Chapter 9: The London Confessions Part I - Martyr or Murderer: Jens Soering, the Media, and the Truth

After piecing together some basic facts from the pair’s diary and correspondence, Wright suggested confronting them directly about whatever crime had generated their joint obsession with fingerprints. Beever demurred; if confronted with such a grave accusation, they might stop talking altogether. Wright decided to proceed indirectly. He was responsible for escorting Jens and Elizabeth to Haysom to weekly court hearings. As he recalled in Episode 2 of the 2023 podcast The Söring System, he typically gave the couple some time to “kiss and cuddle” before court. During one of these sessions, Wright abruptly asked them: “Who are Reid and Gardner?” Both seemed startled by the question; they had assumed the London police knew nothing about the Haysom murders.

Söring stepped in with a lie, telling Wright that Reid and Gardner were private detectives who had been hired to try to find Elizabeth after she had run away from her boarding school in 1983. Wright did not believe him. Wright’s question spurred Söring to write a note to Elizabeth, which he asked a guard to pass to her. The guard instead gave it to Wright. It began “Sweetie Pie,” and continued for a while with declarations of love. Then Söring got to the heart of the matter, telling Elizabeth: “Erase all written evidence of Bedford…cross it out. Don’t worry about cop’s remarks—he will stop at the latest in 2 weeks with his search, and even if he’s successful, no one will be interested or we’d be in certain computers.” Wright now suspected Jens and Elizabeth were involved in some sort of serious offense; he suspected murder. Armed with these references, Wright began a painstaking search of American law enforcement agencies, looking for places named “Bedford” and officers named “Reid” and “Gardner”. Eventually, after much effort, he found them.

On Friday, 30 May 1986, Investigator Ricky Gardner was patched through to a caller who had a “funny accent”, as Ken Englade reported. Gardner thought it might be Chuck Reid (who had since left the Sheriff’s office) playing a joke. Englade recreates the scene:

“Are you the Mr. Gardner who’s looking for a Jens Soering and an Elizabeth Haysom?” the voice persisted.

“Who is this?” Gardner asked sharply. “Is that you, Chuck?”

“This is Detective Constable Wright in England,” Wright said patiently, “and I have two questions for you.”

“Okay,” Gardner mumbled. “I’ll humor you. Shoot.”

“Are Elizabeth Haysom’s parents dead?”

Gardner rolled his eyes. “They sure are.”

“Were they murdered?”

Gardner pulled the receiver from his ear and stared at it. Listen to this guy, he said to himself. He’s really wound up today. “How long does this game go on?”

“This isn’t a game,” the voice announced. “I’m a detective in England, and I think we have your murderers incarcerated.”…

“What makes you think there were murdered?” Gardner asked carefully.

“Because of the letters,” Wright answered.

Gardner was dumbfounded. “Letters?” he stammered. “What letters?”

“Their letters to each other,” Wright said. “The ones we found in their flat.”

Bedford County lost no time. Ricky Gardner and Jim Updike booked flights to London immediately, which took more time than they anticipated, since neither had a passport. Chuck Reid did not accompany them. Just weeks before, Reid had left the Sheriff’s office to go to work for a trucking firm. Along with their British colleagues, Reid and Gardner formed a plan: At the next remand hearing, on Thursday, 5 June 1986, the Crown would request a further 72-hour remand of the prisoners, which would effectively be stretched to 96 hours, as the clock didn’t run on Sunday.

The investigators had hoped to keep their preparations secret, but the London tabloid press soon found out that a detective and a prosecutor from the United States had landed in their country to interrogate two fugitives in a grisly “voodoo killing”. Jens and Elizabeth’s lawyer, London solicitor Keith Barker, met the couple in the morning at Richmond Magistrate Court, where they would be placed on remand for questioning in the Haysom murder case. Barker handed Jens a copy of the Daily Mail with the article about their case:

The article bristled with errors. Jens Söring was said to be 26. It went on: “Blood was smeared in a triangle on the floor, furniture was turned to face north, a triple figure of 666 was carved in the floor and the killers were said to have danced barefoot in blood—all apparently the actions of occult followers.” The article went on, semi-literately:

Miss Hayson and Mr Soering, students at the University of Virginia, left on a ‘European holiday’ and failed to return [sic] the next term. Last month, police in Britan arrested them n [sic] a shop in connection with an alleged offence relating to credit card irregularities [sic]. Papers referring to various cults were found in Mr Soering’s rooms.

The article; little more than a stub, ended on the first page. Since it was just a few hundred words, Söring probably read it all. He knew much of it was wrong: He wasn’t 26 and didn’t have “cult” papers in his luggage. But the descriptions of the “voodoo” signals were detailed. In an article published on 15 June 1986 by the Chicago Tribune (“A Mansonesque Killing Brings Shudders to Genteel Virginia”), both Jim Updike and Bedford County Sheriff Carl Wells denied finding any signs of voodoo at the crime scene. Söring, however, could not know this. A British jail was hardly likely to offer inmates access to the Chicago Tribune. Jim Updike was in London at the time, but Söring only saw him in court. Updike did not take part in any of Söring’s questioning, preferring to advise the detectives during breaks.

Someone at Richmond police station had leaked the information to the Daily Mail, but we don’t know why. Very likely some officer wanted to curry favor with an influential newspaper. Another possibility is that the police intentionally leaked incorrect information in the hopes that Jens or Elizabeth would feel a need to correct it. If that was the goal, it worked. Söring, who could not have known that American officials had already disavowed the occult angle, was deeply troubled by the “voodoo” allegations. He believed that signs of occult or voodoo involvement in the deaths of the Haysoms would make the charges against him much more serious.

He likely also realized that hints of “voodoo” implied an intentional, planned crime, which would sabotage his planned defense that the killings had happened spontaneously after Söring was provoked. As Terry Wright notes in his 2019 report, Söring returned to the subject of “voodoo” constantly during his questioning in London, insisting (correctly) that there was no occult motive for the crime and no occult symbols at the crime scene. In his anguish and confusion, Söring even suggested that someone else—possibly even Elizabeth—might have entered the Haysom home after him and left fake occult clues for some reason.

The Dail Mail story Söring read in the court thus sowed fear, uncertainty, and doubt in his mind. After about an hour of argument, a panel of magistrate judges held that Jens and Elizabeth could be remanded for 72 hours for questioning in the deaths of Derek and Nancy Haysom. This was another sinister development. During their time in prison, the two exchanged letters with each other. Jens and Elizabeth wrote one another love letters, some steamy, which also contained half-hearted musings about how they might deal with the fraud charges they faced. Jens said he was hopeful his diplomatic connections might help him. Elizabeth was afraid she might be deported to the country where she held citizenship, Canada. In these letters, neither betrayed any suspicion that they might be called to account for the Haysom murders.

Yet there were troubling signs. Wright had questioned Jens about the “coffee mug” entry and he had responded, according to Wright’s report, that he and Elizabeth “were writing a crime novel and the diary entries were ideas for the book.” Wright found this explanation implausible, and his decision to research the issue further had led him to the crucial connection to Virginia. Jens was unaware of this, and apparently did not think detectives would seize the heavy suitcase full of letters and other documents, much less read the contents. Now he knew detectives had somehow made the connection to the Haysom murders. Their situation had become much more perilous overnight. Fortunately, they already had a solicitor for the fraud charge, Keith Barker. In a 1995 affidavit, Barker recalled giving both Jens and Elizabeth the standard advice for any client in this situation: “After the initial Magistrates’ Court hearing I recollect that I went to the cells where my clients were held before they were taken away and I said to both of them that they were to answer no questions without me being present.”

Elizabeth obeyed Barker’s advice, insisting on Barker’s presence and telling detectives nothing of substance for days. Jens, by contrast, ignored Barker’s advice. At 12:50 p.m. on 5 June 1986, Söring filled out and signed Custody Record 1106, an excerpt of which is reprinted in the Wright Report:

This record confirms that Söring was provided with written notice of his rights and expressly declined the offer of a solicitor before questioning. In Beyond Reason, Ken Englade describes the first few minutes of the interview with Söring:

At the beginning Jens was Jens: arrogant, argumentative, and egotistical.

As soon as he walked into the interview room and sat down, he looked defiantly at Beever and asked him to turn off the tape recorder. He let them know immediately that he was more concerned with getting information than giving it.

“What’s going to happen to me?” he asked.

“Are you worried about it?” Beever responded with a chill in his voice.

“Yes,” said Jens.

“Why?”

“Because I murdered two people,” he said matter-of-factly. “You know that, don’t you?” That said, he appeared to relax, to view the interview from then on as a game or an intellectual exercise. Pushing his glasses up on his nose, he seemed to say, Okay, let’s see you top that.

During this initial interview, Keith Barker called Richmond Police Station at about 4:30 p.m. and asked to be allowed to speak to Söring. Kenneth Beever took this call and informed Barker that Söring had waived his right to speak to a solicitor and was now talking to detectives, so Barker would not be put through to this client.

A custody officer recorded this call with the following custody log entry: “5.28pm—Returned to Charge Room, no untoward incidents took place whilst at interview spoke to Keith Barker at 4.30 pm Solicitor.” Since most of the custody log entries are about Söring’s actions and statements, some, including Terry Wright, interpreted this entry to indicate that Söring spoke to his lawyer. The custody officer simply forgot to put Beever’s name into the entry as the person who actually spoke to Barker. This is the only error of any significance in Wright’s exhaustive report.

In any event, it is of no legal significance. Just three months before Söring’s questioning, the U.S. Supreme Court had held, in the landmark decision Moran v. Burbine, that police do not have to allow a suspect’s lawyer to contact the suspect during police questioning, provided that the suspect had received all relevant warnings and cautions and had voluntarily chosen to speak to police without a lawyer present. Since that was the case here, the detectives were not required to interrupt their questioning.

Söring initially refused to allow the questioning to be recorded. However, he ultimately relented. His first taped interview began on 5 June 1986, at 8:05 p.m., in the presence of DS Beever and DC Wright. It was transcribed and became part of the trial record in Söring’s case, and both the audio and the transcript are available online. The detectives first confirm that Söring has received, signed, and understood an American Miranda warning, named for the 1966 American court case of Miranda v. Arizona. The warning reads as follows:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time.

After indicating he understood this warning, the detectives invited Söring to start talking about anything. Söring began: “Okay, what would you like for me to discuss on the tape? Are you talking about the feelings of remorse that we were discussing earlier or would you like to discuss specific pointed questions as to what happened or….”? This reference appears to be the only point in the entire record of the case—including all of Söring’s books, letters, blog entries, social media posts, and interviews—in which Söring expressed remorse for killing the Haysoms.

The detectives invited Söring to discuss the weekend of 29-31 March 1985. Söring confirms that he and Elizabeth drove a rented car to Washington, D.C. Söring then left Washington on Saturday, the 30th of March, to drive alone to the “residence of Derek and Nancy Haysom”. Gardner then asks Söring “Did Elizabeth know where you were going?” Söring responds: “Oh yes, she knew where I was going, right.” When asked whether Elizabeth knew what Söring’s plans were, there is a “long pause”, then Söring says “we had discussed it, obviously”, but adds that “I don’t think that either she or I were truly clear about what was going to happen”.

Söring then tells detectives he arrived at Loose Chippings, where he was invited inside and offered a drink. The Haysoms both appeared to have already been drinking, and Söring knew they were heavy drinkers. He watched as they finished their meals, ending with ice cream. Söring interrupts the narrative to emphasize to detectives that Elizabeth was not there with him; she had remained back in Washington, D.C. to create an alibi by buying movie tickets. Söring then states “I want to chat a bit about Elizabeth’s involvement”. Beever suggests the following:

[S]he knew that evening by visiting two cinemas and purchasing two tickets in each cinema that (a) she was preparing an alibi for you for something that you were going to do and (b) she must have been aware that you were visiting Loose Chippings and you intended to do something untowards [i.e. nefarious] there.

Söring agrees, with the proviso that he was not clear in his own mind exactly what he thought would happen. Beever continues:

Beever: What was she preparing an alibi for?

Soering: Ah...I think it will be fair to say that urn as you have pointed out in the letters ah the issue of ah um murder had obviously come up...

Beever: Between you ....

Soering: Between us, all right. Um, I think the way I was viewing the situation was that I wanted to see what um the parents attitude really was because after all I had really only met them once for a very short lunch and um I obviously went there with certain preconceptions expecting certain things, all right, certain attitudes of theirs but um God knows I was .... I was not, not at all set..........

Soering: Set to ah....kill them.

Beever: At that time?

Soering: Yes.

This exchange, which appears on pages 15 and 16 of the transcript, is important. Here, Söring implicates Elizabeth Haysom as an accessory before the fact to capital murder, a crime which carries a sentence ranging from 20 years to life in prison.

Under Virginia law going back to the 1875 case of Wren v. Commonwealth, an accessory is someone who provides “comfort, aid, help, or assistance” to another person in the knowledge that this other person intends to commit a crime (accessory before the fact) or has already completed a crime (accessory after the fact). Accessories before the fact are punished much more severely because, by definition, they could have prevented the crime or warned the authorities. The accessory before the fact need not know exactly what the principal offender plans to do, as long as a reasonable person would know there was a significant chance a serious crime would occur.

Here, the fact that Söring admits the pair had discussed “murder” before Söring drove off to Loose Chippings implicates Elizabeth. In fact, Elizabeth would later plead guilty to two counts of precisely this crime. Since June 1990, Söring has claimed that he was attempting to protect Elizabeth during these interrogation sessions in London. In fact, on the very first day of questioning, he provided the police with enough evidence to imprison her for life. Beever then urges Söring to continue his narrative, asking Söring whether he brought a weapon with him to Loose Chippings. Söring’s response is revealing:

Umm. Yeah, I...there’s a reason why I hesitate... to answer that question and it is because somewhere in the back of my head there sticks um ah the thing of something about if you carry a weapon that implies an intent to use it and ah of course we’re talking about two different things here, intent and whether I was in fact carrying a weapon, ah and ...

During his 1986 confessions, Söring pursued a two-track strategy. First, he would gain the detectives’ trust by confessing to the murders of the Haysoms. However, he would simultaneously set the stage for mitigating arguments to reduce the penalty. One of these was that Söring did not have a definite plan to murder the Haysoms. This is why he always refuses to answer questions about whether he brought a knife to the confrontation. As we will see, he also set up intoxication and emotional distress as potential mitigating factors. Söring initially refuses to describe the argument between himself and the Haysoms in any detail, simply confirming that there he felt “anger and resentment” toward them even before he left Washington, D.C.

After digressions from Söring, detectives bring him back to the evening of 30 March. Ricky Gardner gets straight to the point: “So at one point and I’m gonna be, I’m gonna ask you, at some point did you stab Derek Haysom….with a knife, did you cut him with a knife? (long pause) Yes or no?” Söring responds: “I really, I really don’t want to answer that.” Terry Wright proposes they skip ahead to the conditions in the house when Söring left it. Söring again evades the question, so Wright asks Söring what happened to the clothes he was wearing. Söring admits he threw them away. When asked what clothes the Haysoms were wearing, Söring gives the following answer:

Wright: Jens, can you remember what they themselves were wearing, Nancy and Derek?

Soering: What they were wearing? (Long pause) That’s, that’s, that’s a very hard question umm. Let me try to think. Um…I think, I think, Mrs. Haysom was wearing jeans, I think. Um...but I, I, like I said, um...I mean it’s, I would say that part of it is very, very confused.

Wright: It’s vague.

Soering: Yes..........

Beever: Did you....

Soering : Very confused.

As shown above in Figure 4, Nancy Haysom was wearing a housecoat with flower appliqués, not jeans. However, the housecoat was made of dark-blue fabric resembling the typical color of blue jeans. Söring would later claim this incorrect answer proved his confessions were false. The detectives return to the theme of Söring’s own clothing, which he says he disposed of in trash bins on the way back from Loose Chippings to Washington.

In another important exchange, Beever teases out the implications of this statement:

Beever: That would mean you arrived back in D.C. with no trousers on, wouldn’t it?

Soering: Um, yeah there should be a well, I don’t know if you have it, I mean a video tape In the, of the elevator in the Marriott that evening, which perhaps does show me without my trousers on, because in fact that’s what happened.

Beever: When you got back to the Marriott Hotel?

Soering: Yeah.

Gardner: So, you drove all the way up from Lynchburg to Washington, from Loose Chippings to Washington with no britches on...no trousers?

Soering: Umm.

The interview then trails off. Detectives resumed questioning at 11:40 a.m. on 6 June 1986, after once again giving Söring Miranda warnings. Söring says that he had avoided certain questions the previous day because “a) I find it difficult to talk about them. and b) they are questions which I think I should answer only in the presence of an attorney”.

Gardner acknowledged this comment and let Söring go on to other subjects, including his relationship with Elizabeth and her relationship with her parents. Gardner then makes sure Söring understands his rights:

Soering: I don’t see that any need for an attorney for right now, okay today. We’ll have to see how this interview goes and what happens during this interview. I can’t tell right now.

Gardner: Okay. I want you to remember that on the questions I asked you it says you have the right to stop answering questions any time during the questioning.

Soering: Okay—I’m aware of that right now. I’ll make that decision, right!

Gardner: You know that so, just as yesterday, if we ask you a question and you’d prefer not to answer that question, just say “I’m not going to answer that question.”

Soering: All right. All right.

Söring is then asked twice whether Elizabeth was using drugs in March 1985 and on the weekend of the murders. Both times, Söring says no. Soering also admits that during the interview on October 6, 1985, he was surprised that he had not been arrested.

Soering then makes a key statement: “I did not go to Loose Chippings, kill Mr. and Mrs. Haysom and do voodoo or some other kind of ritual on their bodies.” This is just one of many veiled references to possible post-mortem disfigurement of the Haysoms’ bodies. In his report, Terry Wright lays out the background. Söring was obsessed with the distinction between killing the Haysoms and inflicting extra wounds on their bodies beyond what was necessary to kill them. Söring seemed convinced that the extra wounds, which he sometimes called “the atrocities”, were either a serious crime on their own or a major aggravating factor in the murders. This is incorrect. The fact that a person inflicts more wounds than necessary to kill the victims, by itself is not an aggravating factor to murder, unless the additional wounding was done for a specific criminal purpose, such as obscuring the victims’ identity or intentionally abusing a corpse.

Nevertheless, Söring had chosen not to consult a lawyer, and continued in his mistaken belief that the “atrocities” were crucial. Söring made the odd argument that, although he had killed the Haysoms, someone else was responsible for the “atrocities” committed on the bodies. He even had a suspect in mind: Annie Massie. Söring would not describe this theory on tape. However, when the tape was off, Söring told Terry Wright that he believed Annie Massie, or someone else from the neighborhood, had waited while he killed the Haysoms, then entered the home and performed a sort of “ritual” on their dead bodies. Söring’s accusation is mystifying: Annie Massie was a thoroughly respectable member of Lynchburg upper-middle-class society with no links to occult practices, much less corpse mutilation.

Gardner then asks whether Söring would be willing to submit a blood sample. Söring replies: “That falls in the same category as the questions which I will not answer... I will do that with lawyers, with solicitors and lawyers advice, but certainly not at this time.” At 12:39 p.m., the West German embassy returned one of Söring’s earlier telephone calls. The call was patched through to the interview room and Söring spoke in German to the embassy with the tape recorder off. None of the officers present understood what he said. He offered to tell the officers what the man from the embassy had told him, but they declined. As the detectives tried to redirect Söring back to talking about the murders of the Haysoms, he became more guarded and even suspicious.

Beever asked Söring what he thought Elizabeth might be saying during her separate interview. Söring said: “What I would like Elizabeth to do is to tell the truth as I have done, but also to stop at the points that I have stopped.” Beever followed up: “Because that’s the point you very, very carefully stopped at last night[:] two, three, five minutes before the deaths of Mr. and Mrs. Haysom. That’s when you stopped. How can Elizabeth stop there if she wasn’t there?” The following exchange brings us to the end of the June 6 interview:

Soering: Well. Elizabeth was in Washington at the time.

Beever: Yes.

Soering: But since she had knowledge of what I was doing, all right? And since she saw me on my return, all right?

Beever: Yes.

Soering: There are certain things she saw which I would hope she would not tell you at this point but wait until we have a solicitor.

Beever: What, your condition when you got back to the hotel Marriott?

Soering: I think that’s again a question that I shouldn’t be answering.

Beever: I think that I should go downstairs and we’ll get that attorney.

Soering: All right.

Gardner: Very good. Thank you. End of interview with Jens Soaring [sic] on June 6, 1986, at 1:21 p.m. (End of tape)

The detectives chose to interpret Söring’s refusal to answer certain questions as being tantamount to a request for a lawyer, and agreed to postpone further questioning until Söring had consulted with legal counsel.

As of this point, detectives had not even questioned Elizabeth Haysom, who had requested a lawyer at the very outset. While she remained silent, Söring told detectives had visited the Haysoms on 30 March 1985, that he and Elizabeth had discussed “murder”, and that the Haysoms were no longer alive when he left the house. On 5 June, Söring had even given detectives a sketch of where the bodies lay. Söring had also admitted getting rid of his clothes after the visit to the Haysoms and arriving at the Marriott hotel with no pants on. This was all highly incriminating—for both Jens and Elizabeth—but did not amount to a full confession. On the afternoon of 6 June, detectives turned to questioning Elizabeth, but she refused to say anything compromising. Gardner, Beever, and Wright were not hopeful they could get more out of Jens, given his open hostility at the end of the 6 June session. However, they were not yet done with Jens—or rather, Jens was not done with them.

The next day, 7 June, Söring asked to speak to Ricky Gardner. Under American constitutional law, Söring’s request to resume speaking to Gardner invalidated his prior request for a lawyer. As always, Gardner began the interview by reminding Söring of his rights. Beever, who was also present, confirmed that he had spoken to Söring earlier during exercise. Söring had asked what might happen to him, and Beever told him it was overwhelmingly likely he would be extradited to Virginia, where he might face the death penalty. Detectives often entice suspects to confess by implying that doing so may lessen their punishment. Beever avoided this questionable tactic and told Söring the unvarnished truth.

Söring was still obsessed by the idea that the murders of the Haysoms and the “atrocities” were “separate offenses”, and asked Gardner if that were true: “I’m talking about the actual murders and then the atrocities that were apparently committed afterwards, all right.” Söring continued to harp on the issue, noting that he had told detectives a theory about the “atrocities” (namely, that Annie Massie had committed them) off the record. Gardner told Söring bluntly that “I … really don’t give a damn what happened after the murders. I could care less, okay? Now I will say that what I’m concerned about is that that, that two people lost their lives. And in my opinion they didn’t deserve to die.”

There follows a crucial exchange in which Söring explains why he thinks the murders and the “atrocities” are very different, and in doing so lays out his defense strategy:

Soering : … I mean to me it seems there would be a big difference if someone all right had a long standing, deep disagreement with another person and during the confrontation with that person where both parties, all parties are to some extent under the influence of alcohol, all right.

Gardner : Okay, I’m listening.

Soering: If that’s the case, okay I’m being hypothetical, all right, ummm if there are emotions such as anger and revenge perhaps, all right, on the side one of the parties, okay.

Gardner: Uh huh!

Soering: And the murder was committed, I think there’s a huge difference between that, and say the same thing happening and then afterwards, I don’t know, phone calls being made and the group being assembled for some sort of ritual, all right.

Gardner : Uh huh.

Soering: Now you know, I mean to me, to me one of them you know is an act that is made impulsively.... But I think there’s just a big difference between doing that [impulsive killing] and then you know, and celebrating an act or whatever.

This exchange highlights another reason Söring was obsessed with the atrocities. Aside from whether they aggravated the murder, they would conclusively prove them murders were premeditated. If the point all along was to “celebrate” the “act” of killing the Haysoms, there could be no doubt the murders were planned in advance.

Söring, by contrast, wanted to portray the killing of the Haysoms not as a planned assassination, but rather as an “impulsive” result of alcohol and high emotion. He believed these factors would play in his favor at any later trial. And they were, in fact, mitigating factors under German and UK law. Further, Söring knows that in denying any voodoo angle to the killings, he is on solid ground, as he knew for certain no such angle existed. Söring goes on to ask Gardner what the difference between murder and manslaughter is, how a guilty plea might affect sentencing, and what conditions are like in Virginia prisons.

Gardner’s answers are guarded. Söring tells the detectives that he gets the distinct impression they think he’s guilty, and that if he has to go to trial, “I’d love to be tried in Germany”. Gardner asks whether Söring thinks the detectives are justified in thinking him guilty, and he says: “I think with the evidence in the letters and so forth I think you are justified in suspecting me, yes.” Later in this interview, Söring would admit the mistake he had made in keeping the letters:

Beever: …Why didn’t you destroy those letters?

Soering: That is a fabulous question and one which I knew I had an answer to.

Beever : Absolutely.

Soering : …In fact I wish I had destroyed them. Why I kept them I do not know.

Gardner also reminds Söring that Söring stated on tape that he was at the Haysoms’ home on the night they died, and that he had even drawn a “little diagram of the house”. Söring then returns to the subject of plea bargaining, which he says he is familiar with because he has watched American police series such as “Cagney & Lacey” and “Kojak”.

There follows an exchange which Söring and his supporters invoke repeatedly:

Beever : Would, would you consider then in that answer, you amaze me by the way, that you’re turning those things over in your mind. Would you consider under those circumstances taking into account your answer pleading guilty to something you didn’t do?

Soering : Would I consider doing that?

Beever : Yes .

Soering: I can’t say that for sure right now, but I can see, I can see it happening yes. I think it is a possibility. I think it happens in real life, okay.

Beever : I disagree with you, but don’t let’s get into any legal arguments now. I’m sorry, I think you answered my question.

Soering : I mean, you know. I couldn’t answer that question right now. I certainly hope that, I hope very much that it’s not going to come to something like that.

Gardner : Uh huh.

Söring and his supporters use this out-of-context snippet to suggest Söring was willing to plead guilty to the murders even though he didn’t do them. Terry Wright, who was present during this interrogation, has a different explanation:

Soering then went on to repeat that he thought there was a big difference between the murders, compared with the murders plus atrocities. He thought that the murders of the Haysoms were not as serious an offence as the murders together with the severe injuries being inflicted on the Haysoms.

“Those circumstances”, as Beever put it, referred to Soering pleading guilty, even though he thought further offences had been committed after he left the crime scene. If charges of murder included the injuries inflicted, then Soering might consider having to plead guilty to them. Even though he didn’t remember doing them.

That was the context in which he said he could see someone considering pleading guilty to something they didn’t do. He thought that any charges brought against him could be split, he could plead guilty to a lesser charge and get a lesser sentence. Soering thought that a murder with less severe injuries would be a lesser charge than a murder with more severe injuries.

The conversation then turns to the note which Jens had passed to Elizabeth, then torn up. Terry Wright had found the remnants of the note and pieced them together.

Among other things, the note instructed Elizabeth to destroy any evidence or documents she might have. Söring told the detectives he had learned this lesson from bitter experience:

As you pointed out to me the paper that I have flying around in my suitcases in the form of letters, etc., is incredibly damning all right. And in the meantime I’ve caught onto that. And I was telling Elizabeth to get rid of any traces that could in any future point be incriminating or damaging to us. Now that’s a matter of me trying to learn from my mistakes and being as careful as possible.

The discussion then takes a confusing turn. Some of the documents police had searched mentioned Mafia rumors he heard in jail and “Rover”, an imagined Irish Republican Army contact whom Elizabeth had earlier invented. These trails proved fruitless, but Scotland Yard did invite the British internal spy service, Special Branch, to investigate whether Elizabeth really had met IRA members on her gallivanting through Europe.

Coming back to the crimes, Söring says he has decided he does not want to talk further about them until he is allowed to confer with an American lawyer, since it appears he will certainly be tried in that country. Again, the questioning ended on a somewhat distrustful note: Söring had decided to say nothing further until he had been able to consult with an American lawyer. Gardner, Beever, and Wright acknowledged this, and let Söring eat lunch. On 3:26 p.m. on 7 June the questioning resumed:

Soering: Well what I was saying was that ummm like I said before was that I’d like to okay I would like to speak with either Officers Gardner or Reid in America in the presence of an American attorney to explain my role more fully than I have at this time, because there are certain questions during these interviews which I have refused to answer which I would would answer under advise [sic] of an American attorney. And an American attorney is not going cannot be provided for me here for obvious reasons….

I was going to say that ahh I would like to speak with you in America at a later date, because then I could have a solicitor there or a lawyer there about what my involvement is all right. And what kind of involvement it was, where it stops and where as I believe and perhaps the three of you believe, okay, ahh somebody else was involved all right.

After more digressions, Beever brings the conversation back to the Haysom murders:

Beever: You are acknowledging then, that you had a specific involvement in the deaths of Mr. & Mrs. Haysom? Is that right when you use those words?

Soering: I think I would like to phrase it as I am...I I was apparently, okay, at the house on Saturday night and that I saw two dead bodies in the house. All right?

Beever: Then...and you’ve indicated in a plan [i.e., sketch] that you have given to Mr… Gardner. And we allowed you to draw the plan [i.e. the sketch of the Loose Chippings and the locations of the bodies] and we allowed you to fold up the piece of paper and we allowed you to put that piece of paper in your left hand trouser pocket at that stage and return to your cell. Is that true?

Soering: Yes.

This is the sketch:

Beever: Is it also true that on the following day … I came back down to your cell in the presence, with a uniform sergeant and recovered that piece of paper from you.

Soering: You recovered a piece of paper from me, yes.

Beever: That piece of paper from you that you drew for Mr. Gardner? Whilest [sic] I’m talking to you perhaps Mr. Gardner or Mr. Wright would produce that piece of paper for identification.

Soering: I have by the way especially your copy is of of all right! I did make a drawing, but the the copy that you have made of it...ummm.

Gardner : Is this the drawing that you made?

Soering: This is a drawing I made.

Gardner : Okay.

Soering: I will point out at this time that I have corrections—minor corrections to make on this drawing. All right!

DC Terry Wright then interjected with a question which made Söring skittish:

Wright: Could I just confirm something, when you keep saying, you keep saying this is a drawing. Is this the drawing that Sgt. Beever is talking about that you folded up and put in your pocket and that he took from you subsequently. Is this the drawing?

Soering: Well I hesitate to answer that question because I get the feeling that that’s of major importance. All right.

Beever: Okay then. Okay let’s take the drawing away please.

Beever and Wright asked Söring what he saw at Loose Chippings on 30 March 1985:

Beever: What I want to say now is … what was the state of the bodies of Mr. & Mrs. Haysom that night you saw them in the living room at Loose Chippings?

Soering: What did they visually look like, is that what you’re asking?

Beever: Yes, please. Their condition?

Soering: Right. Well obviously I know, all right.

Beever : Yes.

Soering: And I, I must say that at this point I’m hesitating to answer that question for the same reasons…if you give me some time to think about it I may be able to make a decision of whether I’ll answer them here…but ahh…

Beever : Okay, okay I understand that.

Wright: Jens, if that’s a difficult question at this very moment shall we just say the bodies are in the house.

Soering : Uh huh.

Wright: Derek and Nancy Haysom. Would I be correct in saying that?

Soering : Uh huh.

Wright: Yea, can we just say, are they, are those people dead at this stage?

Soering: Okay.

Wright: As far as you can tell? I mean obviously you’re not a doctor.

Soering: Right. I’m actually not certain, all right. I’m not certain, but umm I would certainly say that they were severely wounded, all right.

Söring here comes closer than ever to simply admitting that he killed Derek and Nancy Haysom, but still declines to directly admit the crime. Still, he seems aware that given the “incredibly damning” evidence the police have and the admissions he has already made, there is little point in continuing the charade. The next day, he ended it.