NationStates Jolt Archive

plenty of women stay with men who they fear will end up killing them.

but yeah, i wouldnt convict on the basis of the letter and warnings alone. there would have to be significant evidence that he killed her outside of her worries.

What about the suffocation though?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/27/jensen.sentence/index.html

The Wisconsin man accused of poisoning his wife with antifreeze and convicted of murdering her was sentenced Wednesday to life in prison with no chance of parole.


Mark Jensen's chin quivers as a letter from his sons is read in court Wednesday before his sentencing.

1 of 2 Mark Jensen, 48, was found guilty Thursday in Elkhorn, Wisconsin, of killing his wife, Julie Jensen, in 1998.

The prosecution said the murder culminated years of torment.

"Your crime is so enormous, so monstrous, so unspeakably cruel that it overcomes all other considerations," Kenosha County Judge Bruce Schroeder said before pronouncing the sentence. Watch the judge lower the boom »

Prosecutors contended that Jensen poisoned his 40-year-old wife with antifreeze and then suffocated her in 1998, but the defense argued that Julie Jensen was a depressed woman who killed herself and framed her husband.

Julie Jensen had given a neighbor a letter pointing an accusing finger at her husband should anything happen to her.

She also made foreboding comments to police and to her son's teacher, saying she suspected her husband was trying to kill her.

Her letter, read aloud in court, said in part: "I pray I'm wrong + nothing happens ... but I am suspicious of Mark's suspicious behaviors + fear for my early demise." Read the letter »

The case turned on the admissibility of the letter, which would have been considered unusable "hearsay" evidence if Schroeder had not ruled that it was a "dying declaration." In such cases, the defendant has no opportunity to face his accuser.

After the verdict, jurors told reporters that the letter gave them "a clear road map" to conviction, as one female juror phrased it.




Hmm... I find this kinda of fishy. Here's a women who feared for her own life so much that she wrote a letter about it, but stayed with the guy? That doesn't seem to add up. I'm inclined to believe the guy was framed, but perhaps I'm wrong... thoughts?

thoughts?

I don't really see what she would gain by framing him tbh, if she framed him it would be somewhat poetic, but I don't think she did, reality doesn't work that way. I also know almost nothing about the case, so it's hard to tell.

yeah I bet she was just after the house :p

thats why she killed herself and made it look like he did it!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/27/jensen.sentence/index.html

Hmm... I find this kinda of fishy. Here's a women who feared for her own life so much that she wrote a letter about it, but stayed with the guy? That doesn't seem to add up. I'm inclined to believe the guy was framed, but perhaps I'm wrong... thoughts?

Um. So based on your lack of understanding of basic psychology, you feel that the judge and jury that actually heard the evidence and convicted him of being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt were wrong?

For pete's sake....

The lengths to which these whorish women will go to cause trouble for their men is truly sickening. Poising herself with antifreeze, and strangling herself to death, probably because he said she looked fat in those pants...unbelievable! Obviously a very disturbed individual.

yeah I bet she was just after the house :p

thats why she killed herself and made it look like he did it!
Women are known to be devious and spiteful.

Um. So based on your lack of understanding of basic psychology, you feel that the judge and jury that actually heard the evidence and convicted him of being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt were wrong?

For pete's sake....

And not only were they wrong, but the right answer was that she KILLED HERSELF to frame him.

I prefer the Lady in the lake case in Cumbria...

I wouldn't put it past a woman. They are the more devious gender.

Women are known to be devious and spiteful.

And some men are abusive and murderous. See what I did there? Rather than blanket generalising, I included the word 'some' to make it clear that I am not an idiot, and I do not believe that "all men are x".

Hmmm i wonder why they allow photos to be taken in court?
Wouldn't the public knowledge of this event affect the outcome, i'm not sure how maybe an angry mob or something.

Anyway to the topic in 1998? why did it take 10 years for this to be heard now?
That sounds odd, to do this Prosecutors contended that Jensen poisoned his 40-year-old wife with antifreeze and then suffocated her in 1998, but the defense argued that Julie Jensen was a depressed woman who killed herself and framed her husband.
killer herself then frame her husband? i think there's a part missing here about the being alive to use framing her husband. History of depression?

lots of things that i don't know about this case, but interesting nonetheless.

And some men are abusive and murderous. See what I did there? Rather than blanket generalising, I included the word 'some' to make it clear that I am not an idiot, and I do not believe that "all men are x".
See what I mean.


>_>

Hmmm i wonder why they allow photos to be taken in court?
Wouldn't the public knowledge of this event affect the outcome, i'm not sure how maybe an angry mob or something.

Anyway to the topic in 1998? why did it take 10 years for this to be heard now?
That sounds odd, to do this
killer herself then frame her husband? i think there's a part missing here about the being alive to use framing her husband. History of depression?

lots of things that i don't know about this case, but interesting nonetheless.

Do ya think maybe there might be more evidence in the case than is discussed in the short CNN article? Just maybe?

There are countless reasons why someone would kill themselves to frame another person. Not many of them are sane, but killing oneself is rarely a sane idea.

As for my understanding of psychology, I never professed to know the psyche of the women. I gave my initial opinion that someone fearing for their life writes a letter rather than seeking shelter seems like an odd choice.

And, ironically, I am writing this as I prepare for a Psych test I have in 40 minutes.

Do ya think maybe there might be more evidence in the case than is discussed in the short CNN article? Just maybe?

Of course, I do. However, with a jury, I am not always assured of their ability to objectively analyze evidence. I was especially intrigued by this quote:

After the verdict, jurors told reporters that the letter gave them "a clear road map" to conviction, as one female juror phrased it.

Once again, I'm not saying the guy is innocent, just that the main evidence was interesting.

And some men are abusive and murderous. See what I did there? Rather than blanket generalising, I included the word 'some' to make it clear that I am not an idiot, and I do not believe that "all men are x".

Amen to that. I hate it when people assume that because their hubby is x then all of that gender is x, or alternatively that because they are y then all of their gender is y.

Amen to that. I hate it when people assume that because their hubby is x then all of that gender is x, or alternatively that because they are y then all of their gender is y.

Personally, I am XY and get offended by both.

Anyone who's been in a relationship knows they can be a "strange" situation- it provides "a sense of security" so even if someone is in a relationship they clearly shouldn't be in they might be inclined to stay in it despite the more beneficial alternative. Add to this the fact that the Jensens had kids and "leaving" becomes even more problematic...so the fact Julie Jensen didn't leave husband Mark doesn't surprise me at all.

As far as Mark being "framed"- all the letter says is that Julie is scared for her life because she's worried Mark would get back at her for an affair she had seven years prior to her death. There's nothing in there that suggests that Julie would have even wanted to die, because she said she wanted to live for her kids. The autopsy indicated the possibility (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=718150) that Julie died at the hands of Mark (http://www.wisn.com/jensentrial/15006357/detail.html), so I have reason to believe Mark's defense was just grasping at straws.

I wouldn't doubt there are some women who'd do something devious to get back at a man (and vice versa) but it's not the case here.

Hmmm i wonder why they allow photos to be taken in court?
Wouldn't the public knowledge of this event affect the outcome, i'm not sure how maybe an angry mob or something.

The public is supposed to have knowledge of trials. That's why the Constitution guarantees public trials. It's supposed to keep the government honest in the sorts of prosecutions that it brings before, not just a judge, but a court. It's part of what makes the military tribunals for Gitmo prisoners such a travesty.

Judges throughout the years have been reluctant to allow their definition of "public" to update with new technology. Personally I think trials ought to have full media access insofar as it's practical. But then again, I think executions ought to be public too. A civilization that can't countenance the homicides committed in its name doesn't deserve to have them.