To date, former detective Richard Hudson has been rather cast in the role of Chip Harding’s trusty sidekick, seemingly positioned there to nod in agreement with everything Harding says. But last week he emerged from the shadows to give his very own interview, albeit brief, to Sandy Hausman of WVTF Radio.
It’s astonishing how much drivel can be packed into a little over three minutes, but then it’s perfectly clear that both Hudson and Hausman are on the same team here. Indeed, Hausman’s own bias in this matter has been evident for a long time to anyone paying sufficient attention. They are both resolute in their desire to overlook the large pile of compelling evidence demonstrating Jens Soering’s guilt, so that particular inconvenience has to be sidestepped and ignored, naturally. Hudson said:
“There are just too many things with this case that don’t work. Things need to make sense, and this doesn’t make sense. I’ve spent hundreds of hours now working on it.”
Well, if he’s really spent hundreds of hours working on the case it’s obviously not long enough. 2,000+ hours is about the right starting point for a somewhat more informed position, and then all the muddle and confusion would be lifted from his mind as if by magic. But that would lead inexorably to a result he’s determined not to reach, so it’s expedient for things not to make sense.
However brief the interview, a response was still required so as to make it plain beyond peradventure that the halcyon days of taking free hits are long gone. What Soering’s people say by way of public statements will continue to receive close scrutiny here, and lies, errors, distortions, evasions or omissions will be highlighted for everyone to see and then draw their own conclusions. Most have already done so.
A little unusually, this time I thought it worthwhile to respond directly on the WVTF website, which has the added benefit of directing people here to see and read the evidence for themselves. Any publicity for the Soering team ultimately brings more people to this site for the truth, so Hudson and Hausman have done their disreputable cause no service at all. The post I left on the site is now reproduced below. How long it will remain there before being quietly deleted is anyone’s guess.
One other thing. Quite apart from murder, let’s not forget Jens Soering’s virulent racism. As previously shown (here and here), this is a man who referred to black people contemptuously as “niggers” and thought the best should be put in a zoo while the others were sent back to the jungle. His language is like a painful flashback to Alabama in the 1960s. That’s worth keeping in mind.
It should be noted immediately that Sandy Hausman has long assumed a role as one of Jens Soering’s cheerleaders in this case. Any notion that she reports as an objective journalist in search of the truth is laughable.
She says at the beginning that Soering was a German exchange student. He wasn’t, and she must know that.
Richard Hudson resorts to much of the same old tripe in this interview, making disingenuous claims that have been regularly put forward on Soering’s behalf. For example, Elizabeth Haysom said that when Soering returned to DC he was wrapped in a bloody sheet. For corroboration one need only look at the crime scene. As Hudson himself said in his letter to the Governor of September 12, 2017:
“In reviewing the crime scene photos, there is a sheet obviously missing from the bed in the Haysom master bedroom.”
It was actually a counterpane, but no matter. Haysom’s account checks out.
He then returns to the Luminol testing again. We know that Soering was only cut on his left hand, which he bandaged at the house, and as a bright boy he would have been very careful not to wave it around in the car so as to leave blood traces. The blood went onto the counterpane, which they threw away at the hotel. There’s no reason why any should have been left in the car.
Even so, how thoroughly was the Luminol testing carried out? We know it was done by investigator Chuck Reid. Hudson’s letter again states that –
“Reid luminols the area of the vehicle he was instructed to examine and finds absolutely no evidence of blood staining or residue. Chuck Reid acknowledges the entire car should have been examined using the luminol technique but he was following directions from his supervisor…”
It is also claimed that Soering weighed “just 140 pounds.” How about a source for that? At the time of his arrest he was recorded as being 165 pounds, which is a very significant difference.
Everything about this indicates desperation to exculpate a guilty man, and there can be few left in Virginia who don’t know it. For anyone wanting more details there is a website: https://soeringguiltyascharged.com/.
More than a few reputations might be going down the toilet in due course. No wonder Hudson’s distressed!
That website comment was bashed out fairly quickly, although I stand by it completely. However, a little more can be added, which may be of some interest.
Hudson, Harding, Reid, and others are terribly keen to portray Soering as this frail, delicate boy, incapable of committing such appalling murders. To do that they have to distort the truth, and they must be doing so consciously.
He is, and was, quite small, that’s true enough. At the same time, he was a distinctly chunky boy, no lightweight. To be 5′ 7″ or 5′ 8″ tall and 165 pounds in weight made him a solid proposition, more than capable of overcoming two people of modest size who were under the influence of alcohol and decades older – and all the more so when the first strike against a defenceless man came out of the blue, causing immediate severe injury. That’s the point, and that’s why his team find it necessary to play down his considerable bulk at the time of the murders.
And here’s what’s liable to happen when you make false statements on public radio on the assumption that there isn’t documentary evidence to show you’re being much less than truthful:
Update, 20 November 2018
Some days after my own post on the WVTF website, a lengthy comment appeared there from “Tidewater”, which dealt specifically with the evidence of Robert Hallett, who had been dismissed by one of Soering’s lawyers as merely a tire-tread expert.
What we can say about Tidewater is that he was present at Soering’s trial, that he is well informed about the case, and that he has access to the trial transcript. His contribution therefore has real value, and for that reason it is posted below as a PDF file.
It’s also worth noting that he refers to Sandy Hausman as producing “really idiotic reporting”, which is undeniably true.