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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

I loved how the prosecution bolded the fact that she was told, by Julie, that Julie feared for her life and yet she NEVER once talked to the police or the DA after her death just days later....but she absolutely made herself available to the defense. That was a very good point that I hadn't really thought about!
 
Last edited:
Did anybody else notice the odd way Jensen looked at his sister when she was on the stand? Gave me the creeps, and I've not seen him do it to any other witness. I think she is terrified of him and probably her parents and they know it. I love my brothers, but I wouldn't be paying $200 a month into a jail account for any of them! Of course the jury didn't hear that. I don't think the jury is going to believe much of her testimony.

Also, I thought Jambois was masterful in cross examining the forensics witness. He essentially got to give an early closing argument.
 
AnnInOhio said:
Did anybody else notice the odd way Jensen looked at his sister when she was on the stand? Gave me the creeps, and I've not seen him do it to any other witness. I think she is terrified of him and probably her parents and they know it. I love my brothers, but I wouldn't be paying $200 a month into a jail account for any of them! Of course the jury didn't hear that. I don't think the jury is going to believe much of her testimony.

Also, I thought Jambois was masterful in cross examining the forensics witness. He essentially got to give an early closing argument.
Click to expand...
It always depresses me to see grown adults not able to differentiate from a sick family system. I realize estrangement is painful under any circumstances but good god if murder is not a good enough reason to estrange in order to maintain your integrity/humanity I don’t know what is!
 
God this current witness on the stand is so irritating. If she says Julie’s perception was distorted one more time!! Ugh! I seriously question a profession that tells people their perception is distorted!
 
Weki said:
God this current witness on the stand is so irritating. If she says Julie’s perception was distorted one more time!! Ugh! I seriously question a profession that tells people their perception is distorted!
Click to expand...
I completely agree. She's also quoting that Julie's doctor noted that she was having trouble sleeping, and was agitated from the Paxil, so he prescribed sleeping pills the day before she died.
It was her husband Mark, that went to him saying she couldn't sleep, and got the doctor to prescribe the sleeping pills, that he picked up from the pharmacy. She might not have even known what they were.
She's also saying Julie had distorted perception to be fearful of Mark. Right before she died, of the very thing she was fearful of. That doesn't seem distorted to me.

Did anyone but Mark's sister say Julie said she was starting anti-depressants, and not to worry if they didn't hear from her for a while?
I know she spoke to her neighbors, and was concerned because she sounded loopy - that doesn't sound like she was avoiding people - it sounds like she had symptoms she didn't expect.
 
NotMyselfNEMore said:
I completely agree. She's also quoting that Julie's doctor noted that she was having trouble sleeping, and was agitated from the Paxil, so he prescribed sleeping pills the day before she died.
It was her husband Mark, that went to him saying she couldn't sleep, and got the doctor to prescribe the sleeping pills, that he picked up from the pharmacy. She might not have even known what they were.
She's also saying Julie had distorted perception to be fearful of Mark. Right before she died, of the very thing she was fearful of. That doesn't seem distorted to me.

Did anyone but Mark's sister say Julie said she was starting anti-depressants, and not to worry if they didn't hear from her for a while?
I know she spoke to her neighbors, and was concerned because she sounded loopy - that doesn't sound like she was avoiding people - it sounds like she had symptoms she didn't expect.
Click to expand...
I don’t know why these charlatans are allowed to offer testimony of diagnosis of a dead woman. She has no idea whether Julie’s perception was distorted or not. She never spoke to her. This kind of testimony should not be allowed IMO. It makes a mockery of the truth seeking mission of a trial. This is cynical speculation on this expert’s part. Nothing more! And the state is footing the bill. At $400/hour are you kidding me?? What a joke!

And these same mental health experts tell us all the time that DV victims don’t leave bc abuse is complicated. And if you say otherwise you’re blaming the victim. But for $400/hour they will got to court and say she didn’t leave so her perception is distorted! She was never in danger!
 
I didn’t realize the woman sitting behind Jambois was his non-lawyer wife. He’s designated her as a special prosecutor even though she’s not a lawyer. Jambois is an interesting character! Also, he ran against Judge Milisauskas for that judgeship seat and lost. That might explain some of the attitudes among the parties in this courtroom.
 
Weki said:
I didn’t realize the woman sitting behind Jambois was his non-lawyer wife. He’s designated her as a special prosecutor even though she’s not a lawyer. Jambois is an interesting character! Also, he ran against Judge Milisauskas for that judgeship seat and lost. That might explain some of the attitudes among the parties in this courtroom.
Click to expand...

I didn’t realize that either. How can one be designated that without being a licensed attorney? Guess in some places it’s just a title? Very curious
 
Weki said:
I didn’t realize the woman sitting behind Jambois was his non-lawyer wife. He’s designated her as a special prosecutor even though she’s not a lawyer. Jambois is an interesting character! Also, he ran against Judge Milisauskas for that judgeship seat and lost. That might explain some of the attitudes among the parties in this courtroom.
Click to expand...
Beverly Jambois IS also an attorney
 
AnnInOhio said:
Beverly Jambois IS also an attorney
Click to expand...
Thanks for the correction. I went back to the article I read earlier and it said she has no experience as a prosecutor NOT that she’s not an attorney. My mistake. It seems her experience is more as a business/corporate lawyer. I guess she’s acting as a sort of paralegal in this trial.
 
I didn’t watch the first trial & id like to someday but the rebuttal isn’t as strong as I thought it would be. There’s been multiple mixups of dates (saying the month wrong, saying the year wrong, saying doctor interviewed Mark Jensen for 5 years I mean 5 days, etc). His style is certainly more subdued than some of his cross-examinations which I find interesting.

I also wasn’t sure what to make of the whole “what are they teaching these psych courses for their Boards “when you completely ignore the evidence?” and “when you consider the prime suspect in a 1st degree murder case that’s the best source the most reliable source of information….?” I thought she made it pretty clear that while she talked with him for 5 hours, she used that - in her words as a “framework” - for her conclusions but not the be all, tell all.

The whole “MJ was the origin of his wife having a sleep issue/disorder”. I recall, MOO Dr West very carefully choosing her words when replying to questions about this, acknowledging that the info may have been relayed by MJ to the doctor BUT also that she said she believed the doctor would use that WITH the previous day’s visit/her history/knowledge of her past/etc. I didn’t think it was “she totally refused to acknowledge it came from MJ” but that’s just my opinion. Wonder what the jury thinks.
 
MTW2011 said:
I didn’t watch the first trial & id like to someday but the rebuttal isn’t as strong as I thought it would be. There’s been multiple mixups of dates (saying the month wrong, saying the year wrong, saying doctor interviewed Mark Jensen for 5 years I mean 5 days, etc). His style is certainly more subdued than some of his cross-examinations which I find interesting.

I also wasn’t sure what to make of the whole “what are they teaching these psych courses for their Boards “when you completely ignore the evidence?” and “when you consider the prime suspect in a 1st degree murder case that’s the best source the most reliable source of information….?” I thought she made it pretty clear that while she talked with him for 5 hours, she used that - in her words as a “framework” - for her conclusions but not the be all, tell all.

The whole “MJ was the origin of his wife having a sleep issue/disorder”. I recall, MOO Dr West very carefully choosing her words when replying to questions about this, acknowledging that the info may have been relayed by MJ to the doctor BUT also that she said she believed the doctor would use that WITH the previous day’s visit/her history/knowledge of her past/etc. I didn’t think it was “she totally refused to acknowledge it came from MJ” but that’s just my opinion. Wonder what the jury thinks.
Click to expand...
Agreed! I didn’t watch the first trial either and I’m wondering if this retrial performance by Jambois is a symptom of fatigue at having to retry this case. This retrial has felt lethargic to me since day one. Even the judge seemed over it/impatient since day one.

But conflating facts and misrepresenting testimony is never a good look for a prosecutor! It looks lazy and if the prosecutor can’t be bothered why should the jury sit there for hours parsing through the evidence to clarify. It’s easy for a jury to say “I’m confused, so not guilty.”
 
MTW2011 said:
I didn’t watch the first trial & id like to someday but the rebuttal isn’t as strong as I thought it would be. There’s been multiple mixups of dates (saying the month wrong, saying the year wrong, saying doctor interviewed Mark Jensen for 5 years I mean 5 days, etc). His style is certainly more subdued than some of his cross-examinations which I find interesting.

I also wasn’t sure what to make of the whole “what are they teaching these psych courses for their Boards “when you completely ignore the evidence?” and “when you consider the prime suspect in a 1st degree murder case that’s the best source the most reliable source of information….?” I thought she made it pretty clear that while she talked with him for 5 hours, she used that - in her words as a “framework” - for her conclusions but not the be all, tell all.

The whole “MJ was the origin of his wife having a sleep issue/disorder”. I recall, MOO Dr West very carefully choosing her words when replying to questions about this, acknowledging that the info may have been relayed by MJ to the doctor BUT also that she said she believed the doctor would use that WITH the previous day’s visit/her history/knowledge of her past/etc. I didn’t think it was “she totally refused to acknowledge it came from MJ” but that’s just my opinion. Wonder what the jury thinks.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 177 more.
Total: 429 (members: 178, guests: 251)

Online statistics

Members online
178
Guests online
251
Total visitors
429
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,545
Messages
18,241,015
Members
234,395
Latest member
Emzoelin
Back
Top