Chapter 33: The Söring System and Return to Life - Martyr or Murderer: Jens Soering, the Media, and the Truth

Team Söring, meanwhile, had remained largely silent after the May 2020 Markus Lanz interview, except to denounce me to the Small Town, Big Crime podcasters as a “money-motivated troll” with “no influence”. Söring declined most interview requests and posted on social media only sporadically. There were a few reasons for his low profile. First, he was busy working with a ghostwriter to create the book he owed to Bertelsmann/Random House. He also may also have wanted to limit his press exposure so that people would not be tired of his story by the time the book was published. I continued my examination of his case in my blog and in articles for German newspapers. Team Söring continued its policy of no engagement with its critics.

Gradually, the podcast series on the Söring case took shape. I traveled to Berlin to record an interview alongside Eva Beck. Terry Wright joined by teleconference. Wright later showed up in Berlin with a bulging suitcase full of case documents. Wright had been disappointed with much prior press coverage of the Haysom murders, for reasons which this book makes clear. However, he had gradually overcome his skepticism after conversations with me, Eva Beck, and Dr. Alice Brauner. The podcast would dive deeply into the facts of the case, relying on the documentary record and Wright and Beck’s personal, first-hand experiences with Jens Söring.

The focus would not be on whether Söring was guilty, although there was little doubt where I, Wright, or Beck stood on that question. Previous media coverage and documentaries had two main flaws. First, in pursuing Söring’s will o’ the wisp theories, they bogged down in side-issues such as shoe sizes, movie tickets, or the non-existent role of Jim Farmer. Second, they framed the case as a he-said, she-said contest between Elizabeth Haysom and Jens Söring. The temptation was understandable; after all there were hours of dramatic courtroom footage of each accusing the other of murder. Exaggerating Elizabeth’s role also allowed producers to titillate viewers with descriptions of the couples’ sex life and discussions of Elizabeth’s supposed history of sexual abuse.

Our project would avoid both of these pitfalls by focusing on the overall case, of which Elizabeth was only a small part. We would address a question with implications beyond Söring’s case: How had media outlets on both sides of the Atlantic gotten the case so wrong? Why had so many reporters decided to air Söring’s claims without critical scrutiny? The eight episodes of the podcast were called: “The Case”, “The Confessions”, “A Toxic Relationship”, “The Söring System Takes Shape”, “Fact Check”, “‘Freedom Struggle’ Using All Means”, “System Errors”, and “Control”. The producers also interviewed a renowned German criminal profiler and a cult expert, among other sources. The podcast was carefully vetted by lawyers. It would be released in February 2022.

The book Söring had agreed to write for Bertelsmann/Random House was published on 20 September 2021 under the title Return to Life: My First Year in Freedom after 33 Years in Prison. John Grisham ‘s blurb in called Söring’s story “shocking” and congratulated him on escaping a “horrible prison system”. Söring dedicates the book to his “host family”. It starts out with a description of Söring’s release from prison and his initial steps in creating a new life in freedom in Germany. The prose is vivid, although there are many digressions. The book displays the split personality so common in Söring’s writings: The descriptions of his experiences in prison or after sound reliable and often insightful; while his account of his case is uniformly misleading.

Söring once again recycles his key points. The Bedford County press called him the “German monster” (the phrase is repeated three times in the book), which “surely contributed to the jury’s guilty verdict”. The U.S. media had organized a “years-long campaign of harassment” against him which culminated in a “humiliating show trial”. Richard Neaton had “failed unbelievably” in his representation (there is, of course, no mention of Cleaveland).

Fortunately, two female lawyers took the case on appeal, which, Söring observes, “restored my faith in women, which had been shaken by Elizabeth”. Söring says he was sad not to be able to spend Christmas of 2019 with his family, and felt self-pity when he saw other families on holiday strolls together. He declines to inform the reader that he had attacked his father and brother as dishonest grifters in the Sandy Hausman interview broadcast just eight days before Christmas 2019. Söring seems to sense that the reader will now want to know what relations between Söring and his family were like beforehand.

In his 2007 Johannes B. Kerner interview, Söring said he had “of course” told his family “the truth” about his innocence. In 2021, Söring now claims that “at the beginning, my family did not know I had intentionally lied and had to assume I had committed the crime”. He then writes that he told them “the truth” at some unspecified later point. Söring apologizes for the “suffering and shame” he brought his family by allowing them to believe “for years” that he was actually a murderer. Söring does not tell us why he had lied to his family “for years”.

Söring then brusquely notes that all contact between him and his family was “broken off” in 2001, without explaining why. Later, however, he returns to the issue, noting that he was supposed to inherit house in Bremen from his grandmother, but his “father decided otherwise”. He complains that his father’s decision to cut financial support in 2001 dramatically worsened life behind bars for him, and again accuses his father of refusing to provide a letter in support of his prisoner-transfer requests. Söring claims that he tried to re-establish contact after his release with a “handwritten letter”, but his father never responded.

The elephant in the room, of course, is Söring’s claim that Elizabeth personally killed her parents, which he had repeated in print just two years earlier, in the Foreword to the 2019 re-issue of Not Guilty! Söring was now unwilling to make this claim directly. Yet it was the core of his innocence narrative. The decision he chooses in Return to Life, is to summarize his trial testimony using verb forms for “indirect speech”, in which someone reports something without endorsing it.

This gave Söring a defense to any claims of defamation: I was only summarizing my 1990 testimony, not directly accusing Elizabeth. Söring naturally had words for me and Eva Beck, although he does not mention us by name. He refers to me as a “Texan blogger” who promises readers “definitive proof” of Söring’s guilt but never delivers. The Wright Report is a “private document” which was published on an “anonymous hate site” (i.e., Holdsworth’s Jens Soering—Guilty as Charged). Terry Wright is the “supposed” author of the report, which Söring denounces as “non-objective both in tone and content”.

Söring defends the German media and Markus Lanz, all of whom had reported in a fair and even-handed manner, simply putting out all the facts and letting the reader or viewer decide. Perhaps while jogging with Söring, Lanz had realized the “impossibility” of coming to a “final judgment” about Söring’s guilt. Referring to the end of my January 2020 FAZ article, in which I suggested that Söring had likely come to believe his own story, Söring claimed I was accusing him of being mentally ill, which was not only “extremely improper” but downright “perfidious”. I had even emailed Söring’s “personal friends” to try to get them to “distance themselves” from him.

Söring says he and his friends urgently debated how to respond to the “American blogger’s totally unhinged campaign”. Söring decided to “bite his tongue”, since I had landed “so many low blows” that he saw no reasonable basis for dialogue. Söring claimed to be puzzled by what drove my “relentless personal attacks” but genuinely outraged at my defense of the “rotten” U.S. justice system. At no point does Söring challenge any of the arguments Terry Wright or I had made about his innocence claims.

Söring then turns to Eva Beck, whom he accuses of betrayal (Verrat). Söring blames himself for having a “childish faith” in other people, which Beck betrayed. Söring claims that his supporters were doxed and bombarded with hate messages, although he does not provide any examples. Söring suggests, again without proof, that Beck was responsible for these insults and doxing. Yet in light of her years-long “utterly dedicated” work on his behalf, he decided not to go after her “either legally or otherwise”. Söring then declares that the “demented hate” against his supporters led him to delete all his social media accounts in mid-2020, “against the advice of my professional advisers”.

Söring’s response to criticism is, as usual, revealing. By the time the book came out, Söring had lived in freedom for years, with Internet access and daily contact with lawyers on both sides of the Atlantic. If there were serious errors in our work, this was his opportunity to set the record straight. He let it pass. I had indeed emailed many of Söring’s prominent supporters a copy of the Wright report and pointed out that they had made public statements on Söring’s behalf which were untrue and potentially defamatory.

By the time I emailed Söring’s supporters, Team Söring had adopted their policy of omertà towards all critics. I received no response except a few tart lines from Grisham in which he affirmed his continuing belief in Söring’s innocence. I observed that none of Söring’s supporters on either side of the Atlantic—except for John Grisham—had made any public statement on his behalf since the publication of the Wright Report in January 2020. Söring’s attacks on Eva Beck were sinister. He accused her of “betrayal” twice, and insinuated that she was behind a campaign of doxing and hate-filled personal attacks (she had nothing to do with them). Yet his main accusation against Beck was that she had revealed “internal” information which Söring wanted to keep secret.

We see here Söring’s desire for control (the title of Episode 8 of The Söring System). As Beck revealed during the podcast, Söring wanted to keep tight control over the information and commentary about his case. Söring wanted people talking about Sweeney’s bias, Neaton’s incompetence, Elizabeth’s mental state and conflicting statements, and exculpatory DNA evidence. He did not want people talking about his confessions (especially the one he gave on 30 December 1986 in the presence of his lawyer), his relationship with his family, his flight from the U.S. in October of 1985, or the incriminating material in his letters and diaries.

Journalists who expressed interest in an interview were screened by Team Söring—often by Beck—to ensure they were “on side”. Söring did his best to make personal contact with reporters before they wrote about him. He knew his personal charm and unthreatening appearance was a critical asset. If he could get reporters to like him personally, they would want to believe his story. Of course, this became much easier after his release from prison.

Throughout the fall of 2021, Söring gave over 30 interviews to Stern TV, RTL, North German Broadcasting, Philosophie magazine, pop-philosopher Richard David Precht, Management magazine. Der Spiegel published a second interview with him. As of the time of this writing, most of these articles and media appearances are listed in the “Newsroom” section of Söring’s website. Söring adopted a more conciliatory tone during these new interviews. He now admitted that he could not prove his innocence, as reflected in the headlines of some of the articles, such as “I Would Like to be able to Prove my Innocence” (4 October 2021, Deutschlandfunk Kultur) or “People are Allowed to Call me a Double Murderer” (5 October 2021, Neue Zürcher Zeitung). Yet Söring occasionally struck more combative tones: “People Don’t Fight 30 Years for a Lie” (12 October 2021, Die Welt).

German reporters again maintained they were more interested in Söring’s new life in freedom than in his innocence claims. By late 2021, German journalists had grasped that these claims were contested. However, probing the details was too much work for reporters looking to publish a human-interest story on a deadline. Friends and colleagues sent me the Söring interviews as they came out. Overall, they were less deceptive than Söring’s appearance on Markus Lanz. Söring stuck mainly to his new life in freedom and his prison experiences. Yet Söring always found a way to cast doubt on his conviction. On North German Broadcasting’s NDR Talk Show, host Jörg Pilawa insisted that to be “legally sound”, he had to repeat that Söring remained a convicted murderer and was only free on parole, before advising Söring that they were not here to talk about his “guilt or innocence”. Söring nevertheless crammed in references to the “injustice” he had suffered.

The tone of the new interviews can be conveyed by a representative example, “Great Freedom” (Große Freiheit), published in Der Spiegel on 18 September 2001. For this second interview, Der Spiegel assigned two journalists, Julia Jüttner and Simone Salden. Salden had been part of the first interview team in February 2020. This time there was no mention of a PR agent or lawyer. The reporters referred to him as a “convicted double murderer who has exhausted his appeals”. Söring said “it’s horrible that I cannot prove my innocence”. The reports added: “For someone with Söring’s desire for control, that must be hard to bear.”

They again asked Söring about his family. He claimed he had come to terms with the breach. “One doesn’t believe him,” the journalists wrote. Söring said he still did not even know his brother’s address. One revealing passage: “‘In my life, people have intensely hated me,’ he says with a firm voice. ‘I want to be liked,’ he says barely audibly.” Yet even in this more personal interview, Söring cannot let go of innocence. His “struggle” has entered a new phase. He has obtained his “freedom”, but must still fight for “justice”—recognition of his innocence.

Söring then recites his story of star-crossed love. It sounds “practiced” to the reporters. He went to prison, he claims, because he wanted to help someone. His “ego” also played a role since he aspired to “play the hero”. The interview ends with a reference to the upcoming Netflix series. Söring cites Amanda Knox, an American who was wrongfully convicted in Italy for a 2007 murder. Knox returned to the U.S. and started a podcast. She had devoted a 9-part series to Söring’s case. Knox, Söring notes, had advised Söring to participate in the Netflix series. She gained her freedom by “going on the offensive with the truth”, he recalls, and urged him to do the same. The Netflix series would come in late 2023, and before then, Amanda Knox had had a change of heart about Söring, which we’ll explore in the final chapter of this book.

Journalists and case fans wanted to know what I thought about Söring’s new media offensive. My reaction was muted. First, I was busy writing and translating. Second, Söring seemed to be trying to move on. I adopted a triage system: I wouldn’t respond to every interview or article, but only those in major media outlets. Der Spiegel was in the first category, so I resumed contact with the magazine, urging the reporters to ask more critical questions and do more fact-checking.

This led to a comical interlude: A Spiegel reporter had sent an email to an in-house colleague asking him to investigate my background. She said I seemed a bit “crazy” (irre) about Söring’s case, but admitted she understood why I might be annoyed by him insisting on his innocence. She asked her colleague to check and see whether I actually had the qualifications I claimed, what former colleagues said about me, whether I was entitled to use a university email address, and other questions. She also wanted him to see if he could figure out why I cared so much about the case and if there were any people or organizations behind my involvement.

How do I know all this? Because she accidentally sent me a copy of the email. I replied to her and her colleague. I assured her she didn’t need to assign someone to investigate me, I’d be happy to answer all of her questions myself. I sent her pictures of all my degrees and qualifications and my full CV including contact data. Just call me up, I invited her. After all, one of her Spiegel colleagues had done just that in January 2020. I also offered her access to my archive about the case, so she could probe Söring’s claims. The reporter responded with a curt, embarrassed apology, which I accepted.

The mishap showed me that parts of the German media still resided in a mirror universe. A convicted fraudster and double murderer who had committed perjury twice was seen as a credible source. I, on the other hand, was a “crazy” person who might have committed one of the most ambitious identity frauds in Internet history. This interlude also didn’t speak well of the reporters’ research skills. Five minutes on Google could have answered most of the Spiegel reporter’s questions. The fact that Team Söring had persuaded her the I might be a fraud speaks volumes.