Present: All the Justices 

JENS SOERING 

 OPINION BY JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON 

v. Record No. 971647 April 17, 1998 

GEORGE DEEDS, WARDEN, KEEN 

MOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BEDFORD COUNTY 

William W. Sweeney, Judge 

 Petitioner Jens Soering was convicted in 1990 by a jury in 

the Circuit Court of Bedford County of two counts of first 

degree murder for the 1985 killings of Derek Haysom and Nancy 

Haysom in their Bedford County home near Lynchburg. Soering is 

being detained by the respondent under two terms of life 

imprisonment for the murders. 

 In 1995, the convict filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court. In 

August 1996, the Court, pursuant to Code § 8.01-657, awarded the 

petitioner a writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Circuit 

Court of Bedford County for determination of the issue “whether 

the Commonwealth withheld from the defense exculpatory evidence 

as alleged in claim V” of the amended petition. The Court 

dismissed the remaining habeas allegations. Claim Five of the 

petition alleges: “Soering’s conviction should be reversed due 
to the prosecution’s withholding of Brady material from the 

defense at his original trial.” 

 In December 1996, the habeas judge, who had presided over 

the criminal trial, conducted an evidentiary hearing on the 

issue presented. In a June 1997 order, incorporating a 13-page 

memorandum opinion, the court determined the convict’s claim is 

without merit. The matter is before us for review. 

 Initially, the evidence adduced during the criminal trial 

will be summarized. The murder victims were the parents of 

Elizabeth Haysom, Soering’s girlfriend and lover. In 1984, 

Soering and Elizabeth were undergraduate students at the 

University of Virginia, both attending under academic 

scholarships. A friendship between the pair developed into an 

infatuation. Elizabeth’s parents opposed their daughter’s 

relationship with Soering; this infuriated him. During this 

time, she also had “feelings” of “anger” as well as “resentment” 

and “hatred” toward her parents. 

 During the latter part of 1984 and early 1985, Soering and 

Elizabeth began discussing “a lot of ideas about how [her 

parents] might die.” On Friday, March 29, 1985, the students 

traveled in a rented vehicle from Charlottesville to Washington, 

D.C., and “checked into” a hotel. 

 On Saturday, “it suddenly became real, we were going to 

conspire and commit murder,” according to Elizabeth, who was a 

2
prosecution witness at Soering’s trial. The pair made elaborate 

plans to establish an alibi to cover Soering’s trip from 

Washington to her parents’ home for the purpose of killing them. 

He purchased a knife before he departed Washington alone on 

Saturday afternoon. She remained, and walked around Washington 

in a drug-induced “haze.” 

 Later that night, Elizabeth found Soering on a Washington 

street, near where they “agreed to meet,” sitting in the rented 

vehicle with a bloody bedspread “draped over him.” He told her 

he had killed her parents. 

 The victims’ bodies were discovered during the day on 

Wednesday, April 3. Her body was found on the kitchen floor and 

his body was on the floor between the dining room and living 

room. They had been stabbed in their torsos and their throats 

had been cut. There were no signs of forced entry into the 

home. Exterior lights were burning, but interior lights were 

not. Efforts had been made to wipe footprints left in the blood 

at the scene. All fingerprints at the scene had been left by 

known friends or visitors, except four sets that never were 

identified. No murder weapon was ever found. 

 No valuables had been removed from the home. Silverware, 

cash, and jewelry in plain view had not been touched. The 

contents of a liquor cabinet were undisturbed. The Haysoms’ 

3
motor vehicles were parked outside and a set of car keys was 

found in the hallway. 

 Subsequently, the police investigation focused on 

Elizabeth, who voluntarily furnished blood and hair samples, 

fingerprints, and footprints. The police had learned about the 

pair’s rental of the vehicle and that the miles the car was 

driven far exceeded the round trip distance from Charlottesville 

to Washington. In fact, the mileage was consistent with a trip 

from Charlottesville to Washington, Washington to Bedford and 

back, then from Washington to Charlottesville. 

 The police were unable to contact Soering until October 

1985. Initially, he refused to provide blood or hair samples, 

fingerprints, or footprints, but later agreed to meet 

investigators to provide the requested forensic information. 

Before the appointed time, however, Soering fled to Europe, 

leaving school and forfeiting scholarships that provided full 

tuition and expenses. Shortly thereafter, Elizabeth fled and 

met Soering in Europe. 

 In 1986, the Bedford police learned the pair had been 

arrested and were incarcerated in London on various fraud 

charges. British police had searched the pair’s apartment and 

found documentary evidence linking them to the murders. 

 During interrogation in jail in London, Soering confessed 

in detail on several occasions to having committed the murders. 

4
He said he had traveled alone from Washington to Bedford, 

leaving Elizabeth in Washington to establish an alibi for him. 

Upon arriving at the Haysoms’ home, he stated, he conversed with 

them over dinner at the dining room table, violence erupted, and 

he killed them both by stabbing and cutting their throats. He 

demonstrated to the police the manner in which their throats 

were cut. 

 Soering stated to the police that during the killings he 

cut two fingers of his left hand and that Mr. Haysom had struck 

him in the face. A witness testified that, at the victims’ 

funeral, Soering had bandages on his fingers and a bruise on his 

face. 

 Soering’s blood type proved to be Type “O,” the same type 

as unidentified blood found at the murder scene. Neither the 

victims’ blood nor Elizabeth’s blood was Type “O.” His 

fingerprints did not match any of the four sets of unidentified 

prints found at the scene. 

 Soering testified at the criminal trial. He denied any 

participation in the planning or commission of the murders. He 

testified that Elizabeth left the hotel in the rented vehicle, 

telling him she had to procure some drugs while in Washington 

because she was being blackmailed by another student, her 

Charlottesville drug supplier, who threatened to tell her 

parents of her continued drug use. According to Soering, 

5
Elizabeth returned to the hotel room after midnight, stating, “I 

have killed my parents.” 

 Elizabeth pled guilty as an accessory before the fact to 

both murders. She was sentenced to 90 years in prison. 

 We turn to the evidence presented at the habeas hearing. 

The convict showed that, prior to the criminal trial, his 

attorney filed a comprehensive discovery motion for “any and all 

evidence or information within the possession, custody, or 

control” of the prosecution “which is or might arguably be 

exculpatory,” including information “which may tend to show that 

there are other individuals responsible for” the crimes. 

 The focus of the 1996 evidentiary hearing was the 

testimony, presented on behalf of the convict, of former 

Bedford County Deputy Sheriff George Anderson. Within a week of 

the Haysom murders, Anderson detained and questioned two men, 

William Shifflett and Robert Albright, who were walking or 

hitchhiking late at night on the Route 460 East bypass near 

Bedford. The officer became suspicious of the men because he 

rarely had seen persons walking there late at night. The men 

told Anderson they had been to Lynchburg “to see a girl” and 

were headed to Roanoke. 

 Anderson directed each of the men to place the contents of 

his pockets on the hood of the patrol car, and then questioned 

each of them while the other sat in the rear of the car. One of 

6
the men carried a small beige tablecloth and a small, empty, 

nylon travel bag. Neither carried any large amount of money nor 

did there appear to be bloodstains on them or their belongings. 

There was no testimony that the tablecloth or bag were items 

missing from the Haysom home. 

 Anderson reported by radio the encounter to the Bedford 

Sheriff’s Office and was told by a superior to release the men. 

Anderson discussed the incident the next day with another 

superior officer, who was involved in the Haysom investigation. 

 Ten days to two weeks after this incident, Anderson noticed 

the brass end of an object protruding from the rear seat of his 

patrol car. He found a Buck 110 folding knife. The knife had 

not been among the belongings the two men produced when Anderson 

stopped them on the bypass. Anderson did not recall that anyone 

else had been in the rear seat of his car after he stopped 

Shifflett and Albright, although he could not recall when, 

before the bypass incident, he previously had examined the seat. 

 Prior to the habeas hearing, the knife Anderson discovered 

was subjected, pursuant to the convict’s request, to laboratory 

testing for traces of blood. There was no evidence that any 

blood was found on the knife. 

 The medical examiner who performed the Haysom autopsies 

testified that the blade of the knife was of such size and shape 

that it could have been the Haysom murder weapon, although he 

7
said it was difficult to be certain of that fact because he 

could not determine precisely the dimensions of the blade of the 

murder weapon from the wounds on the bodies. The knife, a 

common type of folding knife, is readily available at retail 

stores. 

 On the night of April 5, Albright and Shifflett stayed 

under a bridge in Roanoke. The next day, in a drunken condition 

and after accosting and attempting to rob two persons, the duo 

met Marvin Millikin, a street person. They forced Millikin at 

knife point to a field, made him disrobe, beat and kicked him, 

and took his wallet. After leaving him in the field, they 

returned, stabbed him 26 times, and amputated his penis. Later, 

they were convicted of Millikin’s murder. 

 Deputy Anderson learned of the arrests of Albright and 

Shifflett for the Millikin murder and began to suspect they 

might have been involved in the Haysom murders. He notified the 

Roanoke police of his suspicions. 

 No evidence was presented that Albright or Shifflett 

admitted any connection with the Haysom murders, nor was there 

any evidence that Elizabeth Haysom ever met or had any 

connection with either of the men. According to the record, the 

Roanoke police apparently did not make any connection between 

the Haysom and Millikin murders. 

8
 During Soering’s prosecution, the Commonwealth never 

disclosed to the defense any circumstances of the Albright and 

Shifflett stop or the later discovery of the knife in Anderson’s 

patrol car. 

 Upon review, the convict says there is no dispute the 

prosecution withheld evidence and no dispute “what the evidence 

was.” He contends that the withheld evidence was exculpatory as 

a matter of law and that his convictions must be vacated. 

 The theory of Soering’s defense was “that the crimes were 

committed by Elizabeth, with one or more accomplices.” He 

argues, “It was established at the evidentiary hearing that the 

possibility of an accomplice to work with Elizabeth, and some 

suggestion as to who that might have been, was critically 

important to the defense of this case because of a jury’s 

natural reluctance to find that a child, even an adult child, 

could commit this brutal crime on her own parents. This is even 

more true where, as here, the family involved was a ‘nice’ 

family, well known and respected, with money, educational 

benefits and social prominence.” 

 He contends, “This evidence – concerning the presence of 

two men in the area of the crime, soon after the crime was 

committed, who were known criminals, indeed murderers, and who 

when stopped attempted to hide from authorities a knife which is 

consistent with being the murder weapon, and who [were] never 

9
interrogated about the Haysom crimes nor had their hair or blood 

samples compared with crime scene samples – was clearly 

exculpatory.” We do not agree. 

 “[S]uppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to 

an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence 

is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of 

the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Brady v. 

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). Favorable evidence is 

material “only if there is a reasonable probability that, had 

the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the 

proceeding would have been different. A ‘reasonable 

probability’ is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence 

in the outcome.” United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 

(1985). Accord Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433, 434 (1995). 

In other words, a petitioner must show that when the case is 

evaluated in the context of the entire record, including the 

omitted evidence, a jury would have entertained a reasonable 

doubt regarding petitioner’s guilt. See Bagley, 473 U.S. at 

682; United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 112-13 (1976). Accord

Kyles, 514 U.S. at 460 (Scalia, J., dissenting). 

 Additionally, evidence that is inadmissible at trial is not 

“evidence” at all, for Brady purposes. Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 

U.S. 1, 5-6 (1995). Thus, it is not “reasonably likely” that 

10
disclosure of such information would result in a different 

outcome at trial. Id. at 8. 

 Urging denial of the habeas petition, the Attorney General 

contends that “the information concerning Albright and Shifflett 

would not have been admissible at Soering’s trial.” Evidence 

proffered by an accused that merely suggests a third party may

have committed the crime charged is inadmissible; only when the 

proffered evidence tends clearly to point to some other person 

as the guilty party will such proof be admitted. Karnes v. 

Commonwealth, 125 Va. 758, 766, 99 S.E. 562, 565 (1919). Accord

Oliva v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 523, 527, 452 S.E.2d 877, 880 

(1995). Although we have considerable doubt of the correctness 

of the convict’s argument on this issue, we will agree with him 

for the purpose of this discussion and assume, without deciding, 

that the evidence would have been admissible at his trial. 

 We hold, however, that the convict has not established that 

material exculpatory evidence was withheld from his defense. 

Upon review of this entire record, we conclude there is no 

reasonable probability that, had the evidence in question been 

disclosed to the defense, the result of the criminal trial would 

have been different. “The mere possibility that an item of 

undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might 

have affected the outcome of the trial, does not establish 

‘materiality’ in the constitutional sense.” Agurs, 427 U.S. at 

11
109-10. At most, the convict has established only such “mere 

possibility.” 

 For example, there is no connection whatever between 

Albright and Shifflett and the Haysom murders. The convict only 

has proven that the men were present in the same county where 

the Haysoms were murdered near the time of the killings, and 

that the vagrants may have possessed a knife that may have been 

similar to the one used to kill the Haysoms. As the habeas 

judge pointed out, “There are no confessions, no matching blood 

on the knife, no matching fingerprints, no stolen articles, no 

connection between these two men and Elizabeth Haysom . . . and 

no logical explanation as to why two drunken robbers and 

murderers would kill the Haysoms without taking valuables, 

vehicles and liquor.” 

 Also, except for the stabbing of the victims, the Millikin 

and Haysom murders were dissimilar, as the habeas judge stated. 

The respective murders differed in motivation as well as method. 

The Haysom killings, committed earlier in time, involved 

slashing of the victims’ throats with severing of carotid 

arteries and jugular veins. Millikin’s throat was stabbed, not 

slashed, and he was sexually disfigured, a circumstance not 

present in the Haysom crimes. Albright and Shifflett were 

motivated by a desire to rob their victims. The Haysom murders 

12
were not motivated by robbery; many valuable items in plain view 

were left intact in the Haysom home. 

 Additionally, in order to entertain a reasonable doubt 

based on the theory that the Haysoms were murdered by Albright 

or Shifflett, or both, acting with Elizabeth, the jury would 

have to disregard the overwhelming evidence presented at 

Soering’s criminal trial that he alone committed the murders. 

For example, he confessed repeatedly in great detail, and the 

majority of those details fit the facts developed by the 

criminal investigation: the slashing of the victims’ throats 

compatible with the manner he said he held the knife; the 

injuries he sustained during the violence at the time of the 

murders, which injuries were later observed at the funeral; the 

exterior lights left burning by the murderer controlled by a 

switch in a back bedroom, a location unknown to a stranger to 

the home like Soering, but known to a family member like 

Elizabeth; and documentary evidence (letters and diary entries) 

implicating him in the crimes, just to mention a few of the many 

circumstances consistent with his confessions. Moreover, 

Soering had a motive to kill his lover’s parents, who opposed 

his relationship with their daughter. And, his flight to Europe 

after avoiding the police, resulting in the forfeiture of 

valuable scholarships, is also consistent with his admitted 

guilt. 

13
 In sum, the convict has failed to establish he is entitled 

to habeas relief. Confidence in the outcome of his criminal 

trial has not been undermined. 

 Therefore, the judgment of the habeas court will be 

affirmed and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be 

denied. 

Affirmed and writ denied. 

14