. You have stated that you respect a given country's right to their laws. If I follow this position of yours, I will have to respect the fact that a person being personally and emotionally involved with the victims of a homicide CAN and HAS presided over judging the suspects' fate. You're in for another shock: This is something, I can NOT respect, I'm very sorry. Because following above reasoning: If personal feelings get in the way of judgement, there is no way of finding the ultimate truth of a given (criminal) case. While it could merit an entirely new thread, whether there is such thing as "ulitmate truth" in the first place, for pragmatic reasons let's just say that personal involvement on an emotional level is not helping to find it. Another example here (and you don't have to answer to me or us, just ponder for yourself): Have you EVER even allowed yourself a possibility of Soering being indeed innocent? Just be honest to yourself, I don't need an answer to this question.

And thirdly, and *almost* amusing in a way, is this: I am just now realizing that this entire thread could be considered an empirical experiment. Let's say, YOU had been part of the jury. Let's also say, you had been presented with the evidence, which was presented to the jury in the Soering case. Let's even go as far as saying, there would have been DNA samples, which would have safely ruled out Soering being present at the site and at the time of the crime. EVEN THEN, you are/were questioning that evidence to an end of rather suiting your personal belief of his guilt rather than his innocence - even if there was and HAS BEEN plenty of reasonable doubt. If there have been five more individuals working on the same principles of reasoning as you have demontrated here - do I really have to finish this sentence...? No, I don't. Instead, I would like to thank you for having most impressively demonstrated the very principles, which must have worked to the end of Soering's conviction/verdict at the time of the trial. Thank you - I couldn't have proven this any more conclusively than by all of the comments you left here.

With this being said: Yes, the guy absolutely deserves being deported to Germany and given *a little* bit more freedom than he currently has. And again thanks for introducing some aspects of the case, I wasn't entirely aware of.

Hi Werner:

I would very much like to try to answer the hypothetical posed to me in your 2nd to last paragraph, as it sounds interesting. What if I had been on the jury etc., ?.....but I do not understand the rest of the question. Would you mind restating and I'd love to give it a try. This is the part I don't understand. My apologies....

"Let's even go as far as saying, there would have been DNA samples, which would have safely ruled out Soering being present at the site and at the time of the crime. EVEN THEN, you are/were questioning that evidence to an end of rather suiting your personal belief of his guilt rather than his innocence - even if there was and HAS BEEN plenty of reasonable doubt. If there have been five more individuals working on the same principles of reasoning as you have demontrated here - do I really have to finish this sentence...? No, I don't. Instead, I would like to thank you for having most impressively demonstrated the very principles, which must have worked to the end of Soering's conviction/verdict at the time of the trial. Thank you - I couldn't have proven this any more conclusively than by all of the comments you left here".

I will also try to respond to the other parts of the post. If I miss something, please understand that it is unintentional and feel free to ask again.

I did indeed wonder, quite often, when the arrests were originally made and Elizabeth Haysom's sentencing hearing was ongoing whether Soering was innocent and she, indeed, the killer. I felt kind of sorry for him, truth be told. I saw a very young man, a boy really, in way deep. I saw a young woman (Haysom) who appeared to me to be quite troubled and living in a non-reality. She made statements during her sentencing hearing that were hard to see as anything but unbalanced. If I were to judge the situation strictly on emotion, I would have thought Elizabeth guilty way before Soering. Emotionally, most people in Virginia were much more enflamed about her role because they were her parents. It was not until Soering's trial, and the mountain of evidence, that I believed whole-heartedly in his guilt as the actual perpetrator. I believe Elizabeth was in on it fully -the planning, the alibis, the cover-up, but I believe he did the actual killing.

I do agree with Sherry that my posts come across as attempts to sway or convince. That is not meant as rudeness or arrogance, simply as a strong opinion on my part. Perhaps because I also watched the trial and live in the area etc. it evokes a passion in my opinions that might not be there otherwise. I truly do not mean to be aggressive. As to my opinion about the hyper-commenting on the petition drive being disrespectful to the Haysoms, you are quite correct Werner. I am supposing what the Haysoms would feel and therefore it is an opinion and not a fact. I will stay mindful of that. I did understand the purpose (bringing the spot to #1). I just didn't understand the method ....i.e. why it was done via comments that had nothing to do with the petition, the case, etc. But, again, that was my opinion and did not make it fact.

Re: the judge in the case. It is my recollection that he went to secondary school with one of Nancy Haysom's brothers some 30 or 40 years before the trial. He was not friends with the family that I have ever been aware of. Nancy Haysom and her brothers had moved out of the area as young adults and it was only a year or two before the murders that Nancy moved back to the area with her husband.

Hi Cathy,

I get the feeling, we're getting back to the discussion, yes. OK, I have to admit that I left out a few afferent thoughts in my previous post, which may have made it harder to follow - sorry for that, it seems to be one of my shortcomings in general, which is to presuppose too much in the other person, expecting them to be able to read my mind or something. So, allow me to be more specific with this:

What I meant by that passage that you have quoted is this: We all think and act on certain patterns being instilled into us. I am no exception in this, nor can anyone else safely rule out that their thinking doesn't happen on a "framework" of "premeditated" thought others have sown in us, e.g. parents, teachers, church, etc. This is all the more true in regard to a given value system we act upon. If it is true that we don't have "original" thought to begin with, much less so in a "climate" of a value system, we have to accept the fact that all our experiences are filtered down by that very value system. Our response to a given experience will most likely be one we have been "taught" to have. I may be straining our discussion a bit here, but I believe we can't look at an extreme "incident" like this without considering such aspects. I can't quote a single source here, because this is where we touch upon the domain of psychology and philosophy - too vast a field to be narrowed down into a single source. But this might serve as something to get started with: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_system

Before I completely digress, let's assume the above to be the grounds we think and act upon. Now, when presented with such a harsh violation of a social or ethic code as is the case with a homicide, we will most likely have an instantaneous response to that, prior to knowing all the facts. The response will most likely be: This is wrong, the murderer needs to be punished. While I don't argue that we can't let murderers get away with their crimes (at least not in any social context that is supposed to establish some sort of "equilibrium" instead of chaos), I take the liberty of pointing out that there is no such thing as "just fact" or ultimate truth - unless any given person was an eye-witness to the crime. And even then: The eye-witness will not be able to just be an "observer", but respond strongly and emotionally when being confronted with such harsh and brutal sights.

My point being? That any single person has no chance at all to reveal "just facts" or "truth" in a case like this. Presumed and "learnt" judgement will always get in the way - no matter what. We can try to achieve some level of neutrality by splitting up the task of gathering evidence between several individuals, i.e. several prosecutors, by having professionals in each of the related domains of experience have their say (i.e. psychological analysis), by letting 12 jurors speak instead of just one judge, by hearing as many witnesses as possible, by presenting forensic evidence etc. etc. ( in that regard I would like to thank you to put the quality of DNA samples in perspective for me. I have indeed misunderstood your initial statement as to that, and am grateful for you having corrected my misunderstanding. I agree - DNA is yet another piece of evidence which needs to be regarded in the overall puzzle of available evidence. I'd still like to maintain, though, that it appears to be superior to other types of evidence given a large body of cases, where wrongly convicted suspects could successfully be rehabilitated). The paragraph, you requoted and asked me to restate simply says this: If you acknowledge my above excursion to be a possibility, then you, me, and most certainly all 12 jurors as well never had a chance of "looking at just the facts". While there may be facts that have simply occurred (the predominant one being that the Haysoms' life has irreversibly and unnaturally found an end by someone killing them), there is a VAST variety of possibilities in presenting them. This is what I have problems with. I would feel much safer and error much less possible, if there had been some sort of medical opinion on Elizabeth Haysom AS WELL as Jens Soering. Some expert opinion was apparently sought, while Haysom and Soering were being interrogated in England, with the result that Soering suffered from something they called "folie a deux", in essence meaning that Soering got "infected" by whatever disorder or mental disease Ms. Haysom was suffering from. You said yourself that she was seriously troubled, and those aspects aren't sufficiently accredited for in my opinion. They were charged and tried simply based on the outcome of their deeds. I have problems with that, yes.

I am no expert in the field of psychology at all, although one of my minor graduation subjects reads "social psychology". But I have a feeling that ANYthing BOTH of the convicts have EVER stated would have needed to be "unfiltered" by an expert trained in some area of psychology. They have both lied, repeatedly lied, to one or the other end. I find it entirely difficult to believe both their confessions, regardless of what specific aspect of the case they were made on.

P.S.: Thank you also for candidly expressing your impressions over following the trial at the time. You see - that's what I meant by saying "I couldn't have proven my point any more convincingly" (and no offense intended): You are using the term "emotional" very often when referring to the trial and media coverage as well as broadcasts of actual tapings of the hearings etc. No one can be accused of HAVING one or the other emotional response to this entire matter - it is a very crass event, no doubt. The circumstances and the way the crime was carried out are indeed groundshaking. HOWEVER - in any attempt to get as close as possible to the truth in this, emotion has to stand back as far as possible. This is the predominant point I have ever been trying to make here. My initiative comes from the belief that far too much emotional presumption was brought to the table here, including prosecution as well as selection of evidence (some evidence was destroyed prior to the trial, e.g. the check at the Marriott hotel), the presentation of evidence, the debatable selection of state and defense attorney etc. etc. I don't mean to say that the American system of justice is in essence and always "bonkers", as you said. I have certain reservations as to the aspects expressed above, yes. However, in this case - I think a series of most unfortunate circumstances have had a profound effect on the course and outcome of the trial. Now - this is my personal belief, while I'm not being an expert. And I have acted upon this personal belief. I am aware that some of my wording over on the other blog may have led to my initiative being perceived differently. For this and other reasons, I deactivated that blog for the time being, while at the same time reserving to activate it later on as well as hanging on to my conviction of having a right to express myself this way and take action by those means (i.e. setting up the blog).

I should add that the last paragraph re: the judge's acquaintanceship with the family is just my best recollection. Please correct me if I am wrong. I do not have a vivid recollection of this part of the story. I will say that I found the judge to be very even tempered and non-intrusive during the trial and hearings. In fact, he made some rulings that were very much to the benefit of Soering. One example: he would not allow the prosecutor to bring in evidence that the bloody sockprint matched Soering's. He would only allow an expert to testify that Soering could not be eliminated from the sockprint. The judge struck me (again, just an opinion) as being a very kindly type who almost felt a bit sorry for what Haysom and Soering had gotten themselves into albeit horrified by the crime itself.

This is indeed interesting, yes. I may have to re-read that section on his aquaintanceship with the Soering family. However, your account of it reads very convincingly. If his ties to the family are indeed so far back, then I agree that there is less a point in excusing himself from presiding over the case. Still - common practice in my country would have most likely been for the judge NOT to rule in this case, just so ANY possibiliy of ANY ties to the family could be safely ruled out.

Hi: Thanks for clarifying and rephrasing. I agree with you 100% in your analysis above about the beliefs, pre-conceived ideas, emotions, etc. that jurors bring with them to any trial. And, philosophically, you are on very strong ground. Is there any such thing as 100% objective truth? So, yes, philosophically I think you are right. My question would be, if not for a jury system or a judge (who also has pre-conceived ideas, emotions, beliefs) what are we left with? What kind of justice system can possibly rule out all of those factors? I am embarrassed to say that I know very little about the German judicial process? Are there no jury trials in Germany? Only trials by judge? Does the defendant have a choice, as here in America?

I did do a small bit of exploration re: German sentencing laws and found that, superficially at least, they are not all that far from American sentencing laws. Granted, and this is a big granted, Germany does not have the death penalty. But Soering's sentence, 2 life terms WITH the possibility of parole after a certain amount of time, seems pretty close to German sentencing laws for your equivalent of first degree murder. Please correct me if I am wrong as I was getting my information strictly from some internet sites.

So, though I do appreciate a good philosophical discussion on the nature of pure truth, I'm not sure how you would want Soering to be tried. He could have been tried by a judge if he had wanted to. That is his constitutional right. But he chose trial by jury. That is considered a precious right in our country...the right to be tried by a jury of your peers instead of a single judge. But it is always a defendant's choice.

As to medical/psychiatric evidence...American courts recognize ver yfew "mental" defenses. Yes, if a defendant can prove insanity then that can lead to a not guily by reason of insanity verdict. But something like the folie a deux would not be considered insanity in American courts. In the year 2000, America had approximately 15,000 murders compared to 1,000 in France and 500 in England (I didn't see numbers for Germany but I would guess they are similar to England and France). Even accounting for the population difference, that is a huge disparity. If America took into account "mental impairments" for all 15,000 muderers each year, noone would ever serve time. I mean, aren't all first degree murderers mentaly impaired to some degee? Surely, they lack some kind of impulse control, anger management, emotional coping strategy, etc. So, where would mental impairment stand for all the other 15,000 murderers each year if we say that one of them Soering) got a bit too codependent and enthralled and emotionally twisted up in his troubled girlfriend? I would not be comfortable at all using that as an excuse for Soering without also extending that excuse to the tens of thousaands of other prisoners serving long sentences for murder who most likely also had some kind of major emotional or mental chaos going on in their lives when the crimes occured.

Hi Cathy, good question on your part: What are we left with? I can't answer that from the top of my head, so allow me to be pragmatic in answering your other questions first:

@ Trial: We had trials by jury until 1924. Ever since, it has been trial by one or more presiding judges, however only one judge sentencing the verdict. As there is no other option, hence the suspect cannot choose, which form of the trial they prefer. Why Soering chose trial by jury is one of the dots I seem unable to connect. I am left to speculate on this. I have ideas leaning toward one or the other "reason" for this decision, but those are just my ideas - I'd have to ask him that.

@ Sentencing: Yes, you're right again: If Soering were held fully accountible, the terms of the sentence are fairly equal to what he'd expect here. Numbers: I also have to rely on web sources, mostly wikipedia (the quality of which might be a new thread altogether), and according to it, there were 930 murders or attempted murders in 2000, with 1,108 victims. The murder rate dropped to 818 in 2006 (see de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mord, unfortunately the numbers are only available in the German article; you'll find a table with those numbers by scrolling down, where it says "Kriminalstatistik"). And yes again, that is but a percentage of those 15,000 murders you quote for the US.

@Medical/psychiatric evidence: I can totally see your point in saying that we'd have to "make an exception" for all those other 14,999 suspects as well, if we accounted for that possibility in the Haysom/Soering case. I have to hand you making a strong point in saying that ANY murder lacks some kind of impulse control and could be regarded mentally challenged for that very quality. In that area, we'll probably have to rely on the penal code of any given country. I realize that there might be differences in the definition of murder and mitigating circumstances between the US and Germany - or so it seems, again from reading the German and English article on the subject at wikipedia. Intent seems to be the crucial aspect here, and from all I've heard, only Elizabeth Haysom WANTED her parents dead - or at least believed they deserved it. I have the hardest of times imagining a bright kid like Soering to "jump on the bandwaggon" in an attempt to seal her to him. And IF he indeed did - he could not possibly have done so from a position of a clear, untroubled mind. And if not, I think it would have merited a closer investigation as to the pychological aspects - and not only for him, but Elizabeth Haysom as well.

I agree - we probably can't let 15,000 murderers get away based on such ponderings. And I also admit that I might have been talking from a position of a different criminal setting, as we simply aren't exposed to murder at such high numbers in my country. I found myself coming to a similar insight during the discussion with Alan, over on that other, temporarily disabled blog. While I admit that mental impediment cannot serve as a "carte blanche" in capital crime cases, I still think that the circumstances in this particular case we're discussing could have yielded critical insights as to the amount of guilt in both suspects. From all the facts on the case I was able to gather, it is my feeling/belief that Soering genuinely acted from a place of protectiveness over his girlfriend. He acted on false assumptions as to diplomatic immunity being applicable in his persona, and he certainly underestimated the legal consequences as well as perseverance of prosecution - or in other words: He overestimated his own smarts in thinking, he could get away by fleeing prosecution first and then - after he had been unsuccessfully fighting extradition - in thinking, he could make everyone see his intentions (of protecting Elizabeth from the death penalty). I'd like to quote one of your above statements, where you describe the judge as "[He] struck me (again, just an opinion) as being a very kindly type who almost felt a bit sorry for what Haysom and Soering had gotten themselves into albeit horrified by the crime itself."

"... had gotten themselves into" - I find it entirely possible given the facts I was able to read or hear from you or Alan that NEITHER of the two committed the actual crime, but a third person (the drug dealer, Elizabeth has run in debts with?), where E. convinced that third person of being able to pin it all on Soering. I know, this sounds very speculative again, but aligning all the pieces of the puzzle seems to strongly suggest this version as a not too far-fetched one. As far as I know, that possibility has not been ruled out. AND I think, both suspects/convicts should have undergone thorough psychological analysis in identifying the motif a lot clearer.

This is my personal belief/reasoning. That is basically, why I think, Soering is innocent UNTIL that possibility has been safely ruled out. And IF we still found, he committed the crimes, then yes, given our legal code (and I grant you disagreement over applying them in the first place, as the crime was committed on US soil and as they both were residents of the area) he'd be eligible for *some* kind of lessening of his penalty or at least some alleviation of detention.

I'll try to dialougue with you in order of the comments you raised.

1) Why Soering chose a trial by jury. This is by far the most common choice for defendants in the U.S. Very few defendants facing a first or second degree murder charge choose a trial by judge. A trial by jury is considered a highly valued right in this country. To get 12 people to rule on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is much harder than convincing one judge on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Trials by judge are more commonly chosen for lesser crimes. So, Soering was not at all unusual in choosing trial by jury.

2) Sentencing. Two life terms with the possibility of parole for a double murder is not at all unusual. Nor, necessarily, unfair. Sounds like we agree on that.

3) I've never heard the possibility raised that a third party (not Haysom or Soering) committed the murders. I've heard it hypothesized (by Soering in recent years) that perhaps one of the drug dealers joined in with Elizabeth for the murders but never that neither Soering or Haysom of them was present. Even Soering doesn't suggest that.

4) I will say this in regard to Soering's possible "innocence". But for several key factors I might be able to believe that possibility. I certainly believed that possibility before hearing all the evidence at his trial. Elizabeth Haysom was disturbed enough to have committed the crimes. I don't doubt that at all. I'm not sure anyone does. But several pieces of evidence would have to disappear for Soering to be innocent. He would have to have the wounds on his face immediately following the murders go away. Where did those wounds come from? He said in his confession to British authorities that Derek Haysom had punched him in the face during their struggle and that his glasses had flown off. The wounds to his face were around the bridge of his nose, right where a punch wound land that would knock his glasses off. How else to explain those wounds that multiple people saw. He never had any other explanantion for them.

Why did Soering not want any of his blood or hair or prints taken for comparison. If he knew he wasn't there wouldn't it have helped his case to provide all of that. But, instead, he fled the country -after wiping down his entire apartment and car of all his fingerprints. Why would he do that if he was not worried that something could match up to evidence left at the Haysoms? Elizabeth provided all of her samples early on. This would match her knolwedge that she was not there at the time of the murders. Also, bright outdoor lights were left on by the killer as he or she fled. Elizabeth would certainly have known how to turn those lights off but Soering would not have. No killer would intentionally want to leave them on as they would attract attention to the scene.

If Soering was this innocent, naive, kind of helpless fellow what was he doing with all of the Soldier of Fortune magazines, why did he develop hit lists, why did he write of fantasises about murder with Elizabeth, why did he brag to Matthias? These are questions that do not go along very well with a portrait of a bamboozled Soering.

Even Soering acknowledges that one of them had to have committed the murders. So I'm not sure how productive it is to start theorizing that perhaps neither of them did. The question has always been, which one. If none of this other evidence was there (his wounds, his flight, his confession to Matthias, etc.) I would absolutely agree that we could not know which of them was there as I certainly don't believe we can rely on Haysom's testimony to determine any truth. But those pieces of evidence cannot be conveniently forgotten because they don't match up with wanting to believe him innocent.

In order to believe Soering innocent, you would have to forget all of those things AND believe his story about Elizabeth going off for a ten hour mystery drug buy during their romantic getaway. You would have to believe that Soering spent those ten hours buying tickets to movies and a room service meal for no reason other than because Elizabeth asked him to. You would have to believe he had no idea what was going on. Does that make any sense to you? I can not imagine the circumstances under which that would make any sense but perhaps you can provide one that would get me thinking differently.

@1: I have understood that from the previous post.
@2: OK.
@3: Not so fast. I never said, that NEITHER of them (Haysom/Soering) were at the crime scene. I just said that I find it entirely possible - if not likely - that Haysom and a third party were there, while Soering ran around town (Washington) to buy movie tickets (two each) for their alibis. Alibis for Haysom's parents, mind you, and in case word got back about her meeting with the drug dealer.
On a different note and to support my idea of a third party: A 10 hour window sounds sufficient enough to me for Elizabeth to have met with the drug dealer, her convincing him to go back to the Haysom mansion with her, e.g. by announcing sufficient amounts of money to cover the drug purchase and having committed the murders together with him (the drug dealer). After the crime, they had to get back in a hurry, so Elizabeth could meet with Soering in time (hence leaving the lights on, no time to dispose of possible evidence etc.). For the rest of this take, see Soering's confession at trial. I find his story totally plausible, it doesn't give me the faintest trace of doubt, never has.
4)
- Facial wound: When Soering confessed to British authorities, he was still following through on his plan to cover for Elizabeth. In doing so, he needed to come up with a plausible story, so authorities wouldn't reveal his cover-up right away. Remember, Soering said at one point during the trial that they spent several hours at the hotel thinking up plausible scenarios, because they were quite sure, police would show up during the next few hours. They not only needed to conceive of a coherent story, they would have also needed to make sure, both their versions were consistent when being interrogated separately later on. Apparently, noone ever questioned his reasons for the wound on his face, when in fact they could come from anything. For all I know, him and Elizabeth could have gotten into a quarrel over whose version of the events were the more convincing one - they were emotionally involved and under an insane pressure. Not at all unusual, they both got into a fight over this. Or: They could have even gone as far as him asking Elizabeth to punch him, so he could convincingly come up with this version of the story. I know petite women, who take on grown men, so that is not too far-fetched, either. For me, that wound on his face doesn't prove ANYthing in regard to the crime. Actually, it is no evidence at all as far as I'm concerned.
– Soering's refusal to provide blood/hair/print samples, wiping down appartment: Another one that I admit to have a little trouble with, yes. On the other hand: Who knows, what went on between Elizabeth and him. Elizabeth might have already let on she was going to break up with him. And from how prosecution and media coversage went, I'm almost sure Soering more than sensed the public had already made a verdict on him. I repeat: He may have been naive when it comes to Elizabeth (first love, mad love, all of that), but he wasn't STUPID. I'm pretty sure, he already KNEW in advance, what that evidence would have been used for and reserved him that little of being ahead of prosecution. The same goes for fleeing the country. This may have exactly marked the moment, when he noticed for the first time, he had bitten more than he could chew.
- Fortune magazines: I know, I said previously, they make me a bit queasy, too. But then: Soering was/is a bright kid. He could have INTENTIONALLY bought those, to give himself an image consistent with the crime. After all, he STILL wanted to cover for Elizabeth, being under the firm assumption, she'd be facing the electric chair and him only facing about 5 years in a European penitentary. I never had any doubt, he was ready to go as far as that, just so he could spare her the death penalty. In addition to that: Soering explained at the trial and in a very detailed manner, why he felt the way he does about the death penalty. Being German like him, I know EXACTLY what he was saying there. And yes, not being German could well mean - but doesn't necessarily HAVE to - anyone else can't really follow him there. I mean, you yourself said how people feel about murderers and death row and such in the States, while I have admitted feeling differently about this, while still SEEING YOUR feelings or that of other Americans. I can SEE your feelings there, but I don't SHARE them. As for Soering, I think it's safe to say, noone in the courtroom understood, what the hell he was talking about when expressing his feelings of disapproval - or even horror - of the death penalty in general and why it was so important to him, to spare Elizabeth that. In other words: He gave a most compelling account of his moral code in that particular area and all of what he is saying there is totally water-proof to me.
- Bragging to his friend Matthias: Speculative, agreed. But this could still play along with his efforts to surround himself with a "killer image". Maybe - I deem this totally possible given their complicated, strained relationship - that he might have even wanted to "impress" Elizabeth that way, as if he wanted to "prove" to her, he'd be capable of killing her parents for her - from a place of being insanely in love with her. It is all speculative, I know, but it's in the realm of human feelings and entirely possible. However, it requires a far more in-depth look into his and her psyche than prosecution ever cared to invest in them.

In order to believe Soering innocent, you would have to forget all of those things AND believe his story about Elizabeth going off for a ten hour mystery drug buy during their romantic getaway. You would have to believe that Soering spent those ten hours buying tickets to movies and a room service meal for no reason other than because Elizabeth asked him to. You would have to believe he had no idea what was going on.

I am not forgetting the questions you raise, but I have a differing take as to their interpretation. But then - we both know, I'm just arrogant, so I'm preparing myself for you dismissing all my above attempts at finding a different - but equally consistent - view on the evidence brought forward during the trial.

Does that make any sense to you? I can not imagine the circumstances under which that would make any sense but perhaps you can provide one that would get me thinking differently..

Yes, it all does, absolutely, and I'm not afraid to say so. All my alternative versions sound crazy, I'm well aware of that. They sound so far-fetched, no one in their right mind pays them any attention, agreed and I happily hand you that. HOWEVER - deep breath, now please - both of them, Elizabeth and by that time Soering as well, both of them were in a co-dependent situation that was way off any right-mindedness. I don't think it an exaggeration they both didn't exactly know, what they were doing any longer. According to Soering, Elizabeth stormed into the hotel-room, stammering "the drugs made me do it, the drugs made me do it". While I have never had any problems with substance abuse, I think such a situation is totally possible and plausible, especially in light of her extended drug abuse, her troubled relationship with her parents, her status in the community and at school/college, etc. etc. And then Soering got himself into all this mess by falling in love with her. Love is one of the most powerful feelings human beings are capable of and they will do things for love, no one in their right mind would even find possible - they might even go as far as to take responsibility for a crime they never committed.

I think I have been offering plenty of alternative views on the sequence of events and I will hang on to them, until they are safely ruled out by clear-cut, rock-solid countering evidence. Until that day - I will continue to believe in Soering's innocence. And I think, I'm just a hair away from reactivating that other blog, regardless of what everybody tells me. Arrogant, you say? Well, so be it then.

Hi Sherry, thanks for saying so. Unfortunately - please see my latest post - there won't be any reactivating. According to the forwarded email, I put my foot in it. Like I said, another bitter pill to swallow - I think, I have just about an entire pharmacy of those already.
Thanks for your support in this!

I think Soering did it. It's easy, all too easy, to get caught up in his rhetoric and fail to look at the evidence. Why doesn't the guy take a polygraph if he's innocent? Why isn't he demanding to take a polygraph? Because he knows he's guilty.

I think his personality has got too much edge to ever pass for a theologian unless intellect passes for spirituality which in some circles it does these days.

I respect your opinion on this. There has been quite an elaborate exchange of communication with people visiting this stream and a blog I had up. To me, it doesn't even matter any more, whether or not he's guilty. All he wants before he dies is to touch that damn tree. I find this to be a most humble wish, which he should be given the opportunity to satisfy, even if he is a double murderer. Absolute truth and certainty doesn't exist in my view, as human beings are simply incapable to find and/or see that, especially when emotions are involved.
I've discontinued taking action or a stance in this matter a while ago, for two reasons: a) I had to realize that people simply hang on to their conclusions when being presented with the facts, and b) I was asked by his supporters not to draw any more public attention to his case. I've spoken my mind, when I thought I needed to and when I was still convinced of being able to help and had to find that whatever little contribution I thought I could make turned out to be detrimental.
I've gotten tired of arguing, tired of people not being ready to even hear other views, tired of wasting my energy on believing, human beings can learn and/or forgive (and by saying this, I am totally aware of the risk of maybe having to include myself here).
This entire discussion has become futile and frankly, I don't even want to read "He did it" or the contrary any more. It doesn't make any sense any more.

Sorry for my late response. I agree details of the case have been rehashed ad nauseum and I don't even know if I could stay awake to follow them if they were.

My problem is not with letting a double murderer go free. It is with letting a double murderer go free IF he expresses no remorse for his crimes. How can one change from what he can't even bring himself to admit? And, I know that is the big IF here. I don't want to go there, either.

IF he is guilty, then, he is warring to change the system instead of himself. IFhe is guilty, he is still making up stories about others, and believing them, and writing theology books telling people how to live. Then the question becomes to me, should we be fighting alongside such a man to change the system to allow him to be released on a lie in order to touch that tree on the outside.

I've had the misfortune of experiencing cutthroat individuals who can present a facade of decency with astounding alacrity so the, "He's such a good guy, if you could only meet him..." Well, let's just say that doesn't get very far with me. IF such a cutthroat individual with superior intellectual abilities did not have the ability to rally people around him, then perhaps he would be forced to look at the fact that the only way out would be to admit what he's done, for his sake and for the sake of his eternity (rather than for the sake of his pride).

It seems to me however, that you are coming from a place of compassion and that I respect.

Well, trust me, I've been juggling thoughts like yours back and forth for myself and I've done so, BEFORE taking any action. Truth be told, I've never managed to completely overcome a tiny rest of unease about all of this, especially since Soering is allt that smart and forecasts possible outcomes a long way into the future, has been lying on some accounts and whatnot else. But at the end of the day, I decided to go with my gut feeling, and that is that he didn't do it. And to this day, Soering hangs on to the same thing, namely and simply "I didn't do it". So, if he's convinced that he didn't do it - why then would he admit, he did?

I mean, one could argue now about how smart he really is, if showing remorse and admitting might be his ticket to maybe not dying in jail. But then - what if that fails? What if he admitted to something he didn't do and they still keep him locked up? I would say, he then not only betrayed himself - but lost his one and only "joker" to ever find mercy.

This experience, however - blogging about the guy, and even trying to rallye up some support for him at one point - it has taught me that many Americans really do have a different take on violent crime in the first place (from seeing so many cases of them at an almost daily basis) and what to do with capital criminals as a result. It appears as if there had to be a sequence of punishment, remorse and only then can one begin to think about any possible reintegration of someone, who has committed as serious a crime as this. The remorse part, however, requires that there be no doubt whatsoever in the guilt of a given criminal. I am sorry, but from everything I have heard, read and watched about this case, I really can't say that there were no doubt in Soering's guilt - although I have caught myself pondering the very same things you mention in your comment.

"Compassion" then? I guess, yes. Because I'll never find the truth - nor do I think, absolute truth even exists, where human beings are involved (and that might even apply to Soering - and he acknowledged that by expressing his remorse over not having taken more responsibility for Elizabeth BEFORE things became irreversible).

*giggle* ;-) And I thought, I was the only one, who didn't have a life *ROFL*

It is a difficult issue. Even notorious American serial killer Ted Bundy fiercely maintained his innocence for years because, he, too, was convicted on circumstantial evidence. His wife probably would have needed a polaroid photo of Ted actually clubbing an innocent woman to be convinced that he was a killer. (And even then she might have claimed it was fraudulent.)

Ted's IQ pales to that of Jens, but he, too, managed to rally support and financial donations, which helped fund his trip to Florida on his subsequent escape. Were it not for well meaning supporters on the outside, he probably never would have had the funding to fly to Florida and enter the Chi Omega house and slaughter innocent sleeping women.

One well meaning man who sent money, an intelligent and kind man said words to the effect of, "We have blood on our hands."

IF Jens is guilty, we have no way of gauging the current state of the rage that slaughtered two people because he has managed to keep it hidden. His only weapon behind bars is slander, continually speaking out to haunt the victim's families and the life of a woman who pleaded guilty and took her punishment with no attempts to wield manipulation through the press.

It's a tough call. For me it was an issue of looking at the way the majority of the evidence leaned. He is either an innocent guy with an edgy personality (kinda arrogant), or, he is exceedingly dark.

I tend to lean with the latter thinking, obviously. I am so with you though in that I don't want to argue about it. One thing about both the he said/she said camps alike, they both want justice; they both want compassion. Certainly there is no good in either side attacking the other personally.

What if she really did finally tell the truth and then hunker down to serve her sentence. And, what if he is the one continually attacking her and her family with slander. And, what if he is rallying others to help this cause?

I think that Elizabeth deserves a burden of innocence, too.