I’ll transcribe it:
Narrator: Even though he’s now a free man, living in Germany and starting a new life, Jens remains committed to proving his innocence, and hopes that some day, the identity of the two men will be revealed.
JS: We don’t know yet who they are. Maybe one day we’ll discover it, I hope so. I’m not sure whether we’re going to find out, I’d really like to.
Narrator: He also believes the State of Virginia missed an opportunity to get to the truth by releasing both him and Elizabeth on parole at the same time, and by not exonerating him.
JS: I wish they would have given me a pardon, and kept Elizabeth, and put pressure on her to tell her: ‘You know, we’ll let you go to Canada, we’ll let your boyfriend go, we’ll let you go back to Canada if you give up the names, right?’. I wish they’d done that. I really wish they’d done that. But they decided to go another way with this case, and I can understand why they did that. I just, I just think that was the big chance — if they had given me even a conditional pardon, and then used that to pressure her to give up the names in exchange for parole for her. And they decided not to. Yeah, that’s my feeling.
There are any number of reasons to find the Söring case fascinating, but maybe the most intriguing aspect is Söring’s level of self-delusion, and his ability to convince reasonable people to join him in his fantasy world.
Let’s remember the facts: Jens Söring killed the Haysoms single-handedly and alone. He confessed to this crime repeatedly, and provided details only the killer could have known, and which he could not have learned from any other source. There is no evidence of anyone else in the Haysom home at the time of the killings. Not Elizabeth, not “Jim Farmer”, not “Ned B.”, not the two drifters, nobody. This case is closed.
Yet Söring has, over the decades, sculpted an alternate reality in which Elizabeth either committed the crimes herself (his story from June 18, 1990 to February 28, 2020), or maybe actually didn’t commit the crimes herself, but might know who did (his story now). By repeating these stories, over and over, with apparent sincerity and conviction, he has managed to convince dozens of people to ignore, downplay, or discount the overwhelming evidence that he killed the Haysoms.
And now he suggests the state of Virginia should have released him from prison, but kept Elizabeth Haysom behind bars to “pressure” her to “give up the names” — of people he knows never existed.
I hope I’m not the only one who is creeped out by this sinister suggestion. But it’s also remarkable that Söring has, over the years, managed to convince so many people to participate in his elaborate delusion. Söring is mild-mannered, well-spoken, thoughtful, educated, and obviously intelligent, which makes people want to believe him. But to allow a favorable first impression to outweigh masses of evidence is deeply irrational. And enabling and encouraging Söring to dig himself ever deeper into his hole of fantasy results in bizarre ideas like holding Elizabeth Haysom behind bars until she “gives up” people for the crime Söring himself committed.
I’d say it’s time for someone on Team Söring to have a ‘come to Jesus‘ meeting with him. This thinking is not healthy.