In the most recent episode of Small Town, Big Crime, which you should both listen to and donate to, the podcast hosts interviewed Jens Söring in Germany, and he said something extraordinary:
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.
9 thoughts on “Söring: Virginia Should Have Held Elizabeth Haysom Hostage to “Pressure” Her”
Er hat offenbar auch der letzten Sinn für die Realität verloren. Meines Erachtens ist dies krankheitswertig.
Ich musste jetzt echt lachen. Es ist nicht zu fassen. Der Kerl hat wirklich die blühende Phantasie mit Löffeln gefressen. 😂😂
The wrongful interpretation of the DNA analysis, because the JS-Team is not literate in statistics, led to a made up story which can not easily be retracted by the JS-Team. To now wish the Ex-partner to be threatened and pressured upon this made up story tells a lot about JS’ character. Isn’t it contrary to international law? It is quite telling if you compare her story with his’. She is remorseful and lives with her part of guilt. She evolved while he stayed basically the same. He produces just new stories and never showed remorse although he confessed. And now this threat. He is not a genuine man, he has a deceitful character.
Come to Jesus wird’s nicht geben und wenn, wird es an Söring abprallen. Er erlaubt weder Kritik noch Zweifel, ja noch nicht mal kritische Fragen und droht angeblich direkt mit juristischen Folgen, wenn man sich wagt, den Mund aufzumachen — s. diesen Beitrag von Kallisti aus dem Jahr 2011: https://www.schwarzes-hamburg.net/index.php/topic,6681.390.html
Am besten den gesamten Beitrag lesen, aber hier mal das Herzstück des Ganzen:
“Man hat die Absicht, jemandem, an dessen “Schicksal”, Lebenssituation, Leid man Anteil nimmt, nach eigenen Möglichkeiten “zu helfen”, man engagiert sich für ihn, man bietet seine Unterstützung an, man investiert immerhin Zeit, Mitgefühl, Gedanken … – und sobald man als Marionette nicht mehr ordentlich funktioniert, sobald einem Zweifel kommen und man sich erlaubt, Kritik zu äußern, Dinge zu hinterfragen – sobald man also unbequem wird und als nicht (mehr) nützlich eingestuft, wird man auf doch ziemlich niederträchtige Art und Weise angegangen bzw. geradezu diffamiert, “eliminiert”.
Das sagt eigentlich schon alles.
Ich bezweifele, dass Kallisti ein Einzelfall ist……
Was mir zudem negativ auffällt ist, dass JS in jedem Interview, das ich gesehen habe, Elizabeth Haysom als “my girlfriend” bezeichnet. Auch heutzutage noch. Das ist nicht gesund. My THEN girlfriend wäre wohl passender. Nun sagt er in diesem Podcast, dass die Behörden zu Elizabeth hätten sagen sollen “‘You know, we’ll let you go to Canada, we’ll let your boyfriend go, we’ll let you go back to Canada …” Jens, Jens, Jens. Du bist seit über 30 Jahren nicht mehr ihr boyfriend. Vielleicht sollten seine lieben Freunde und Unterstützer sich viel mehr um ihn und sein Wohl und eine Therapie kümmern als um Medienauftritte.
Interessanter Link. Bei Andrew trauen sie sich solche Drohungen offensichtlich nicht.
They are both convicted fraudsters and he is a self confessed loan shark and proud of it.
Why would anyone still be patronising him?
At least Haysom came clean and has turned her life around and matured unlike Soring.
But I am sceptical that she is genuinely remorseful and wonder why people who don’t know her keep saying this?
How do you know?
Remorseful for the murders yes, but not remorseful that her parents died.
I seriously doubt that Jens was a loan shark. That was a confection intended to impress all the fans he thought he’d have on the outside. It’s just difficult to imagine him revitalizing things in a men’s prison. For one thing, he’s a weak person, more like the shark’s bait. Most likely, his business was just him using his book money to pay people to leave him alone. Let’s not forget that he lies like a rug!
Interesting how easily right-wingers like Hamnel are convinced by Haysom!
You might want to explore the site a bit more. There, you’ll find posts expressly discounting Haysom’s credibility both at her 1987 trial and Söring’s 1990 trial. More generally, framing this case as a “he said, she said” is wrong. Söring was convicted based on his detailed, accurate confessions, not the questionable, self-serving testimony of Haysom. Söring is obsessed with Haysom as his enemy, because he always tries to shift the blame away from himself. But it was his actions and words which put him in prison, period. He will never accept this, so he needs to cast about for a scapegoat. As for Elizabeth, she’s long ago fogotten about the case and started a new life, if what I hear is correct (I’ve never been in direct contact with her).
Also, I’m not a right-winger and have the voting and political donation record to prove it. Go Bernie!