Chapter 34: A Shock to the System - Martyr or Murderer: Jens Soering, the Media, and the Truth

The first episode of the podcast The Söring System premiered on 22 February 2022. It would comprise eight episodes. The podcast was produced by Alice Brauner and Johanna Behre at Argon Studios. Its motto was “Decide for Yourself”. Terry Wright and I had provided the producers with many original case documents, and the producers obtained even more. The podcast draws on that archive and on hours of testimony, interviews, and previous reports. The three main interview guests are Eva Beck, Terry Wright, and me. Beck had never spoken or written critically about Söring’s claims before. That fact, coupled with her insights into Söring’s personality and media campaign, made the podcast a journalistic sensation.

Sitting in front of his trove of original case documents, Terry Wright discussed the case, which he still remembered vividly. I gave legal commentary and an analysis of how Söring’s case had been treated in both the English and German media. The tone of the podcast is serious, befitting its subject. Its overall purpose was twofold: First, to introduce a German audience, for the first time, to the considerable evidence of Söring’s guilt of the Haysom murders. Second, to explore why coverage of his case had been so one-sided. Eva Beck declined to be identified by her full name. She knew of Söring’s vindictive side, and reading his poisonous comments in 2021’s Return to Life reinforced her fear.

Within Söring’s paranoid worldview, disagreement was seen as betrayal and punished by exile from the “Friends of Jens”. Now that Söring was free and had money to hire legal talent, he might go beyond mere complaints, as he later did. Eva also feared violence, for a few reasons. First, she had come to believe that Söring had murdered the Haysoms. Second, Söring’s capacity for anger was documented in many public sources, including Karin Steinberger’s 2011 article about whose title was a quotation from him: “Rage, it’s Simply Rage”, his reference to himself as “titanically angry” in his 2017 book A Far, Far, Better Thing, and innumerable other sources from Söring’s own writings.

In his post-release interviews, Söring conveyed a less confrontational public image. Yet, as Beck knew, what Söring said in public had little to do with what he said, or planned, in private. One of Beck’s favorite adjectives to describe Söring was “unpredictable” (unberechenbar). He tended to store up frustration, fear, or anger until he could contain them no more, and then act impulsively without seeking counsel. The Haysom murders fit this pattern, as did his decision to confess, his plan to interfere with Terry McAuliffe’s 2020 Presidential run, and his confrontations with people who questioned his innocence claims. How would Söring respond to a 6-hour podcast critiquing his story? Eva Beck, who knew him better than any of us, said she had no idea. And even if Söring had aged out of any violent tendencies, he still had thousands of supporters devoted to his “cult of personality” (in her phrase). Who knew how they might react to criticism on their idol?

The podcast avoided detailed discussions of Söring’s various complaints, as most were now known to be insignificant. In any event, listeners who wanted Team Söring’s perspective could turn to hundreds of interviews, articles, blog entries, and books. Perhaps the most revealing parts of the podcast are devoted to the “Söring System”. Beck describes how she helped prepare the various information and media packs about the case, including “The Söring Case Made Simple”. Beck stressed, in Episode 4 of the podcast, that although most of the “Friends of Jens” were female, none had any romantic feelings for Söring, including Beck. However, they treated him with motherly indulgence—he was allowed to “say and do anything”, and would deflect critiques of his behavior by pointing to his horrible fate.

Beck describes how Söring’s inner circle cultivated friendly journalists by gatekeeping access to the man himself. In my interview, I noted that once Söring had rallied a critical mass of politicians and celebrities to his cause, the “system” began working autonomously. I called this the “reputational cascade”. When illustrious figures such as Chip Harding and John Grisham (to name just two) came on board, it became much easier to interest journalists. If a sitting sheriff and lawyer had concluded Söring’s trial was unfair, that was enough for a journalist on a deadline.

Grisham, of course, was in a league of his own. Not only was he a lawyer (licensed in Mississippi, license inactive), he had helped innocent men win their freedom. He had written a bestselling book about one of these cases, Ronald Keith Williamson, who had been freed from Oklahoma’s death row after DNA proved his innocence in 1999. Any journalist would covet an interview with John Grisham. The support of wealthy celebrities opened the door to political influence in the USA. Flom wrote Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ralph Northam a check as he set up Söring’s telephone call to Northam’s office. John Grisham met with the governor personally to plead Söring’s case. What other Virginia lifer could boast such powerful friends?

In Germany, the Söring System functioned slightly differently. The German consulate in Virginia and the embassy in Washington, D.C. sent officials to monitor Söring’s conditions of confinement. He quickly charmed them. As diplomats, they largely refrained from endorsing Söring’s more controversial claims, but they had a back-up argument which resonated with many Germans: Whether Söring is guilty or not, he has already served what would be a long prison sentence in Germany. He has shown no violent tendencies and has compiled an excellent prison record. It’s time to send him home as a gesture of friendship and goodwill. This message resonated all the way up the chain of command, and soon German cabinet members, a former President of Germany, and 160 members of the German Bundestag were pleading for Söring’s release.

Like the Wright report, The Söring System’s influence unfolded slowly. It hovered near the top of the German podcast charts for weeks, and within a few months had been downloaded more than one million times. The podcast initiated a sea change in public opinion which is still ongoing. Online comments show most listeners came away with the impression that Söring murdered the Haysoms, and that his claims were bogus. In a 1-star review of Return to Life from 28 April 2023, “David” wrote:

Before you support this man with even just one penny by buying his book, listen to the podcast The Söring System. After that, every person who is even remotely normal and reasonable will reach the right decision. It [is] absolutely incredible how manipulative someone can be and that there are actually people who still stand behind him.

On 13 September 2022 “Benedikt K.” wrote a comment entitled “Don’t buy it!”. “Listen to the podcast The Söring System,” Benedikt wrote, “Jens Söring is a double murderer who also wants to enrich himself on the basis of the killings. So disgusting!” There were still supportive comments, but they dwindled to almost nothing by late 2023.

True to form, Team Söring ignored The Söring System. The producers had of course contacted everyone whose name was mentioned in the podcast, including Söring and Karing Steinberger, offering them a chance for commentary and rebuttal. All refused. Indeed, by Spring of 2022 it was unclear exactly who still belonged to Team Söring. Söring’s public appearances after the September 2021 book launch had been solo affairs. Eva Beck was only one of several former German associates who was no longer on friendly terms with Söring.

None of Söring’s American supporters had made any public statements on his behalf since January 2020 except for a Grisham’s blurb (which might have been written long before) for Return to Life. As of 8 April 2022, when the last of the 8 episodes of The Söring System was broadcast, anyone curious about the evidence against Söring no longer had to slog through the Wright report or my long-winded blog posts. Instead, they could download a thoroughly researched and well-made podcast. Since part of the podcast was a critique of how the media had handled Söring’s claims, journalists were particularly interested.

Despite the podcast, there were still occasional takers for Söring’s story, and the case fans I was in touch with continued to let me know of his upcoming appearances. I performed triage, and decided that most were either not misleading enough or not prominent enough to merit a response. One example in this category was Söring’s appearance during the “Sindelfingen/Böblingen Sport and Health Weeks”, where he talked about mental resilience. I had neither the time nor the inclination to complain, but apparently others complained, since the headline of an article about Söring’s talk in the local paper was “Joi de vivre despite Accusations and Attacks”.

I did, however, complain about Söring’s appearances at publicly funded institutions such as the Amerika Haus in Heidelberg or a planned speech at the University of Hamburg Law School. I didn’t ask these places to cancel Söring’s speech, but only to ensure balance by inviting someone who would lay out the evidence of Söring’s guilt and defend the reputations of people he attacked. For a brief time, Söring featured a site on his homepage about “cancel culture”, complaining about the “threats” people had directed his way. Of course, I had never threatened him, and in fact he provided no proof anyone had threatened him or the organizers of these events with harassment or violence.

In another league entirely was a 15-minute feature on Söring broadcast on 8 February 2022 by the private channel ProSieben on a popular show entitled Galileo. The title elicited a groan from me: “33 Years Innocent in Prison”. Galileo had sent a team of reporters to Hamburg to hang out with Söring, who showed them around his small apartment and described his joy at rediscovering nature and trees. All fine so far.

The producers then went all-in on Söring’s innocence claims, even hiring actors to re-create the fictional scene in which Elizabeth returned, blood-stained, to confess to Söring in the Washington Marriott. A German criminal-defense lawyer baldly stated that Söring’s confessions were false and that Söring confessed because he thought he had diplomatic immunity. At the end of the feature, seen by 250,000 people, a Hamburg lawyer named Stephan Grulert is seen embracing Söring at a coffee shop. He was identified onscreen as a “Friend of Jens”. I would soon meet Grulert in person. In court.

Even at this late date, the Söring System was making conquests. I complained to the broadcasting regulator and to ProSieben. This time, however, I was not alone. Many other viewers were also gob-smacked to see Söring’s defamation of Elizabeth not only endorsed but re-enacted onscreen. ProSieben, to its credit, deleted the feature from its media library and apologized, calling its decision to air the piece “a basic journalistic mistake”. By this time, the Söring interview with Markus Lanz had been removed from the online archive of ZDF, the broadcaster. This may have been the result of rights issues or a site update. Then again, the interview may have been removed because ZDF had become aware that much of it was false or misleading. Unlike ProSieben, a private broadcaster, the publicly funded ZDF declined to explain why the Lanz interview was no longer available.