In the course of researching the previous posts on the Knox podcast series it was useful to go back and revisit other material about the Soering case, one such thing being Killing for Love, the German propaganda documentary. It plays what purport to be two short clips from police interviews with Elizabeth Haysom and Jens Soering in London, the first coming at around 35 minutes into the film and the second at around 38/39 minutes.
It has now come to light that those exchanges were carefully doctored or manipulated. What the unsuspecting listener hears are two brief but seemingly uninterrupted sequences of questions and answers, which they are certainly not. It’s very well done and must have taken a fair degree of expertise to accomplish, but it is a shocking trick to pull, totally dishonest.
The question of why it was done is fundamental. Initially it might look as if those who are responsible have done little more than cobble together a series of disjointed clips from various points in the interviews and then skilfully join them up for no apparent benefit. But there is definitely an underlying purpose, which is to create a false impression in people’s minds. Each clip would appear to have been doctored for a different reason, however.
The first plays what Soering and his disciples love to term Elizabeth Haysom’s “confession”, when it was nothing of the sort. The words played in the film are indeed the ones she actually spoke, but the questions around them have been changed and the sequence ripped from its context. Just as important, a caption is shown on the screen stating that that particular section of interview took place on 5 June 1986, when it did not: it took place late at night on 8 June, going over into the early hours of 9 June. Why the deception?
The most likely explanation is that the film-makers wished to convey the message that Haysom’s purported “confession” came at an early stage in the interviews, which it did not. She held out until the last minute and confessed to her role in the plan only when she knew that Soering had told investigators virtually everything, which he had been doing piece by piece since day one, 5 June. By the time of her interview, beginning at 11.15 pm on 8 June, the investigators were finished with Jens Soering and he was quite conceivably on his way to the electric chair had European judges in Strasbourg not saved him.
*
The focus of this post will be on the film’s second clip because it is the first in time and logic. The earlier clip’s distortion and manipulation will be examined in a subsequent post. Neither one is unduly complex in its essential nature, but careful examination of the interview transcripts is necessary for a proper appreciation of the deception.
At the heart of the second audio sequence in the film is the issue of Soering’s “Jeans” answer. This has been one of the building blocks of his false confession claim for many years, transparently feeble though it is. Specifically, he told the detectives that he thought Nancy Haysom was wearing jeans when she was actually wearing a kind of long blue robe with embroidered patterns in it, often referred to as a “housecoat.”
Everyone who has read the previous post here on the Griffiths interview will have seen the transcript and heard the undoctored audio of Soering’s answer to detective Terry Wright’s question about what the Haysoms were wearing. The reality is that his answer, hesitant and tentative as it was, took a long time to come because he was so obviously struggling to remember.
The actual questions and answers once again:
Wright: “Jens, can you remember what they themselves were wearing… Nancy and Derek?”
Soering: “What they were wearing… [long pause] … That’s a, that’s a very hard question. Let me try to think. I think, I think Ms. Haysom was wearing jeans… I think, uh.. but I.. like I said, um… it’s… I would say that part of it is very… very confused.”
Wright: “It’s vague?”
Soering: “Yes, very.”
So an accurate account of the exchanges didn’t help his story very much at all; it just demonstrated his confusion and lack of any clear recollection. To make it credible to listeners it had to sound a little more confident, which was achieved by doctoring the audio recording. In the film, first the question is changed to make it about only Nancy Haysom’s clothing so as to fit Soering’s answer more closely. The surrounding delay, hesitation and doubt is then edited out, and what people watching the film get to hear is this:
Wright: “Jens, can you remember what Nancy Haysom was wearing?”
Soering: “I think Ms Haysom was wearing jeans.”
Nicely done, very skilful, but utterly manipulative and intended to deceive the film’s audience. That’s standard procedure in this case. If the evidence doesn’t fit the desired narrative then efforts will be made to distort the evidence until it does. But this time someone’s been seriously caught out. Will anyone from the German media be impolite enough to ask co-directors Markus Vetter and Karin Steinberger if they can explain how the attempted deception might have occurred, and who is behind it? In terms of honesty and integrity the propaganda machine has hit yet another low, among so many.
By way of amusing irony here, the ethical position was identified and explained to Soering by Investigator Ricky Gardner on 6 June 1986 (page 9):
Gardner: “And I explained to you… when you put something on tape I can’t take anything from it nor can I add anything to it. It’s what you say – it’s right here on tape…”
It’s a pity that the film-makers were not willing to hold themselves to the same standard they would demand without any compromise from police officers.
*
The jeans answer is by no means the only distortion or misrepresentation of the audio recordings, although it is arguably the most significant. But nothing here is quite what it seems to be. Since all the questions and answers are played as one continuous sequence, the implication is that they constitute an uninterrupted section of one interview, when they do not. The various parts actually come from different stages and different days. So, the interview section begins with the voice of Investigator Ricky Gardner:
Gardner: “This interview is being taken with Jens Soering on June the 6th, 1986, at the Richmond police station in England.”
The questions and answers about the jeans were in fact extracted from the third interview on 5 June and then inserted at a later point so as to make them a part of the interview introduced by Gardner on 6 June. They weren’t.
Probably the best way to demonstrate what was done is first to set out the entire interview sequence exactly as it was played in the film. After that the sequence will be repeated with comments and corrections in different coloured fonts for easier recognition of the manipulation. Fortunately the sequence only lasts for roughly two minutes so it doesn’t involve excessive length, although many of the lines will then require detailed comment.
*
The Interview Sequence as Played in the Film
The second audio recording come in without any introduction, following on from a modern prison interview with Jens Soering on videotape conducted in German. Subtitles appear at the bottom of the screen. Private investigator Dave Watson is shown listening to the recordings on a reel-to-reel tape recorder.
Present in the room were Investigator Ricky Gardner from Virginia, Scotland Yard detectives Terry Wright and Ken Beever, and Jens Soering.
Gardner: “This interview is being taken with Jens Soering on June the 6th 1986 at the Richmond police station in England.”
Soering: “It… could I… um…” [The words are unclear, but here they are taken directly from the film’s subtitles.]
“No, go ahead.” [Unknown voice.]
Soering: “We did on that weekend discuss, um, murder, yes.”
Gardner: “You left Elizabeth in Washington and what was your destination?”
Soering: “Derek and Nancy Haysom.”
Gardner: “OK. Did you knock on the door?”
Soering: “Yes.”
Gardner: “Did he invite you in?”
Soering: “Yes.”
Wright: “Jens, can you remember what Nancy Haysom was wearing?”
Soering: “I think Ms Haysom was wearing jeans.”
Beever: “Mr and Mrs Haysom probably died from stab wounds that night. Could you agree with that?”
Soering: “I’m sorry… I need to...”
Gardner: “As you well know, we have spoken with Elizabeth.”
Wright: “She said to us that you murdered her parents.”
Gardner: “Did you stab Derek Haysom? Did you cut him with a knife?”
Wright: “Is this a difficult question?”
Soering: “Yes, very.”
Beever: “We know that you obviously fear the death penalty. You said that to me, didn’t you?”
Gardner: “Wanna stop here?”
Soering: “Yeah, could we?”
Gardner: “OK, I’m gonna turn the tape off.”
The film then cuts away to Elizabeth Haysom on the witness stand at her 1987 sentencing hearing in Virginia:
Haysom: “Sergeant Beever confronted me in the cell with Jens’s statement. He was very careful to tell me a couple of details about Jens’s statement. My response was one of anger that Jens had let me down – while I was continuing to cover up for him.”
*
Now the Interview Extracts as They Really Happened
In the hope of making everything as clear as possible, in this section the parts of the interviews as played in the film are copied and remain in the same grey-black colour.
Everything added in blue is what the film-makers left out.
Notes, comments or corrections are maroon.
Gardner: “This interview is being taken with Jens Soering on June the 6th, 1986, at 11.40pm at the Richmond, England, police station. Present at the time of the interview is Detective Sergeant Kenneth Beever and Detective Constable Terry Wright. OK, Jens, I have advised you of your Miranda warning as I did yesterday.”
The starting time there was a slip of the tongue by Ricky Gardner. He meant to say that the interview began at 11.40am, not pm (and then ended at 1.21pm).
Soering: “Yes.”
Soering: “It… could I… um…”
As played in the film, this could not be traced.
“No, go ahead.”
This was said several times on different days by different people, but not so soon after the introduction.
Page 5.
Soering: “We did on that weekend discuss, um, her going to those movies and purchasing two tickets and we did discuss on that weekend murder, yes.”
Gardner: “You left Elizabeth in Washington and what was your destination?”
This is a question constructed out of two or three original questions. These were the questions actually asked:
Gardner: “All right, so you left Washington DC and where was your destination?”
Soering: “Lynchburg.” (Page 2.)
Gardner: “OK, now let me, let’s … let’s just stop right there for the present. Now you left Elizabeth in Washington?”
Soering: “Yes.”
Gardner: “OK. Did Elizabeth know where you were going?”
Soering: “Oh yes, she knew where I was going, right.” (Page 3.)
There he’s obviously making a massive effort to protect her (as he has since claimed), straining every nerve and sinew to the utmost. Or possibly not.
Soering: “Derek and Nancy Haysom.”
Not part of his answer.
“OK.”
Gardner: “And did you knock on the door?” (Here jumping back to page 5 on June 5.)
Soering: “Yes.”
Gardner: “And who came to the door?”
Soering: “Derek Haysom.”
Gardner: “OK, at this point did he invite you in?”
Soering: “Yes.”
Gardner: “And what type of conversation or … between the two of you?”
Soering: “Well, ah … we had a drink …”
Gardner: “And what type of drink did you have?”
Soering: “Alcoholic, it was Boodles gin if I remember correctly.”
The interview then moves to page 20 (15 pages later), still 5 June:
Wright: “Jens, can you remember what Nancy Haysom was wearing?”
Soering: “I think Ms Haysom was wearing jeans.”
The doctoring of the questions and answers at this point has already been fully explained above. That short sequence occurred on 5 June but in the film it was placed within the 6 June interview.
Now things go back to page 13:
Beever: “It’s a fact that Mr and Mrs Haysom probably died from stab wounds that night.”
Soering: “Uh huh.”
Beever: “Could you agree with that?”
Soering: “Yes.”
Continuing on page 14:
Wright: “Can I assist you, Jens? You said a … few minutes ago that the … Swiss Army knife …”
Soering: “Uh huh.”
Wright: “Definitely wasn’t used? Ah … as a weapon against Mr and Mrs Haysom?”
Soering: “Right.”
Wright: “So that infers that you know that for a fact….”
Soering: “Well, I do know that’s a fact.”
Wright: “Do you know what weapon was used to attack Mr and Mrs Haysom?”
Soering: “[Inaudible] I’m sorry… I need to…”
Gardner: “OK, we’ll turn the tape off and let you have a little break.”
Now back to 6 June:
Gardner: “As you well know, either we have or we haven’t spoken with Elizabeth.”
Here crucial words were removed from Gardner’s sentence so as to distort its meaning. He was keeping Soering in the dark about any possible conversations with Elizabeth at that point. The reconfigured sentence is carefully manipulated to show him saying something quite different.
Wright: “She said to us that you murdered her parents.”
Terry Wright did not make this statement at any time during the interviews, nor did anyone else. Even leaving tactical considerations aside, it would have been untrue at that stage of the interviews, and in breach of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Unlike Soering, Elizabeth was initially stonewalling and being difficult, her confession not coming until two days later. That line as it appears there was most likely manufactured by cutting and then splicing together other parts of the interview.
Reverting to 5 June, Page 18:
Gardner: “OK. So at one point and I’m going to be … I’m going to ask you … at some point did you stab Derek Haysom … with a knife? Did you cut him with a knife? Yes or no?”
Long pause…
Soering: “I really don’t want to answer that.”
Wright: “Is this a difficult question?”
Soering: “Yes, very.”
Wright’s question there did not follow on from Soering’s previous answer. And the answer given – “Yes, very” – was in response to a different question shown below.
Soering had been willing to answer many of the questions put to him seemingly without too much concern, but he was still more reticent at that stage when it came to the fight itself and the stabbings. Taking him back to the build-up returned him to ground on which he felt more comfortable.
After Soering said he really didn’t want to answer Ricky Gardner’s question about stabbing Derek Haysom, Terry Wright then came in to keep things moving with questions he was happier to answer:
Wright: “Jens, I’ll tell you what …”
Soering: “I know … that … I just … it’s just not…”
Wright: “Right. If you find it difficult at this stage to talk about that particular part of the evening...”
Soering: “Right.”
Wright: “You’ve already talked about this … what happened from the Friday night really … right up to the time you were in their dining room.”
Soering: “Uh huh.”
Wright: “Ah, you saw Mr Haysom and Mrs Haysom.”
Soering: “Arguing, yes.”
Wright: “If you find it difficult at this point, then let’s skip a little.”
Soering: “Uh huh.”
Wright: “OK, let’s talk about … what the position was … what the condition of the house was, your condition when you left, OK, that’s going to be a little bit easier for you because we’re missing out a big chunk?”
Soering: “Yes.”
Wright: “Now then, when you left, whereabouts were Derek and Nancy Haysom … when you left the house that night?”
Soering: “Um…”
Wright: “I’m asking you where they were. That’s …”
Soering: “I know … I know … and I’m sitting here and I’m, you know, I’m seeing certain things, all right, and ah …”
Wright: “Let me ask you a different question. What time did you leave? Approximately.”
Soering: “What do you mean? As in watch time?”
Wright: “What time of day?”
Soering: “It was, I left soon after the argument.”
Wright: “Yes.”
Soering: “And ah…”
Wright: “Yes, what time was that? Approximately.”
Soering: “Well, I …”
Wright: “It might be difficult?”
Soering: “It’s very hard to say because I don’t even remember what time I arrived … ah, how long after dinner, it was obviously still darkness …”
Wright: “Yes.”
Soering: “Um…”
Wright: “How long do you think you were there?”
Soering: “Total, … in the house … ah … possibly no more than forty-five minutes, OK.”
Wright: “Uh huh.”
Soering: “No more than that.”
Wright: “Right, OK.”
5 June, page 19:
At this point Ken Beever joined in:
Beever: “What were you wearing?”
Soering: “What was I wearing … um … jeans and a silver coat, I believe … silver … grey coat.”
Wright: “Silver with grey?”
Soering: “Um…”
Beever: “Where are those clothes now?”
It was then here, after a further pause and hesitation from Soering, that Terry Wright cut in with (almost) the question heard in the film:
Wright: “Is this another difficult question?”
Soering: “Yes, very.”
It did not refer at all to Ricky Gardner’s earlier question about whether Soering had stabbed and cut Derek Haysom.
Wright: “Right.”
Leading on from that, Gardner continued the line of questioning initiated by Beever about clothing:
Gardner: “Did you throw them away?”
Soering: “Yeah … yes.”
Gardner: “You did throw them away?”
Soering: “Right.”
Gardner: “Will you tell me where you threw the clothes away? Can you tell me that?”
Another pause followed, so Wright came back in with what is now the familiar question:
Wright: “Jens, can you remember what they themselves were wearing … Nancy and Derek?”
*
Now on to 6 June, page 21:
For very understandable reasons, Jens Soering had questions and fears about being returned to Virginia for trial:
Beever: “We know that you obviously fear the death sentence. You said that to me, didn’t you?”
Once again, it’s been tampered with and just isn’t quite right:
Beever: “You have told us earlier on that you obviously fear the death sentence. The expression you used was, “If I’m convicted there, they’ll plug me into the wall”.”
More importantly, what the film-makers missed out, no doubt because it didn’t fit the story they wanted to tell, was the full exchange, which went like this:
Beever: “You have told us earlier on that you obviously fear the death sentence. The expression you used was, “If I’m convicted there, they’ll plug me into the wall”.”
Soering: “Well, I said that because as far as I know in Virginia there still is a death penalty.”
Beever: “OK. Nobody’s beating about the bush. There is a death penalty in Virginia, OK. For capital murder, I believe. OK. You understand that. You have told us earlier on that’s one of your fears – you also told me that in the cell passage when we were alone – agreed?”
Soering: “Yes.”
Beever: “Me, Detective Sergeant Beever. You told those things to me.”
Soering: “Yes. That I was afraid of the death penalty in America, yes.”
Beever: “In doing so and almost in the same context you said to me, “I murdered them two.” Now, I’m putting that to you in front of my two colleagues here, you said that to me, didn’t you? Tell me the truth and look me in the face, please.”
Soering: “Right.”
Beever: “You said that to me, didn’t you? Are you going to call me a liar?”
Soering: “No, I’m not going to call you a liar.”
Beever: “It’s easy for you to deny, isn’t it? That you didn’t say that to me, so why aren’t you going to call me a liar?”
Soering: “I’m not going to call you a liar because I’m not going to answer that question.”
Beever: “Why not?”
Soering: “Because I have a right to.”
Beever: “I know you’ve the right. And perhaps I should stop at this stage by asking you the same question. I think the wisest move for you is to go downstairs and for me to get you at least an English attorney and you can discuss your case with him now. OK? Come on now.”
The interview then continued for a few minutes more before concluding. (For the full remainder see the appendix below.) Notwithstanding Beever’s stated intention, the next day Soering still declined the assistance of a solicitor, although he did speak on the telephone again to an official from the West German embassy. Thereafter he went on to request two further interviews with the detectives.
*
Gardner: “Wanna stop here?”
Soering: “Yeah, could we?”
Gardner: “OK, I’m gonna turn the tape off.”
This brief exchange occurred on 5 June (page 8). It came at a time when Soering had been describing the course of events at the house. He and the Haysoms were sitting at the dinner table together. Ricky Gardner asked him what happened after they had eaten. It was heading once again straight to details – the fight and the murders themselves – he wasn’t yet comfortable discussing with the detectives. Becoming slightly agitated at that point, he then sought a break from the conversation:
Soering: “Can we take a break?”
Gardner: “Do you wanna stop here?”
Soering: “Yeah … could we?”
Gardner: “For what reason?”
Soering: “Ah … I think I need a drink of water.”
Gardner: “OK.”
Soering: “I think I need to sit back and relax for just a second.”
Gardner: “OK, I’ll just turn the tape off … turn it off and then we’ll turn it right back on when you are ready.”
As noted earlier, the film then cuts away to Elizabeth Haysom on the witness stand at her 1987 sentencing hearing in Virginia.
There are no further audio excerpts played from the London interviews.
*
Conclusion
All in all, the audio sequences played in Killing for Love represent an extraordinary effort to distort, mislead, manipulate and even fabricate evidence in support of Jens Soering. Not for the first time we see that no lie and no deception is too great in the service of his bogus innocence claim, but perhaps that’s inevitable. The truth is unbearable for all his supporters and therefore has to be suppressed at all costs.
It brings to mind prosecutor Jim Updike’s indignant reaction at the trial to Soering’s rapid reverse from guilty to innocent between London and Virginia:
“It’s not proper and it’s not honest.”
He was right, and exactly the same applies to the unashamed propaganda that is Killing for Love.
* * *
Appendix
On the subject of Elizabeth Haysom, referred to above, it has already been seen that Ricky Gardner was non-committal when speaking about her to Jens Soering during the interview of 6 June (page 22):
Gardner: “As you well know, either we have or we haven’t spoken with Elizabeth.”
However, Soering himself brought her up at an earlier stage, and Gardner responded to his concerns towards the end of the interview after Ken Beever had challenged Soering to deny his previous admission to murder and call him a liar. The concluding part of the interview is very interesting, in particular as it relates to Soering’s frank admission that Elizabeth had seen the state he was in upon his return to Washington DC:
Soering: “…she had knowledge of what I was doing, all right, and since she saw me on my return, all right? There were certain things she saw which I would hope she would not tell you at this point…”
Four years later, of course, what she saw that night became part of her trial testimony relating to the bloody counterpane, testimony that Harding, Hudson and others on Soering’s team are so desperate to rubbish. The interview transcript very clearly points us in the right direction, and further illumination would follow.
Below is the concluding part of the interview in its entirety.
*
Soering: “I’m not going to call you a liar because I’m not going to answer that question.”
Beever: “Why not?”
Soering: “Because I have a right to.”
Beever: “I know you’ve the right. And perhaps I should stop at this stage by asking you the same question. I think the wisest move for you is to go downstairs and for me to get you at least an English attorney and you can discuss your case with now, OK? Come on now.”
Gardner: “Could I just add one thing to that. I think it’s a good point, a good stopping point. As you well know, either we have or haven’t spoken with Elizabeth, and you have expressed concern that Elizabeth may fabricate a story, possibly one that you and her have already made up to be quite honest; you have been pretty thorough from day one, with the exception of several points which you admitted yesterday, on not leaving a trail, the alibi story, going to DC, and you quite frankly admitted that you sort of overlooked the rental car business, OK? I just – this is what you told me yesterday, whether you deny it or affirm it – now – but I’m just making a point – and I guess I’m going in a roundabout way to get to my point, is that – my question in fact is that – what is Elizabeth going to tell us, or is Elizabeth going to tell us anything, or has Elizabeth told us anything when we discussed this with her? In your opinion?”
Soering: “Well, like I said yesterday, I’m afraid that she might try to fabricate a story. I would think that originally she would try to – and I’m not going to make a statement about my guilt or innocence with that, but I assume that is the reason she will try to make up a story which will be to the point we’re innocent, and I assume that you will confront her with the evidence you have and that she will then change her story, perhaps to one in which she takes more or most of the blame for herself in an effort to do me a favour by that.”
Gardner: “OK. So what you’re saying is you would like for us or you would like Elizabeth to be part truthful in discussing this matter with us?”
Soering: “No. What I would like Elizabeth to do is to tell the truth as I have done and also to stop at the point I have stopped.”
Gardner: “OK.”
Beever: “How could she stop at the point you have stopped if you’re telling us the truth? If you’re telling us the truth about your visit to Loose Chippings, Elizabeth wasn’t with you, if you’re telling the truth.”
Soering: “Right. She can’t tell about that, can she?”
Beever: “So she cannot stop at the point of some sort of verbal altercation taking place between Mr Haysom, Mrs Haysom and yourself. Because that’s the point you very, very carefully stopped at last night, I would rather suspect 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?”
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? There were certain things she saw which I would hope she would not tell you at this point but will 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.”
Gardner: “All right. Thank you. End of interview with Jens Soering on June 6, 1986, at 1.21 pm.”
* * *
Jens Soering - Guilty as Charged 