GUILTY WI - Julie Jensen, 40, dies of antifreeze poisoning, Pleasant Prairie, 3 Dec 1998 *husband guilty*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
This is a bad sign! This prosecutor effed up big time in the first trial by introducing that letter! He should’ve known it would overturn the conviction. I know the judge allowed it but it’s the prosecutor’s case to lose and he made a bad call introducing it! It’s a sign of an overzealous prosecutor and that can lead to avoidable mistakes. And now on the first day of the retrial he’s yelling at the judge! Is he nervous about his case!? This level of emotionality doesn’t bode well IMO.
 
This is a bad sign! This prosecutor effed up big time in the first trial by introducing that letter! He should’ve known it would overturn the conviction. I know the judge allowed it but it’s the prosecutor’s case to lose and he made a bad call introducing it! It’s a sign of an overzealous prosecutor and that can lead to avoidable mistakes. And now on the first day of the retrial he’s yelling at the judge! Is he nervous about his case!? This level of emotionality doesn’t bode well IMO.
Sorry to quote myself but this is tied in to the judges comment.I wonder why she did not want the witness to refresh her memory? Okay I guess it’s not coming in under excited utterances. Which I thought were allowed to come in.

 
Last edited:
This is a bad sign! This prosecutor effed up big time in the first trial by introducing that letter! He should’ve known it would overturn the conviction. I know the judge allowed it but it’s the prosecutor’s case to lose and he made a bad call introducing it! It’s a sign of an overzealous prosecutor and that can lead to avoidable mistakes. And now on the first day of the retrial he’s yelling at the judge! Is he nervous about his case!? This level of emotionality doesn’t bode well IMO.

The yelling in the first trial by all parties was crazy. I feel like it's WI style, because I've seen it in more WI trials than any other state.

Judge Borowski's yelling in the Edgecomb trial was insane.
 
Because most screenshots have him looking like a serial killer I thought I’d post a few where he looks quite affable. Open mind and all that.

1673479511816.jpeg

1673479594566.jpeg
1673479629927.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 6B1A95F4-BA1B-4F41-A142-9ED65FC01987.jpeg
    6B1A95F4-BA1B-4F41-A142-9ED65FC01987.jpeg
    115.6 KB · Views: 0
  • 3F0CD59E-7197-49D9-A6DE-82E9C89EE126.jpeg
    3F0CD59E-7197-49D9-A6DE-82E9C89EE126.jpeg
    52.8 KB · Views: 0
The yelling in the first trial by all parties was crazy. I feel like it's WI style, because I've seen it in more WI trials than any other state.

Judge Borowski's yelling in the Edgecomb trial was insane.
You make a good point about the WI trials. I didn’t know there was a lot of yelling at the first trial lol. Good lawd! There seems to be a kind of low energy/schleppy vibe punctuated with yelling in these WI trials.
 
I have to say I love Borowski. Unfortunately, he got into some hot water and they’ve removed him from the criminal division into civil. I like the judges who are not afraid to tell it like it is and keep the attys in line. The judge in this trial is no nonsense too. He has no patience for bs tactics and is not afraid to call it out as he sees it. I think we need more judges like this who keep a tight rein on the proceedings due to all the bad lawyering going on that wastes time and money.

The judge in the Darell Brooks case for example IMO is the opposite and we saw how that played into the defendants hands and created chaos. Judges have a lot of power and I think they should exercise it and not let either party run the show.

I don’t know why the prosecutor got so exercised about the judge’s ruling. The witness said the prior testimony would not refresh her memory and that means he can’t use it to refresh her memory and has to impeach her instead. Which is what they did. This is the problem with trying a case this old. He should be prepared for this kinda thing not vent at the judge.
 
There's no reasonable doubt to me now.
This is a bad sign! This prosecutor effed up big time in the first trial by introducing that letter! He should’ve known it would overturn the conviction. I know the judge allowed it but it’s the prosecutor’s case to lose and he made a bad call introducing it! It’s a sign of an overzealous prosecutor and that can lead to avoidable mistakes. And now on the first day of the retrial he’s yelling at the judge! Is he nervous about his case!? This level of emotionality doesn’t bode well IMO.
Why was the letter a bad idea? Did it not foreshadow the crime for which he is accused?

Is it posted somewhere?
 
Court is using old testimony from the first trial? (2008). Was this witness not available? Weird seeing all the young’uns.

Ted Wojt is being cross-examined. He is the neighbor JJ confided in about her worries over MJ. Ted Wojt offered her several thousand dollars to get away.

Ted is also the guy she gave her letter to.
 
Last edited:
There's no reasonable doubt to me now.

Why was the letter a bad idea? Did it not foreshadow the crime for which he is accused?

Is it posted somewhere?
In theory it’s a great idea, but legally it shouldn’t have been allowed. The letter was admitted in the first trial as a dying declaration.

She wrote that she would never commit suicide and that if she died, police should consider her husband a suspect. "I pray that I am wrong and nothing happens, but I am suspicious of Mark's suspicious behaviors and fear for my early demise
 
Brand new article- gonna post the parts I found to be most relevant

Mark Jensen homicide re-trial: Julie Jensen's friend, acquaintances testify in court (madison.com)

Mark Jensen, according to prosecutors, killed his wife over three days in early December 1998 by poisoning her with ethylene glycol, more commonly known as antifreeze, and then suffocating her while she lay in bed dying and gasping for air in order to be with a mistress. They also allege he killed Julie Jensen out of anger over a previous affair she had with a co-worker, along with other marriage issues.

They also allege he searched the internet for ways to make her death look like a suicide and terrorized her for years with strategically placed *advertiser censored*, emails and phone calls.

Eric Schoor, the best friend of the Jensen's oldest son David Jensen, said he would hang out at the Jensen household every other Wednesday after school.
Schoor said David Jensen was normally a "very positive and energetic kid" but in the days before his mother's death he seemed "grave" and "worried."

Schoor said David Jensen told him that his mother was sick and his father declined to take her to the hospital for care. Schoor said David Jensen mimicked his mother's strained breathing for him while at school in the days before her death.


JENSEN DAY 4

Eric Schoor, David's childhood friend


JENSEN DAY 4

Joseph Mangi, the principal at Bradford High School in 1998, talks about interviewing the late Julie Jensen just prior to her death during the trial at the Kenosha County Courthouse on Thursday, Jan. 12, 2023.

[He] said he decided to offer her the job at Bradford, one of Kenosha County's largest schools, because she "loved working with kids" and of her previous experience volunteering at her oldest son's elementary school in the district.

However, when he attempted to contact Julie Jensen with the good news in the week ending Nov. 30 he was unable to reach her, he said.

Mangi said he called the Jensen home during normal business hours and believed Mark Jensen answered the phone.
When he asked to speak with his wife Mark Jensen said something Mangi said he found disturbing.
"His response was she's asleep and she's going to be asleep for a long time, and he laughed," Mangi said. "It was disconcerting."
A day or two later, Mangi learned she had died.
"Something wasn't right," Mangi added.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
128
Guests online
196
Total visitors
324

Forum statistics

Threads
608,551
Messages
18,241,169
Members
234,399
Latest member
Brialda
Back
Top