Since my Soering post is no longer ranking at the top of What's Hot!, it's safe to post a follow up now to inform all of you, who have been supporting my idea of filing a petition for clemency on Jens Soering's behalf, on the status and my latest steps.
In addition to the blog I set up on wordpress.com, I have been doing the following:
- I sent an email to his lawyer, Ms. Gail Sterling Marshall, about 4 weeks ago. As I didn't receive a reply on my first message nor a reply asking for confirmation of receipt, I called Ms. Marshall about two weeks later to confirm receipt of my message. She did so and asked for a little more time, as it is difficult to get in touch with Mr. Soering. The phone call was about 3 weeks ago and I haven't heard of her since.
- I sent an email to Dr. Frieser, an attorney to the German law firm representing Mr. Soering and pushing for his deportation (it is a technical term, sorry for the unintended double meaning) to Germany. This was about 2 weeks ago. I haven't received a reply nor was I able to get hold of Dr. Frieser on the phone.
- I have filled in and submitted the petition form to Governor Kaine on Jens Soering's website, asking for clemency on the latter's behalf.
- I have been having substantial correspondence with a disagreeing party on the Soering-blog I set up and been able to strike a balance in terms of "let's agree on disagreeing on certain aspects". While this was a personally enriching experience in general, it was at the same time a little discouraging in terms of making progess in supporting Jens Soering. Another disagreeing party appeared on the blog section. Some further personal research has me believe that general public and professional opinion in the States is strongly to Mr. Soering's disadvantage. In short: They'd rather have him electrocuted in the first place, but seem to be determined to see him rotting in jail unto his death, because many people - including the Parole Board - believe him to be guilty. I have learnt that we cannot expect a great deal of clemency in the American public in cases of this nature, as capital crime seems to have become a part of life and people tend not to be as lenient toward murderers as - say - around here (as we don't see murders happening that often and seem to have a different position on restitution). Even the German Ambassador to the United States doesn't have much hope in Jens Soering being transferred to Germany.
- I have undergone some further personal research on the web in an attempt to gather more materials on the case, but with little success. This individual by the name of Alan, posting his take on Soering on the blog, alludes to a video of Soering's confession during trial, which doesn't seem to be available on Soering's own site, nor elsewhere. He makes it sound as if this video would be sufficient to convince anyone of Soering's ill-fated intentions and of him being the double-murderer of the Haysom sen. couple. I am literally dying to see that piece of footage to give me an idea of what Alan was talking about. But then - this would be a purely subjective and probably emotional reaction, which is not the basis of my initial conviction in him being innocent of the murders (while not being entirely innocent of at least accessory to murder in a way).
From the above I conclude that Soering's representatives apparently don't need or want help or both. I thought it to be a good thing to contribute a tiny bit to raising awareness on his fate, and I'll leave the blog up for some time to come. However, I guess I won't be making the effort of trying to get his legal representatives interested in involving myself beyond what I've done (or keep doing on the blog).
Let me take the opportunity to thank all of you, who have supported my little initiative here by placing comments galore and getting my blog post up to rank #1 on ipernity for some time. I appreciate it!
As requested I will try to answer Werner's questions to me without further engaging with the teenage girls.
Thank you, I appreciate that.
You say that you never insinuated the American Judicial system was completely bonkers however, at the very start of your petition, you state the following:
"This site is dedicated to the benefit of Jens Soering’s release from the US penitentiary system and his transferral to Germany. Jens Soering has been incarcerated for 21 years for a crime he never committed. He is a classic “a pawn for a king” case in maintaining the status quo on how the US jurisdiction and penitentiary system works - and according to the powers-that-be is supposed to continue to function".
That statement is indeed a general indictment of the US judicial system.
You're right. I failed to read that section before replying and I apologize for having said otherwise, i.e. that I did NOT address the US judicial system in its entirety. I have in this statement, correct.
You also state on this blog's introduction...referring to "Americans"....
"In short: They'd rather have him electrocuted in the first place, but seem to be determined to see him rotting in jail unto his death, because many people - including the Parole Board - believe him to be guilty".
Again, an ugly and narrow summing up of all Americans.
I can't seem to find, where I'm summing all US citizens up by addressing them as Americans. To refer to "they" was a bit sloppy on my part, agreed, and my apologies for that. When I used the pronoun "they", I had meant to refer to those being involved in the trial and reaching the verdict, i.e. witnesses, the judge, the jury etc.
You also say in the intro. to this blog that Alan makes reference to Soering's confessing on the stand.
In your words...."This individual by the name of Alan, posting his take on Soering on the blog, alludes to a video of Soering's confession during trial."
I corrected you on this fact, saying that Alan never said such a thing. Rather, he said that Soering was laughing about the murders on the stand. You then state that you never said Alan spoke of a confession. Yet, again, it is in your own words right above. Alan did speak of Soering's numerous confessions to the London police.
Again: My apologies for having gotten mixed up a bit here. I believe, I had been confused over Alan's original statement already, where Alan meant to address Soering's confession to his former friend Mathias and indeed wasn't referring to the trial on US soil. From the exchange I had with Alan, I take it he was talking about a different video, which I apparently never got to see. Alan and I were able to sort that out in the process of our discussion.
You say that you are simply seeking clemency for Soering -not exonoration- but you state categorically in your petition blog that Soering did not commit these murders (see above quotation). This is what I meant by your arrogance. You are stating that Soering never commited these murders based on a short tv program and some articles you have read.
That and his own final statement in court, where he states: "I'm innocent." I am basing my statement on these aforementioned sources, yes. What are your sources by the way?
I do indeed believe it to be arrogant that you deem him innocent based on such superficial knowledge.
OK, granted you call me arrogant and the outcomes of my attempts to collect some facts first "superficial knowledge". I want to ask you this: Thanks to exactly which sources is your knowledge of the facts of this case more profound than mine? I have openly laid out, what I base my view of this on, you haven't. To give you an idea: Have you spent hours on end at the local library, talked to former investigators of this, met with Jens, gone over taped media coverage of the time, read law-school final papers dealing with the case, gathered with family etc. etc.? Or could it be, you are basing your opinion of this on similar sources than I do? In which case, I could as easily be disqualified as just deeming me unworthy of forming, having and then articulating my opinion of this? Based on... the fact that I'm not a local or US resident? Which is it? According to you, I seem to get no credit whatsoever for at least attempting as best as I could to equip me with some facts from a variety of sources, including, but not solely relying on Jens' site as Alan had assumed?
You are saying that you know better than the 12 jurors, the judge, the Haysom family, the police, the detectives, the district attorney, the parole board, Soering's own family, etc.
OK, I think I'm beginning to see, where you're coming from and why: It must be this following statement that I seem to have angered you with: "Jens Soering has been incarcerated for 21 years for a crime he never committed." I must admit that I pondered over this form of expression for a while, but then decided to leave it this way, in order to get people's attention. It is a bit provocative, I must admit, and I chose to leave it that way for rhetorical reasons. In other words: It sounds exactly like a yellow-press headline - and was supposed to sound this way, so people would read on. I had hoped to give good enough reasons for this as you read along and counted on the empathy and presumed intellect of readers coming to this site. It seems, I was wrong about this. I offer you my apologies, if my way of expressing my take has hurt your feelings. I reassure you, I never meant to hurt your nor any other US resident's or - God forbid - the Haysom family's feelings.
And as to the knowing "better": That is not my point at all. But I reserve the right to form, have and express an opinion based on the same principles that you or anyone familiar with, but not directly involved in this case employs: Being presented with facts, piece them together and come to a conclusion. As for me, the number and variety of facts may be smaller than yours, but I thought them to be enough, to get an idea - MY idea - of what must have gone on. Neither you, nor Alan nor me were on site, nor have we talked to the suspects, nor have we talked with family - correct me, if I'm wrong, please. Hence, we form our opinion on second- and third- and fourth-hand evidence, preselected and arranged in a specific way by professionals, who are trained and experienced in making a crime look one or the other way. Can we at least agree on that?
Now, if you were to say that you have doubts about his guilt that is another matter. But you outright say he did not commit these crimes. Yes, that is extremely arrogant.
Is above explanation apt to scatter this belief of yours, at least to some extent?
You say that noone has all the facts because only DNA can provide all the facts. This is a very naive position to take. First of all, even DNA evidence is commonly refuted in courts. DNA evidence is only as good as the detectives that collected it and the lab that tested it. Even people who have been charged or convicted on DNA evidence will refute it. Eyewitness evidence is the worst evidence in the world because of natural human error. The best overall evidence is circumstantial evidence...exactly what was used to convict Soering.
And where did you get this? Can you let us in on how you arrive at this conclusion? Is that common knowledge, is it latest law school material, is it from extended reading on comparing capital crime and verdicts being reached, scientific findings on the ratio of crimes committed and judicial correctness or failings? I'd love to hear that. Or could it be, it's just a statement of your own. In which case - it could be ... superficially reached?
A coming together of many pieces of evidence that, when looked at in totality, leave no other reasonable explanation but guilt.
OH MY GOD "...when looked at in totality?" You call THAT the best overall evidence? And then looked at by whom? Forensic experts, scientists, people not at all linked to any of the victims or suspects or the case in the first place and who present their findings from as neutral a place as possible? Or looked at from a laymen's - in other words: your or mine - perspective? And in that case, can you completely rule out that those presenting the evidence to you could have followed a certain plan in mind? Can you rule that out beyond a doubt? I can't. Hence, I reserve the right to have a say, just like you or any other human being capable of listening, reading, thinking. Thank you.
This is what makes or breaks the truth of a conviction. Not DNA evidence.
May the Lord help us, Jesus Christ! DNA evidence is THE gold standard of proving at least this: A suspect murderer having been at the crime scene at a close enough time, when the crime happened. In Soering's case, they based that finding on a bloody sock print, noone was really all too sure about, whom it belonged to in the first place. They even introduced the possibility of a third suspect, so little did they know.
And btw, even in these modern times, DNA evidence is available in only a small number of crimes. To suggest that DNA would be the only way to ascertain Soering's guilt is not in any way correct.
See above: I never mentioned it as the ONLY way to ascertain or rule out his guilt. But it would have proved his PRESENCE at the site at the time in question. They pinned him down based on that sock print, however. You call this BEST evidence? I rest my case...
Finally, you make the following statement to me in regards to Alan's knowledge of the case versus yours....
"you seem to be making a point in that only then do I have a right to have an opinion, if I present stronger facts than the ones that have been presented so far. If not, I'm being a joke in your understanding and can't be all real".
Again, I never said in any way that you or your opinions were a joke or not for real.
Agreed, I added the "joke" part, but you said this: "Are you all for real?". Hence, I took the liberty of adding the "joke" statement for rhetorical reasons.
I said, repeatedly, that I think those silly, immature girls are a joke and not for real and that I believe they are being incredibly disrepectful to the Haysoms and to the seriousness of this crime by their juvenile attitudes.
I think, we've been to this enough.
Sign-in to write a comment.