Authors: Ken Englade
Beyond Reason (38 page)
According to the English language transcript, read in a deep monotone by Ogier, Jens again incriminated himself. But with the German prosecutor, unlike in his interviews with British and American investigators, Jens offered details which would tend to lessen his responsibility. Even if he had committed violence upon Derek and Nancy, he said, it may have been because he had been drinking or because he had been provoked by the Haysoms. Normally, Jens drank very little. But during the drive from Washington to Boonsboro he had consumed three beers. When he got to Loose Chippings and was invited inside, Derek and Nancy offered him more alcohol. He downed three gins while they sat at the table and argued about his and Elizabeth’s future.
“I do not know anymore what the triggering point was,” Jens said in German, which sounded stilted when translated, “but something was said and I flew off the handle and wanted to run out of the house. I had only one instinct: I wanted out. I cannot take such stress too well.”
Moments later he confided to the German prosecutor that it had all been an accident. “I had no intent to kill these people, and it was an absolute unexpected horror experience.”
Still later he claimed he was “not one hundred percent sure” he had committed the murders.
Updike did not introduce as evidence the psychiatric reports that had been part of the record before the European
Court when Jens was still fighting extradition. In those reports, Jens told similar tales of what happened that night at Loose Chippings. But when he took the stand, he denied it all.
Court when Jens was still fighting extradition. In those reports, Jens told similar tales of what happened that night at Loose Chippings. But when he took the stand, he denied it all.
WHENEVER ANYONE WHO HAD KNOWN JENS IN ATLANTA or during his short time at the University of Virginia was asked what his dominant personality trait was, there was universal agreement: Arrogance. Whatever lessons Jens may have learned in the four years he has spent in jails in England and the United States, humility has not been one of them.
Looking much younger than twenty-three, the owlish Jens marched defiantly to the witness stand. With a disdainful glance at Updike, Jens threw his shoulders back and stared into the courtroom through aviator-style, tortoiseshell spectacles, seemingly defying anyone to challenge his word. By that time, Elizabeth had been returned to her cell and was not there to share in his withering stare.
Confidently, arrogantly, he snickered at the idea that anyone would believe Elizabeth’s story. What really happened, he said, was this:
On the afternoon that the Haysoms were murdered, he and Elizabeth were in Washington when Elizabeth began telling him a long, involved tale about how she was in hock to a drug dealer from Lynchburg and there was only one way she could erase that debt. If she would run an errand for him, she said, he would release her from her obligation. The errand, she added, consisted of her picking up a package, presumably containing drugs, in Washington and bringing it back to Charlottesville.
Jens said he offered to go with her to collect the package, but she refused. If anybody looked less like a druggie than Jens, she told him, she could not imagine who it might be. If he showed up with her, the person who had the packet would get spooked and the deal would be off. But what he could do for her was create an alibi to explain the time she
would be gone. Anxious to please, Jens said he agreed to go to a movie, buy two tickets and save the stubs, then later go back to the motel and order something from room service to give the impression that there were two people in the room. After that, he would go to
The Rocky Horror Picture Show
and Elizabeth would meet him there. The first part of the plan went off as expected, but Elizabeth was much later returning than she had said she would be. When she finally arrived she was wearing different clothes and there was a brown substance smeared on her arms. Jens implied it was blood. Angry because she had been gone so long, Jens demanded that she account for her long absence. She told him forthrightly, he said, that she had been to Boonsboro and that she had killed her parents.
would be gone. Anxious to please, Jens said he agreed to go to a movie, buy two tickets and save the stubs, then later go back to the motel and order something from room service to give the impression that there were two people in the room. After that, he would go to
The Rocky Horror Picture Show
and Elizabeth would meet him there. The first part of the plan went off as expected, but Elizabeth was much later returning than she had said she would be. When she finally arrived she was wearing different clothes and there was a brown substance smeared on her arms. Jens implied it was blood. Angry because she had been gone so long, Jens demanded that she account for her long absence. She told him forthrightly, he said, that she had been to Boonsboro and that she had killed her parents.
After her confession, they began to discuss the possible consequences. It was then that they worked out an elaborate plan where Jens would take the blame for the murders. If she were charged with the killings, he said, she would likely be tried for capital murder. And if she were convicted she probably would get the death sentence. He could not stand for that, he said. On the other hand, if
he
were accused of the murders he might get off more lightly. Since he was the son of a diplomat, he probably would be deported to Germany and, if he were tried there, it would be as a juvenile. Even if he were convicted, the most severe sentence he could get would be ten years in prison. He loved her so much, he said, he was willing to admit to two murders he did not commit if it would save her.
he
were accused of the murders he might get off more lightly. Since he was the son of a diplomat, he probably would be deported to Germany and, if he were tried there, it would be as a juvenile. Even if he were convicted, the most severe sentence he could get would be ten years in prison. He loved her so much, he said, he was willing to admit to two murders he did not commit if it would save her.
When he was asked why he continued to admit the murders even after he came to realize that their relationship was disintegrating, he said by then he was certain that his only chance of escaping severe punishment was in being extradited to Germany. And the only way he could be sure of accomplishing that, he said, was to give the German prosecutor enough evidence to charge him with murder. That way the Germans would demand his extradition and fight for his return.
UPDIKE SAT QUIETLY, SEEMINGLY MESMERIZED BY JENS’S tale. As soon as Neaton turned Jens over for cross-examination, the prosecutor bounded to his feet. There was no sparring; Updike immediately sprang to the attack. Jens, just as quickly, responded with sarcasm and anger.
Was it just coincidence, Updike wanted to know, that Type O blood was found at Loose Chippings and Jens happened to have Type O blood?
“Forty-five percent of the population has that type of blood,” Jens shot back.
“That may be,” Updike answered angrily, “but forty-five percent of the people don’t have their blood type there, their footprint in the house and have admitted doing this, do they?”
“It’s not my footprint,” Jens answered loudly.
A few minutes later, Jens responded to an Updike question with a fleeting grin.
Updike stopped in mid-sentence and glared at the youth. “Is this funny?” he asked. “You’re on trial for first degree murder. Is this a game for you? An intellectual challenge for you? It certainly wouldn’t be a challenge for you, with your intellect, to outwit me.”
Jens grinned again. “I think so far you’re outwitting me,” he answered.
Shuffling through the papers on his desk, Updike produced a letter that Jens had written Elizabeth soon after they were made aware that they were being investigated for the murders of Derek and Nancy. In the letter, Jens made a derogatory reference to the “yokels” in Bedford.
“You still don’t think we yokels know what’s coming down, do you?” Updike asked.
“Absolutely not,” Jens replied, staring hard at Updike. “I don’t think
you
do. That’s right. Correct.”
you
do. That’s right. Correct.”
A few minutes later, Updike asked a detailed question that elicited an immediate objection from Neaton. Before Judge Sweeney could rule on whether the question would be
allowed, Jens started to answer. Neaton, stunned by Jens’s audacity, barked at the client, “Shut up!”
allowed, Jens started to answer. Neaton, stunned by Jens’s audacity, barked at the client, “Shut up!”
THE CASE WENT TO THE JURY A LITTLE BEFORE 3 P.M. ON June 21. At 6 p.m., Sweeney summoned the jurors to the courtroom and asked if they wanted to take the evening off. They could then resume deliberations the next morning.
A jury spokesman declined the judge’s offer, promising a verdict within an hour. At 6:40 they filed back into the courtroom looking somber and determined. Jens was guilty, they decided, on two counts of first degree murder. They recommended two life sentences.
A grim-looking Sweeney leaned over the bench and fixed Jens with a hard stare. “Do you see any reason why I should not pass judgment on you right now?” he asked Jens.
“Yes,” Jens snapped. “Because I’m innocent.”
Still defiant, he was led from the courtroom in handcuffs. As soon as he was in the hallway he seemed to collapse upon himself. His arrogance disappeared and a look of total defeat swept across his pink cheeks. Without another word, he followed his escorts down the stairs and into the waiting squad car.
SWEENEY DEFERRED SENTENCING UNTIL A LATER, UNSPECIFIED date. While he is free to make his own decision on the punishment, it is traditional for the judge to follow the jury’s recommendation. If that proves true and Jens receives two consecutive life terms, he will not be eligible for parole for at least 20 years.
THE STORY RELATED HERE IS COMPLICATED. IT INVOLVES a number of people and events in widely separated locations, from central Virginia to Europe—from Lynchburg to London and from Boonsboro to Bonn.
There were many who helped compile this material, patient, considerate people who often went considerably out of their way to be of assistance. Among those who offered generously of their time and knowledge, I would particularly like to thank Jim Updike, Ricky Gardner, Chuck Reid, Ken Beever, Geoffrey Brown, Colin Nicholls, Carroll Baker, Debbie Kirkland, Jennifer Thomas, Carl Wells, Hugh Jones, and Jack Rice and his crew.
There were also those who gave freely of their time and information but who asked, for one reason or another, to remain anonymous. I promised not to name them, but that does not mean I do not appreciate what they have done. They know who they are, and I hope they know how valuable their assistance was. To all of them, I am infinitely grateful.
There are also those who helped me communicate what I had learned. To them, I am particularly indebted because they helped me control my rambling, made sure I kept things in perspective, maintained consistency, and excised the irrelevant. Among them are my wife, Sara, and David Snell, Betsy Graham, and Mitchell Shields, and Peter Mac-Pherson—good friends all. I thank them profusely.
IN A STORY SUCH AS THIS THERE ARE ALWAYS SOME gaps and loose ends; only in fiction is everything wrapped up neatly at the end. To help keep the flow of the tale I have here and there constructed a few bridges: If this happened
and that was the result, then such-and-such must have happened in between. Such instances were relatively rare. In places I have reconstructed conversations, at which, obviously, I was not present. The reader will understand that I am not asserting that those exact words were spoken, but I have endeavoured to capture the thrust of events that did occur. The basic outline of this story is well documented and as factual as I could make it. If. there are errors, they occurred because of my misinterpretations. For these, I apologize in advance.
and that was the result, then such-and-such must have happened in between. Such instances were relatively rare. In places I have reconstructed conversations, at which, obviously, I was not present. The reader will understand that I am not asserting that those exact words were spoken, but I have endeavoured to capture the thrust of events that did occur. The basic outline of this story is well documented and as factual as I could make it. If. there are errors, they occurred because of my misinterpretations. For these, I apologize in advance.
A number of people were drawn into the events related here through no fault of their own. They were involved only because they happened to be in a certain place at a certain time. I have tried to protect their names and reputations by assigning them pseudonyms. The reader will recognize them because the first time they are-mentioned their names are printed in italics. Otherwise, the identifications are as they appear in documents relating to the case. There are no fictional or composite characters.
WHO DID IT? JENS? OR ELIZABETH?
In her testimony in 1987 Elizabeth tried to persuade Judge Sweeney that she did not want Derek and Nancy dead. Only removed. Transported outside her realm. Taken off into space somewhere, like the characters in the movie
Cocoon.
Elizabeth was trying to draw a distinction between wanting to be rid of her parents and wanting to be
rid
of her parents. It did not work. In the end, it did not even matter. Elizabeth Haysom pleaded guilty to conspiring with Jens Soering to murder her parents. As far as the law was concerned she was in it up to her eyebrows. In 1990, her story changed subtly. While in 1987 she admitted guilt only to a limited degree, by 1990 she expanded her degree of responsibility. When she testified at Jens’s trial she readily admitted that she had been manipulating her former lover from the early days of their relationship. The goal was to get him to murder her parents.
Cocoon.
Elizabeth was trying to draw a distinction between wanting to be rid of her parents and wanting to be
rid
of her parents. It did not work. In the end, it did not even matter. Elizabeth Haysom pleaded guilty to conspiring with Jens Soering to murder her parents. As far as the law was concerned she was in it up to her eyebrows. In 1990, her story changed subtly. While in 1987 she admitted guilt only to a limited degree, by 1990 she expanded her degree of responsibility. When she testified at Jens’s trial she readily admitted that she had been manipulating her former lover from the early days of their relationship. The goal was to get him to murder her parents.
Which story was true? Who knows? Maybe events transpired in the fashion she described in 1990. Maybe not. Perhaps she was simply trying to tighten the noose around Jens’s neck. The contradiction was typical of Elizabeth. She is the consummate and inveterate liar. The unconscious prevaricator frequently unable to tell fact from fiction. She lives, and has done so for a long time, in a world all her own.
Actually, as far back as 1987, two and a half years before Jens’s trial, the evidence that she did in fact want her parents dead is stronger than the preceding text indicates. Her letters to Jens were far more explicit than she was willing to admit. This could be only partially demonstrated in this book because U.S. copyright law has been interpreted by the
federal appeals court in New York to prohibit quotation from a person’s previously unpublished writing, even if that writing is part of the court record. What was presented was carefully selected and focused; a series of snapshots having to make do for a movie.
federal appeals court in New York to prohibit quotation from a person’s previously unpublished writing, even if that writing is part of the court record. What was presented was carefully selected and focused; a series of snapshots having to make do for a movie.
The real question is not whether she encouraged Derek’s and Nancy’s murders, but why. And it may never be answered.
Rare indeed is the child who has not, at one time or another, harbored a desire to do away with one or both parents. Happily for the parents, very few actually do it. Elizabeth was an exception. Of course, there have been others. History is replete with instances of parricide. Everyone knows about Oedipus, who killed his father and married his mother. The Greeks also talked about Electra, Oedipus’s gender-opposite. Obsessed with her relationship with her father, she encouraged her brother, Orestes, to kill their mother. And as recently as yesterday’s headlines there was the case of Cheryl Pierson, the Long Island teenager who hired a classmate to kill her father.
But Elizabeth’s motive or motives are not nearly as apparent. Cheryl Pierson had her father killed, she said, because he had been sexually abusing her since she was eleven. Elizabeth passionately denied, on the stand, that Nancy had sexually abused her. Significantly, she did not specifically deny that an incestuous relationship existed. But that does not mean that one did. The key word in her testimony was “abuse.” Maybe in her mind the relationship that existed with her mother did not meet Elizabeth’s definition of that word. At one time she said she did have a sexual relationship with her mother. At another time she said she did not. Clearly she wanted Jens to believe that she did. But Elizabeth is the only one still alive who knows for sure, and she is not likely to say anymore at this stage. In any case, who would believe her now, no matter what she said on the subject ? It is not inconceivable that her intention all along was to obfuscate. Certainly she is intelligent enough to appreciate the benefits that confusion could offer her.
WHY ELSE WOULD SHE WANT TO BE RID OF HER PARENTS ? Bitterness, perhaps. Elizabeth was a child of privilege. Derek and Nancy gave her everything but a steady, loving relationship. To Elizabeth that could have been reason enough. Undoubtedly, the circumstances had been eating at her for years. Since at least her mid-teens she had been telling classmates at Wycombe Abbey that she was adopted. Still, that is not unusual. A number of children, particularly those with imaginations as active as Elizabeth’s, have uttered those same words. But most of them did not go on to arrange for their parents’ murders.
At one point she said she wanted to be free. Unquestionably, Nancy
was
domineering. Doubtlessly, the relationship with both Derek and Nancy was suffocating. But Elizabeth could have left. Simply walked out the door. She was almost twenty-one years old. She did not have to repeat her European experience with Melinda to escape from Derek and Nancy. She did not have to starve in the streets. If she had approached the issue in a mature way her siblings more than likely would have been supportive. But Elizabeth also was greedy. Walking out would have meant the end of her subsidized education. She wanted the benefits a continuing relationship with her parents could offer her, but she did not want the concomitant responsibilities. She wanted Derek’s and Nancy’s money, what little there was left of it, but she did not want to earn it.
was
domineering. Doubtlessly, the relationship with both Derek and Nancy was suffocating. But Elizabeth could have left. Simply walked out the door. She was almost twenty-one years old. She did not have to repeat her European experience with Melinda to escape from Derek and Nancy. She did not have to starve in the streets. If she had approached the issue in a mature way her siblings more than likely would have been supportive. But Elizabeth also was greedy. Walking out would have meant the end of her subsidized education. She wanted the benefits a continuing relationship with her parents could offer her, but she did not want the concomitant responsibilities. She wanted Derek’s and Nancy’s money, what little there was left of it, but she did not want to earn it.
WAS ELIZABETH INSANE? EMPHATICALLY NOT. INSANITY is a legal term, not a psychiatric one. To be judged legally insane—and that is the only thing that counts in this instance—certain specific criteria would have had to be met. In Virginia, as in 25 other states, those criteria are set forth in what is called the M’Naghten Rule. It holds that a person shall not be held responsible for criminal acts if, because of a “disease of the mind,” he or she is unable to know the “nature and quality” of his or her acts, or does not know that such acts are wrong. Not even Elizabeth’s psychiatrist, Dr.
Showalter, tried to claim that she met those standards. She had a personality disorder. She was obsessed. But she was not insane.
Showalter, tried to claim that she met those standards. She had a personality disorder. She was obsessed. But she was not insane.
WHEN ELIZABETH WENT OFF TO THE UNIVERSITY OF Virginia, she was full of suppressed rage. In her first days there she met someone who was, by all accounts, as potentially explosive as she. He, too, was a child of privilege. He, too, had been smothered by his parents’ devotion. Klaus and Anne-Claire Soering, like Derek and Nancy Haysom, sought only the best for their child. Jens went to a good school; he never wanted for anything. Anne-Claire often went to considerable trouble and expense to arrange parties for Jens, hoping that it would make him more popular with his classmates. Her attempts failed, not because she wasn’t trying, but because Jens was a personally disagreeable fellow. On his desk in the German consulate in Atlanta, Klaus kept a large framed photo of Jens and Kai. None of his wife; just his sons. In his own way, he was as captivated with his children as was his wife. As were Derek and Nancy with Elizabeth. When Jens went to trial, Klaus was among the spectators, along with Kai. Anne-Claire remained at their new home in Mauritania, where Klaus had been posted in late 1989. She was unwell and unable to make the trip. Her ailment may have been the result of a broken heart. Every day, Klaus sat in the courtroom, following the proceedings with ill-disguised anger and frustration. He had huge bags under his eyes and looked like an old man. On one occasion he was summoned to the witness stand by Updike and proved unable to suppress his venom. On the day before the case went to the jury, a court holiday called by Sweeney because he had a previously scheduled matter he had to attend to in Norfolk, Klaus mysteriously left Bedford. He was not present when the jury returned with its verdict. He knew what was coming and maybe it was too painful for him to be there, too.
EXACTLY WHAT JENS HOPED TO ACCOMPLISH BY TRYING to blame Elizabeth for the killings is unknown. Perhaps he thought it was the only position he
could
take without pleading guilty. In any case, the strategy backfired. The jury was not convinced of Jens’s proclaimed innocence, not for an instant. After the trial, the jurors dispersed without commenting to the press, but one whispered to a court official that they had agreed almost immediately that Jens was guilty. Despite that unanimity, it took them almost four hours to decide if the judgment would be for first or second degree murder. Obviously, the obstacle was not a major one.
could
take without pleading guilty. In any case, the strategy backfired. The jury was not convinced of Jens’s proclaimed innocence, not for an instant. After the trial, the jurors dispersed without commenting to the press, but one whispered to a court official that they had agreed almost immediately that Jens was guilty. Despite that unanimity, it took them almost four hours to decide if the judgment would be for first or second degree murder. Obviously, the obstacle was not a major one.
BOTH JENS AND ELIZABETH EMERGED DEEPLY SCARRED from their relationship. Both are now bitter and full of fury. Elizabeth once described the two of them as kindred spirits. But they were kindred only because they fed on each other’s insecurities. They played to each other’s weaknesses. They led each other on. They were searching for “pure” love—a a love, as Elizabeth once called it, “beyond reason.” It was a sick relationship. What they found instead of love was hatred. Of their parents. Of authority. Eventually, of each other.
WHAT WILL BECOME OF THESE TWO YOUNG PEOPLE IS impossible to predict. Both had so much to offer, but at this writing all those hopes seem smashed. If I were a betting man, I’d put my money on Elizabeth wrangling her transfer to a Canadian prison in the very near future, especially if she can demonstrate a reconciliation with her family. Of all the siblings, only Howard, the surgeon from Houston, attended Jens’s trial. During the proceeding, he sat in the first row of benches immediately behind the prosecution’s table, watching intently but never displaying any emotion.
If Elizabeth gets to Canada, it will be because of her extraordinary manipulative ability. First she has to convince the Virginia authorities to let her go; then she has to convince the Canadians to accept her. Of the two tasks, she probably will have the most difficulty with the Virginians.
Provided she gets to Canada, she probably will be released much sooner from prison there than she would if she were kept in the facility at Goochland. Canada is a long way from Virginia; the feelings about the viciousness of the crimes and her participation in them do not run as deeply in Ottawa as they do in Richmond. The Canadians are likely to be considerably more compasionate.
Given Elizabeth’s natural tendencies, it would not surprise me if she wrote her own version about the events in Boonsboro in March 1985. Certainly, she has no desire to let the record stand with this book. When I was in Virginia for Jens’s trial, someone who had gotten to know Elizabeth fairly well came to me and said that she had asked Elizabeth her opinion of
Beyond Reason.
Elizabeth’s eyes hardened and her answer was succinct: “Burn it!” she said. I considered it a compliment.
Beyond Reason.
Elizabeth’s eyes hardened and her answer was succinct: “Burn it!” she said. I considered it a compliment.
JENS’S FUTURE IS MORE PESSIMISTIC. LACKING ELIZABETH’S talents to say what he thinks others want to hear, he is not likely to win the hearts of his jailers. Or his fellow inmates for that matter. I feel his life behind bars will be a difficult one.
Like Elizabeth, Jens is not an American and presumably he will concentrate on being transferred to a German prison. If he is successful, it will be because of his family’s influence rather than through his personal ability to charm. His father, Klaus, is more a manager than a diplomat; that is, he is a civil servant as opposed to a politician. But he may have leverage. The fact that he can direct power when it is necessary is evident from the fight the Germans put up to have Jens extradited there for trial. He almost won that battle. Also, there is the issue of money. Jens’s maternal grandmother is reportedly quite wealthy, but how deep those pockets are is unknown. His lawyers undoubtedly cost more than most people ever hope to earn in a lifetime. Richard Neaton alone has been working on the case for years, virtually exclusively in the final months. Whether there is enough money to continue the fight remains to be seen.
Other books
Tess's Tale (The Chanel Series Book 3) by Donna Joy Usher
Undercover Daddy by Delores Fossen
Corridors of Power by C. P. Snow
Naughty Bits Part III: Bound to Please by Hill, Joey W.
A Fairy Tale by Shanna Swendson
Hard Up: A Military Mafia Romance by Vivian Wood
Most Eligible Spy by Dana Marton
Heavenly Angel by Heather Rainier
Bittersweet by Loth, Kimberly
Siempre en capilla by Lluïsa Forrellad
