Chapter 30: An Insider Reaches Out - Martyr or Murderer: Jens Soering, the Media, and the Truth

After the Spiegel interview was published in late February 2020, Söring went quiet. The Coronavirus began dominating the headlines. Team Söring kept busy by preparing for another media coup: An interview on Germany’s leading evening television talk show Markus Lanz, whose 2020 shows attracted an average of 1.77 million viewers per episode. Yet trouble was brewing within Team Söring. After his return from Germany, Söring had been taken in by his host family in Hamburg and provided with all the essentials. Yet there were dozens, if not hundreds, of German supporters who wanted to get in touch with him, to hear his account of life behind bars, and to offer their support for his “re-integration” into German society. Personality conflicts were inevitable.

Another phenomenon came into play. Someone serving a life sentence has an overwhelming motive to be as ingratiating to outsiders as possible: They are his lifeline to the outside world and his only real chance at freedom. After release, this motivation falls away. After release, many prisoners gradually break contact with supporters who had considered the prisoner a friend. This is not necessarily a sign of callousness. After all, decades in prison do little to refine an offender’s social skills, which were usually limited to begin with. In many prisoner/supporter relationships, the main shared interest is getting the prisoner out, and when that happens, the friendship inevitably withers.

Yet for one of Söring’s supporters in particular, Eva Beck, there were other factors. Beck had begun writing Söring in 2017, after seeing the German version of “Killing for Love” and becoming convinced Söring was innocent. Yet Beck soon became more than a supporter. In the late 2010s, Virginia prisoners were granted access to terminals which they could use to write emails. They often had to wait in line, and the terminals were often in poor repair: Söring sometimes complains, for instance, that he cannot write capital letters because the shift key is broken. After Eva received Söring’s email, she would send it to the recipients Söring had indicated.

Beck decided to save some of these emails, not only out of a lawyerly instinct to preserve documentation, but also because she felt she was a part of history: A crusade to right a wrongful conviction. Beck also maintained an online account containing a vast trove of information. It was Beck who, in 2018, designed a 93-page pdf called The Söring Case Made Simple, an approachable overview of his innocence claims which was sent to numerous reporters. The text, contributed by Söring, contained such gems such as “Can anyone really be sure I am guilty, given that my lawyer was crazy and my judge was biased?”

Yet Beck was beginning to have doubts about the cause. She found some of Söring’s actions, such as trying to occupy the domain names for Terry McAuliffe’s potential 2020 Presidential bid, questionable. When the FBI telex emerged in 2018, Söring instructed Beck to prepare it for release by snipping out the name of the female “possible suspect”, as seen in Fig. 27. As a result, the reader learned that the FBI profile suggested a female “very close” to the victims was the killer, but never told who the “possible suspect” was. The reader was invited to conclude that it was Elizabeth Haysom. Elsewhere, Söring and his supporters made the claim explicit; for instance, in his 2017 book A Far, Far Better Thing, Söring said he was “infuriated by the belated revelation of a profile pointing to Elizabeth as the killer”.

As an insider, Eva Beck knew that no profile had been found at all, much less one “pointing to Elizabeth as the killer”. Yet she had agreed to commit a minor piece of skullduggery intended to bolster this misleading claim. Beck was also troubled by some of the personality traits Söring had displayed during their years of near-daily contact. Söring tended to react to perceived insults or setbacks without considering the consequences. This personality trait was evident during the Haysom murders, which he told both Ricky Gardner and the German public prosecutor were a consequence of him “freaking out” or “flipping out” after being belittled by Derek Haysom. Söring’s plot against Terry McAuliffe is another example. Further, Söring did not hesitate to sling mud if he thought it served his ends.

One example of this is “The Söring Case Made Simple”. Söring had delved into Bedford County history and discovered that the man for whom the word “lynching” was coined, Judge Charles Lynch, had operated there. During the American Revolutionary War, Lynch, a Virginian planter and military officer, organized spontaneous kangaroo-court tribunals of locals suspected of sympathy to the British crown. They would be punished directly after these summary trials in what was basically vigilante justice. The verb “to lynch” derives partially from Lynch’s actions. Söring decided his case was tantamount to a lynching. He provided Beck with the text for a new “Episode 8” of “The Soering Case Made Simple” entitled simply “Bedford County”. Söring noted: “Lynch mob ‘justice’ was invented in the very same place where I went on trial—220 years after Charles Lynch started stringing people up on trees. But if you think that was my only stroke of rotten luck, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.”

This statement is accompanied by pictures of actual lynching victims hanging from trees and gallows. Söring then draws the historical parallel: “But was it right for [Judge William Sweeney] to preside over the trial of the German accused of killing his friend Risque’s sister? Or was that a return to Charles Lynch’s brand of justice?” To ensure nobody misses the point, the word “German” appears in red. Söring later adds: “[N]obody hung [me] from a tree…but Bedford County tried VERY hard to do the next best thing.” Söring wasn’t done probing the wounds of Virginia’s history. Drawing on an argument first unveiled in 2017’s A Far, Far Better Thing, Söring notes that during the D-Day invasion, 19 soldiers from Bedford, Virginia died—a huge loss for a town of only 3,200 people. A memorial to the “Bedford Boys” was erected in Bedford, Virginia in 1997. Söring relates this historical tragedy to…Jens Söring: “And who inflicted these awful losses? The Germans, of course. People like me.” “Germans” again appears in red.

The new version of the “Söring Case Made Simple” was uploaded to Söring’s website, but only lasted for a few days. When they noticed the new chapter, Söring’s Virginia-based supporters were horrified. The historical comparisons were not only tasteless but far-fetched: The only time World War II had been a theme during Söring’s trial was when Söring himself invoked the Holocaust to explain his aversion to the death penalty. The idea that the jury—which wasn’t even drawn from Bedford County—would somehow carry a grudge based on a war which had ended four decades before was nonsensical. The lynching comparison was, of course, grotesque. Söring reluctantly instructed Eva Beck to remove “Episode 8”.

For Beck, the final straw came around the turn of 2020, when Söring informed his inner circle of his plan to register his residence in a random location to ensure, in his words, that “no lawyer letters can reach me”. Söring eventually chose not to implement the scheme, but Beck was dismayed. Söring was protective of his own reputation, but was willing to constantly accuse Elizabeth based on no evidence, just as he had been willing to try to destroy Kenneth Beever’s career. As Eva noted in Episode 6 of the podcast The Söring System: “[Jens] is a manipulator. Whenever the facts don't go his way, he manipulates people by shifting the focus away from those facts, and instead he fully concentrates on discrediting the person who brought the facts to light.” Söring accused Judge Sweeney of bias, but did not cite any examples of incorrect judgments. Richard Neaton was “crazy”, but neither Neaton nor Cleaveland displayed any signs of impairment during Söring’s trial, and judges dismissed all of the allegations of ineffective lawyering Team Söring brought.

Söring couldn’t prove the Nelson County jury which tried him was biased, so he implied it by gesturing at lynching and anti-German bias in Bedford County. Söring could not identify errors in Hallett’s sockprint testimony, so he resorted to dismissing him (in Mortal Thoughts) as “Updike’s belt and tire witness”. The Haysom murders, Söring noted, were Ricky Gardner’s first murder case, so obviously must have had no idea what he was doing. Instead of refuting the core of Elizabeth Haysom’s testimony, Söring pointed to inconsistencies concerning secondary details and launched an attack on Elizabeth as a drug-addled, mentally ill femme fatale.

The pattern continued after Söring’s release. When confronted with my detailed January 2020 FAZ article, Söring—instead of trying to refute my arguments—instead began investigating my background, looking for dirt. They found none. When asked by podcasters about my articles and blog entries on his case in 2021, Söring’s lawyers called me a “money-motivated troll” with “no influence”. Instead of challenging the substance of Terry Wright’s report, Söring questioned whether Terry Wright even existed. At one point, in an echo of his McAuliffe plan, wrote a short message raising questions about Wright and his motivations, the claim being that Wright had written the report to try to salvage his reputation after being exposed as complicit in a wrongful conviction. Söring’s idea was to have the statement posted anonymously in various case-related discussion forums. The plan was soon abandoned.

Beck began to realize that Söring would not engage with the specific arguments of his critics because he couldn’t. When his flimsy arguments were challenged, they fell apart. So he turned to insinuations, distractions, and anonymous plots. Especially after Söring floated the plan to register a false address, Beck’s relationship with him began to fray. Inside Söring’s inner circle, doubts were not tolerated, and certain questions could not be asked. Wright’s report and my work cited dozens of sources which Söring had never mentioned to his supporters. She realized that there was much information pointing to Söring’s guilt of which she had remained unaware.

Beck’s doubts were deeply traumatic. She had invested years of her life advocating for Söring’s innocence. Now she had to face the possibility that she had helped propagate a fraudulent narrative. She had to resolve the conflict somehow. So she did something that nobody on Team Söring had ever done before: She reached out to me. Her first emails were discreet and tentative: She used the pseudonym “Eva Beck” and described herself as someone who was very close to Jens Söring and had supported him.

She wanted to know who I was, why I was interested in the case, and how I had obtained access to the Wright Report. At first, I thought this might be a ploy by Team Söring to find out more about me. I decided to be completely open. After all I had nothing to hide: I was who I said I was, I’d written what I wrote for the reasons I stated, and I was independent of all parties to the case. I wanted to draw an intentional contrast with Söring’s secretiveness and skullduggery. I also promised Beck absolute confidentiality. She was torn between her fading loyalty to Söring and her growing conviction that, by helping him, she was falsifying history and injuring the reputations of innocent people.

Over weeks, Holdsworth and I built trust with Eva. She told us that she had access to a large archive of material about the case. I could ask her if she had any documentation about a specific point, and she would respond. With her help, I was able to piece together a nearly complete copy of the records of Elizabeth’s and Jens’ trials. American criminal trials are transcribed by court reporters; every word spoken by the parties is set down. Right now, the result of this process is a set of computer files. Back in 1990, the result would have been dozens of heavy volumes of testimony and evidence, recorded in a special double-spaced format, bound in black cardboard. The court reporter is responsible for producing these “transcripts” using special software. The reporter is obliged to produce a copy for lawyers to use during appeals for a set price.

Since American criminal trials are public, court transcripts are not confidential. Anyone can call up the court reporter and request that he or she provide them with a copy, usually for a substantial fee. Famous cases like Söring’s are a bonanza for court reporters: They may receive lucrative requests for extra transcripts from television channels, reporters, libraries, professors, and even case fans willing to pay the cost. I had pieced together scanned portions of the transcript from a few sources, but was able to create a nearly complete version with Eva’s help. The complete transcript of both trials is over 4,000 pages long. Reading the full transcript gave me a better sense of how all the evidence fit together.

Beck described an atmosphere which was almost cult-like: The inner circle of supporters was attuned to Söring’s every mood and traded strategies on how to appease his anger or defuse his more reckless impulses. Anyone who expressed doubt about his narrative was kicked out. In 2011, on a message board for heavy metal fans called “Black Hamburg”, a women named Jenny recounted her experience with Söring. She had been convinced of his innocence by German media coverage, and began following his online presence. Jenny spotted what she felt were inconsistencies and open questions and posted a comment both on the website and on Söring’s Facebook page. She did not know, Jenny writes, that “any criticism, critical questions or anything that is not 100% pro-Jens will immediately be attacked, questioned.”

Her questions and comments were removed, and Söring wrote her that he had informed his lawyers of her actions and that her online activities would henceforth be “monitored” by the “Friends of Jens”. Jenny concluded she had been misled by Söring and German press coverage. She was particularly disappointed by Söring’s refusal to answer her good-faith questions:

Jens did not answer the questions and doubts I raised, the inconsistencies I addressed, and no one else did either (i.e. no one from his “inner” circle of friends—people who are or should be fully informed about pretty much everything). In other words:

If Jens has/had/has nothing to hide, conceal, cover up—why can’t he just not answer the questions (about his “case”, about the course of events, about his own blog entry—his descriptions of the murder weapon e.g. etc.)?

Jenny’s experience stands in for others who questioned Söring’s claims, including Eva Beck. Questioning Söring’s claims was seen as disloyalty. Söring and his supporters justified this approach by pointing to Söring’s dire position: He faced serving the rest of his life in an American prison. In his view, his only hope of release was to convince outsiders his trial had been unfair, and the way to achieve that was message discipline. Any public doubt about Söring’s claims would play into the hands of the Virginia authorities and potentially result in additional years behind bars.

Söring’s paranoid leadership style alienated some supporters. Many contacted me, knowing they could write me in either German or English. Further, as a lawyer, I was familiar with the principle of confidentiality, and could promise people that I would not reveal their identities. Most, like Eva Beck, requested anonymity. Many had seen Söring’s vindictive side, and feared that Söring might take legal action against them or try to harm their reputations. Promised anonymity, these individuals provided documents and personal accounts which shed light on how Söring tried to shape public opinion about his case. These accounts have granted me insight into how Team Söring operated behind the scenes, and I am deeply grateful for them.