A jury in Wisconsin found Mark Jensen guilty of first-degree murder Thursday in the 1998 poisoning death of his wife after a trial that included what prosecutors said was a haunting letter from the grave…
Jensen sat stonefaced at the defense table as the jury was polled. He showed little emotion during the six-week trial…
The jury’s verdict came nearly a decade after Julie Jensen was found dead in her bed. The cause of death: Poisoning by ethylene glycol, the main ingredient in antifreeze…
Julie Jensen, the victim, had given a neighbor a letter pointing an accusing finger at her husband should anything happen to her.
Do you think justice was served?
Hey Girls! He’s single. 🙂
What’s the deal with Wisconsin lately? Lots of freaky news.
[edit: pls use tinyurl] http://tinyurl.com/ynspm4
If this is Mark who used to live just outside Washington DC in, a town I think is called Clarksburg or Clarkvile Maryland, Then ….
OH MY GOD…. I used to know this guy.
His father is a church preacher.
He , Mark I remember was into occult stuff.
Anyway….. his photo looks just like I remember him. His hair used to be a lot shorter.
Guy looks like a genetic morph between James Woods & Kevin Bacon.
I just realized why he looks so familiar. He looks like Merlin Mann.
#2 – I grew up in Madison. It’s always that way in The Dairy State.
The tragedy is not over. This psychotic thing-that-superficially-resembles-a-human can still get a sentence which will make him eligible for parole down the road.
Was justice served? Hell, no. He should be immediately executed, cremated and his ashes flushed down the prison toilet.
But we can’t do that… I mean, what if it turns out he’s actually innocent, right?
From the information provided, this is a legal injustice. The long tradition in American justice has been the refusal to admit “hear say” testimony. This testimony is extremely prejudicial and can’t be proved or disproved. Allowing the inclusion of the letter flies in the face of confronting one’s accusers. Once again the Supreme Court has dropped the ball and ignored the Constitution.
Also, allowing testimony from jail house snitches should not be allowed. The snitch knows they will receive favors from the system by doing what they can to help prosecute a more important case.
I don’t know if he is guilty. I do know that some of the evidence was prejudicial enough to deny him a fair trial.
After some reflection, there is something else bothering me.
Trial rules should be either neutral or slightly to the defendant’s favor. We should never convict when it might be a wrongful conviction. Even if 10 guilty men go free so that that one innocent person isn’t convicted should be a meaningful statement instead of an excuse for harsher rules and penalties. Remember, the rules and the way this guy was convicted might be used to convict you next year.
Get it straight; I say he should die, as a matter of justice. But as a matter of law, even, as here, in a case where the actual possibility of any other person on Earth committed the crime is utterly nonexistent, forensic evidence that indisputably identifies him as the perpetrator is not present, so I would have to concede that he does not merit a death sentence.
But that makes it only a technicality which in no way changes the facts of the case. Go take just a brief look into the details. Then look again at that utterly inhuman, psychotic face.
There is a far greater probability of finding the Baby Jesus dancing with Paula Abdul in front of your Xmas tree than there is of him being innocent.
The law that permits parole for this act of pure evil is the product of liberalism run amok.