Chapter 5: A Baffling Crime - Martyr or Murderer: Jens Soering, the Media, and the Truth

There was no sighting or sign of life from the Haysoms after March 30, 1985. Elizabeth Haysom was supposed to call her parents on Sunday, 31 March, to discuss her housing plans for next semester. She placed the call. On Monday, she called close friends of the Haysom family, the Massies. The Massies lived in the neighborhood and were frequent bridge partners. They were close enough friends that Annie Massie had keys to the Haysom home, Loose Chippings. Elizabeth testified in 1990 that she found the suspense of waiting for the bodies to be discovered, and wanted the wait to be over. Elizabeth called Annie Massie on Monday, 1 April 1985 and complained that she was unable to reach her parents.

The bodies were eventually found on Wednesday, 3 April 1985, by Annie Massie. Three female friends of the Haysoms had arrived that day for a 1:30 bridge date, but found the house locked, and both cars there. Emily Gunn, one of the women, testified in 1990 that the friends found this very strange, since the Haysoms were very reliable and both of their cars were at home. They called Annie Massie, who they knew had keys to the house. Around 3:00 p.m. Annie entered the house while the friends waited. She came straight back out and, according to Gunn, said “don’t go in, he’s been butchered”.

The investigation into the murders of Derek and Nancy Haysom was the responsibility of the Bedford County Sheriff’s Department. Sheriffs, detectives, and crime-scene technicians quickly descended on Loose Chippings. Here is a diagram of the ground floor of the home used at Söring’s 1990 trial. The position of the bodies of Nancy and Derek Haysom are indicated by additional yellow circles. The front door is indicated by an arrow.

The bold red markings indicate where crime-scene samples were taken; they are marked with abbreviations from where they were found in the home (i.e., “FE” = Front Entrance; “LR” = Living Room, “K” = Kitchen).

Derek Haysom’s body is the one on the right, on the threshold between the dining room and the living room. The body on the left is that of Nancy Haysom. Here are photographs of how the bodies were found:

No bodies were found in the dining room, but it was clearly where the main violence had taken place, judging by the amount of blood present:

These crime-scene photos are disturbing, but important for a number of reasons, so we will have occasion to return to them. First, they show how bloody and violent the struggle must have been. They also show clear signs of the killer attempting to obscure clues of his presence at the crime scene: Söring stated that he had taken various towels and “smeared around” the blood to obscure his own shoe and sock prints. Söring had been cut and had bled a great deal at the crime scene, it is logical to assume many of the blood samples taken at the crime scene might have been mixed samples containing two or more persons’ blood.

Autopsies were performed on the bodies of Derek and Nancy Haysom by David W. Oxley, M.D., Deputy Chief Medical Examiner of the Western District of Virginia. The autopsy of Derek Haysom noted the following:

There is a massive slash wound of the neck which has completely severed the carotid arteries bilaterally, has severed the larynx above the thyroid prominence and has severed both external jugular veins. There are slash wounds on the right lateral cheek, left upper cheek, and mandibular area and there are incised wounds present on the chin. The large slash wound extends approximately 3/4ths of the way around the neck and shows large areas of slashing, hesitation marks, and ragged areas over the skin of the inferior portion.

The hesitation marks are self-explanatory. The “ragged areas” suggest that the victim was moving when the knife wound was inflicted. Derek Haysom had 11 stab wounds to the front of the chest, including one which pierced his heart, and about 12 wounds on his back. He also had numerous defensive wounds. His blood alcohol content was .22%, which is enough to blunt pain and cause confusion, although both Haysoms were probably accustomed to drinking a great deal.

Nancy Haysom’s autopsy report states:

There is a massive slash wound of the throat beginning on the lower left aspect of the neck just above the clavicle and passing upward and toward the right. The upper margin is clean; the lower margin shows hesitation cuts and is somewhat ragged, the wound has severed the trachea, the carotid arteries and the jugular veins bilaterally.

Nancy Haysom was also stabbed in the heart. Like her husband, she had a blood alcohol content of .22%. The autopsy reports confirm Söring’s account in several respects. First, Söring said it was obvious the Haysoms had been drinking heavily. Second, the wounds are consistent with Söring’s description of approaching the victims from behind and drawing the knife across their necks. Defensive wounds on both the victims, but especially Derek Haysom, confirm Söring’s account of a drawn-out struggle. Finally, the repeated stab wounds to the neck and chest—including the stab wounds to the heart—are consistent with a novice killer trying to make sure his victims were dead.

Detectives initially had little crime scene evidence to work with. No bloody fingerprints or palmprints were found at the crime scene. There were no fingerprints from Söring’s fingerprints. His efforts to wipe down all surfaces and remove all objects he had touched had been successful. Bedford County authorities did not reveal that fact. As to motive, the Haysoms had no known enemies and were not involved in underworld activities. There was no evidence of sexual assault or burglary; in fact, the assailants left alcohol, electronic equipment, jewelry, prescription drugs, and other valuables undisturbed. Further, they had not stolen either of the Haysoms’ cars. There was no note or message.

Detectives initially theorized that the crime may have been committed either as a random (or semi-random) “thrill kill” assault by one or more strangers, something similar to the Manson “Family” murders. The “thrill kill” theory—which usually assumes the perpetrators were under the influence of drugs—was extremely unlikely. Not only are such crimes incredibly rare, the killing of the Haysoms gave no signs of drug-fueled excess: the assailants did not sexually assault the victims, destroy any property, leave any political or personal messages, and or steal any valuables. Detectives looked into a groundskeeper employed by the Haysoms who had a criminal record, but quickly excluded him.

Detectives did obtain two important clues which would play a role in the case for decades. First of all, they noticed a bloody impression from a socked foot in the living room, which they labeled “LR 3”:

This piece of evidence fit with Söring’s later confessions, as he told detectives he had removed his shoes when walking around the house cleaning up after himself. The other clue was in the blood. In 1985, forensic DNA testing did not yet exist. The only form of testing was serological testing. The “Certificate of Analysis” from the Virginia Department of Forensic Sciences is dated 12 August 1985. The lab analyst found four blood types at the crime scene, including many instances of type AB (Nancy Haysom’s blood type) and A (Derek Haysom), one small drop of instance of type B blood (Elizabeth Haysom’s blood type) on a washcloth, and several samples of type O blood. The type O traces were found in the ground floor bathroom and on the door frame to the front entrance of the house. Given this evidence that the assailant had washed some blood off of himself in the bathroom and had touched the front door and frame (which bore several bloodstains), the authorities could be almost certain that the assailant had been wounded and had bled at the crime scene.

The lead detective on the case was Investigator Ricky Gardner of the Bedford County Sheriff’s office. He was assisted by Chuck Reid. Together, they interviewed about 100 witnesses, including Elizabeth Haysom and other members of the Haysom family, but those interviews yielded no decisive clues. The first interview with Elizabeth Haysom occurred on 8 April 1985, just a week after the murders. Gardner interviewed Haysom in the company of Investigator Debbie Kirkland from the Lynchburg City Police Department. Detectives mainly asked Elizabeth questions about her background and her family. Gardner would later testify at Elizabeth’s 1987 trial that Elizabeth did not appear very concerned about her parents’ deaths during this interview, and laughed on occasion.

After receiving records concerning the rental car Jens and Elizabeth had used during the murder weekend, Gardner noted that the car had been driven 669 miles, far longer than would be necessary to drive from Charlottesville to Washington, D.C. and back. In fact, Gardner realized after a few quick calculations, 669 miles was a close match to what would be expected from adding the round-trip from Washington, D.C. to Charlottesville to a further round-trip from Washington, D.C. to Lynchburg. Gardner visited Charlottesville with another investigator from Bedford County for a follow-up interview with Elizabth on 16 April, 1985.

Confronted with the excess mileage, Elizabeth claimed vaguely she and Jens had gotten lost on the way to Washington, D.C. During this interview, Elizabeth also suggested Mary Fontaine Harris, the ex-fiancée of her half-brother Julian Haysom, may have been involved in the crime. She also insinuated her mother’s ex-husband may have had a grudge. Elizabeth also told Gardner there was a safe in the house, and her mother kept “5 or 10 thousand” dollars in the master bedroom. Police found no evidence of either claim. In May 1987, Elizabeth later admitted to Gardner that these suggestions were merely a ploy to “save her skin” by pointing the finger at others and suggesting a robbery motive.

Faced with this perplexing crime, Bedford County called up the FBI and asked about the procedure for creating a “behavioral profile” of the potential killer. The FBI’s “Behavioral Science Unit”, founded in 1972, creates profiles of unidentified criminal suspects. It is now world-famous, having been the subject of books, movies, and television series such as The Silence of the Lambs and Mindhunter. The FBI sent Bedford County questionnaires which had to be filled out for the FBI to evaluate the case. In the 2017 book A Far, Far Better Thing by Söring and Virginia journalist Bill Sizemore, Gardner said: “It would have taken three college professors to fill out the questionnaires that you had to do, and we just didn’t take the time to do that.” No FBI behavioral profile was ever created. However, Bedford County would get some informal help from the FBI. Then-Sheriff Carl Wells called up the FBI, who agreed to send down one of their agents, Ed Sulzbach. The profiling unit was then based in Quantico, Virginia, which was only about 3 hours away from Lynchburg. Sulzbach was not an FBI profiler at that time—he was an agent tasked with gathering information which profilers could later use. Sulzbach inspected the crime scene, asked a few questions, and created some preliminary notes in which he hypothesized that the person behind the crime might have been a female close to the family. Sulzbach never prepared a formal profile.

Mary Fontaine Harris, an ex-fiancé of Elizabeth’s half-brother Julian Haysom, was an early suspect. Elizabeth Haysom had pointed the finger at Harris in her April 1985 interviews. Fontaine was then struggling with mental illness. In fact she had visited the local sheriff’s office about a month before the murders and relinquished knives, claiming that she was beset by “evil spirits” and was afraid she might kill someone. She also confessed to hating Derek and Nancy Haysom because she felt they had sabotaged her relationship with Julian Haysom.

On June 18, 1985, Bedford County District Attorney Jim Updike wrote Harris’ lawyer Thomas L. Phillips and proposed a deal: If Harris would submit foot impressions and a blood sample, Updike would pause his investigation of Harris to check them against the evidence. If Harris refused, Updike would use the incriminating facts at his disposal to seek a search warrant. Harris cooperated, giving police impressions of her foot and a blood sample. The fact that her foot was much smaller than the bloody sock-print LR3, along with other information, led police to exclude her as a suspect. Julian Haysom also gave footprints, and was likewise later excluded.

Throughout the summer of 1985, Bedford County became increasingly desperate, even hiring two psychics at one point. As Ricky Gardner would later concede, Bedford County made a mistake in not pursuing Elizabeth and Jens as suspects throughout summer 1985. Yet we should be careful to avoid the distorting effects of hindsight. The Bedford County Sheriff’s office had no possible way of knowing the bizarre psychological dynamics between Elizabeth, Jens, and the Haysoms. None of the Haysoms’ family or friends knew much of anything about Jens Söring. Elizabeth told detectives her relationship with her parents had been good, which was partially true, since she had spent a harmonious weekend with them just before their murders.

Detectives knew nothing about Jens Söring except that he was a promising college student with no criminal record, and that his father was a respected German diplomat. There was no reason to consider either Jens or Elizabeth as likely suspects. As a result, efforts to investigate their alibi were perfunctory. Law enforcement did not visit the Washington Marriott until mid-1986, long after most of the documentation of the pair’s stay had been destroyed. Luminol tests conducted on the rental car came far too late. Luminol is a chemical which reacts with certain compounds found in human blood (also bleach, paint, and fruit juices) to produce a temporary blue glow which can be photographed. Luminol is highly sensitive, but does not prove a stain was caused by blood. Luminol tests on the Chevette which Jens and Elizabeth rented were negative. However, timing is key here: On June 12, 1990, Investigator Geoff Brown testified at Söring’s trial that he received swabs and other evidence from a luminol test which had been conducted by Chuck Reid on the rental car on 25 June 1985, 87 days after the murders. The car was already “spotless” when it was returned, and was doubtless rented out and professionally cleaned any number of times over a three-month period. The negative luminol results were meaningless.

Bedford County had nothing to go on against Jens and Elizabeth. Except, as Ricky Gardner would later recount, for that one nagging anomaly about the rental car Jens and Elizabeth had rented. They’d driven hundreds of miles farther than a simple trip from Charlottesville to Washington would require. Perhaps, Gardner thought, it’s time to nail that shut. The detectives waited until the end of summer vacation, then requested footprints and blood samples from Elizabeth. She visited the UVA police department to give the samples 26 September 26 1985. Detectives had been trying to reach Jens, whom they had not yet spoken to. He was also in the rental car; perhaps he could give a more convincing explanation for the excess miles than Elizabeth had. Police asked him to come in for an interview and give footprints, fingerprints, and blood samples. Söring finally agreed to an interview, which was held on 6 October 1985. We will return to this interview later, but first let’s look at how Jens Söring and Elizabeth Haysom spent their summer.