Tomorrow in the USA, the Dr. Phil talkshow (German info on him here) will be airing an interview with Soering:
Tomorrow: Derek and Nancy Haysom were found brutally murdered late one night in March 1985. It is a fascinating tale that landed a German diplomat’s son, Jens Soering, behind bars for their murder.
Full story: https://t.co/IPgLZ7Ng7v pic.twitter.com/Rgw5Ayj3PJ
— Dr. Phil (@DrPhil) October 23, 2020
Here’s how the Dr. Phil show website is teasing the segment (note: the website is not available in Germany, but will show up if you use a VPN with an American address):
Jens Soering was convicted in 1990 on two counts of first-degree murder in Virginia. The victims, Derek and Nancy Haysom, were the parents of Jens then-girlfriend, Elizabeth Haysom.
Jens, who initially confessed to the 1985 murders, later withdrew his confession.
Dr. Andy Griffiths, an expert in police interrogation, analyzed Jens’ confession. “The main problem with it is that it suffers from quite a common trait in poor interrogations,” he claims.
Watch the video above to find out what Dr. Griffiths says about “coerced false confessions” and why some people admit to crimes they haven’t committed.
On Friday’s episode, Jens, who claims DNA evidence excludes him from the Haysom crime scene, says he never expected to make parole and believed he would die in prison. He was released in 2019 and deported to his native Germany.
So, we’re going to hear from Dr. Griffiths, whose report I analyzed at great length here and here. The nickel summary of those two long posts: Dr. Andy Griffiths is undoubtedly qualified, but he screwed up by basing his report solely on information provided him by Soering and his lawyers, and by relying on biased sources such as the movie “Killing for Love”. His report takes Soering’s word (always a misstep) on the circumstances of his interrogations, ignores evidence which undermines Soering’s credibility, and falsely assumes Soering was held incommunicado and denied access to a lawyer, claims which are refuted by documentary evidence. As a result, Griffiths’ conclusions are simply incorrect; Soering’s confessions were given after consultation with counsel, and were voluntary, accurate, and contained information only the killer could know.
The background to this Soering interview is interesting. According to my information, Dr. Phil had planned to air an episode on Soering shortly after Soering’s release. This interview with Soering appears to come from sometime in late December 2019, given the Christmas decorations visible in the clip. However, by the time the show was ready to air, my articles on the case and the Wright report were beginning to make headway, and Elizabeth Haysom’s German lawyer began notifying parties close to the case that Haysom would take necessary steps to protect her reputation if Soering accused her of personally killing her parents.
The episode was then shelved for “legal reasons”.
Now, 9 months later, it’s back on. It will be interesting to see what version of events Soering gives in this interview. Will he blame Elizabeth? The drifters? Jim Farmer? If I’m right in guessing the interview was done in December 2019, this is before Soering publicly abandoned his previous sworn testimony that Elizabeth Haysom personally killed her parents. But maybe he’d already been warned by his lawyers even at this early date not to accuse her in public.
Sadly, I imagine that one of the conditions for broadcasting the interview is that all references to Elizabeth have been removed, but perhaps I’m wrong. Obviously I’ll be posting an analysis of the episode, and I hope to be able to add some interesting background details.
On another note, Stoppercrime left an amusing comment: “Can a familial DNA comparison be done to check whether the mystery assailant was Derek Haysom?”
That got me thinking. Now that Soering’s no longer accusing Elizabeth and all of Team Soering’s proposed accomplices have been excluded by DNA, there is only one innocence scenario left: Derek Haysom killed his wife, and then killed himself.
By stabbing himself 48 times, including 14 times in the back.
Well, it’s only a bit less plausible than Soering’s trial testimony….