Crime Weekly - S3 Ep217: Julie Jensen: The Verdict (Part 3)

Episode Date: June 21, 2024

On the late afternoon of December 3, 1998, Mark Jensen called 911 from his Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin home to report that his wife, 40-year-old Julie Jensen, was found dead in bed. When the police arrived, Mark suggested Julie might have died from an allergic reaction to new medication, he said she had been sick for a few days before her death. However, as the police looked around, they grew suspicious about the circumstances surrounding Julie’s death. They called in the medical examiner’s office and the district attorney’s office, both of which agreed that something was off. An investigation was opened, and it was soon discovered that for weeks before her death, Julie was deeply concerned that Mark, her husband of 14 years, was going to murder her. If you or someone you know is experiencing domestic violence or abuse, please call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233, or text START to 88788. You can also visit their website at www.thehotline.org. Try our coffee!! - www.CriminalCoffeeCo.com Become a Patreon member -- > https://www.patreon.com/CrimeWeekly Shop for your Crime Weekly gear here --> https://crimeweeklypodcast.com/shop Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CrimeWeeklyPodcast Website: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.com Instagram: @CrimeWeeklyPod Twitter: @CrimeWeeklyPod Facebook: @CrimeWeeklyPod ADS: 1. TalkSpace.com/CrimeWeekly - Use code SPACE80 to get $80 off your first month! 2. FactorMeals.com/CrimeWeekly50 - Use code CRIMEWEEKLY50 to get 50% off! 3. Masterclass.com/CrimeWeekly - Get an additional 15% off any annual membership! 4. Prose.com/CrimeWeekly - Get 50% off your first subscription order and a FREE in-depth hair consultation! 5. SKIMS.com - Sizes available in XXS to 4X! Select our podcast in the survey after you order to let them know we sent you!

Dear McDonald's, your breakfast menu, fire. Tens across the board. I could be happy with anything, even though I order the same thing every time. Thanks for not judging me. I'll try something new next time. Maybe. Score a two for $5 deal on a sausage McMuffin with egg and more. Limited time only.

Price and participation may vary. Cannot be combined with any other offer. Single item at regular price. Ba-da-ba-ba-ba. With McValue at McDonald's, you don't just get deals on the drinks. You get deals on McDonald's drinks. So when you're breaking a sweat, embrace the chill without breaking the bank. And when your crew is running on empty, keep your wallet full while refreshing the squad.

Ace the vibe check with drinks like lemonade, frozen Pantablue raspberry, or any size drink for just $1.49. Limited time only. Price and participation may vary. Cannot be combined with any other offer. Ba-da-ba-ba-ba. hello everybody welcome back to crime weekly i'm stephanie harlow and i'm derek levasseur so we're jumping into the third and final part of the julie jensen case which has been a roller

coaster okay from the nude pictures of men being left around the house to the nude pictures of men being found on Mark Jensen's computer and the different folders for the different sizes of male members. It's just been a crazy ride. An unexpected turn of events. So we're going to give a quick little update and talk about kind of where we are up to this point. After 40-year-old Julie Jensen was found dead in her bed on December 3rd, 1998, a medical examiner was unable initially to determine her cause of death. But over the next three years, authorities conducted a thorough investigation and eventually concluded that Julie's husband, Mark, had murdered her using ethylene glycol poisoning antifreeze.

This conclusion matched Julie's concerns that Mark was going to poison her, as well as Mark's computer history, which showed 2,100 searches for the word poison. Mark was arrested and charged with first-degree homicide, and during the trial preparation, his defense tried to get a letter and voicemails that Julie had left for her friend, Officer Cosman, expressing her fear of Mark killing her, and they wanted those barred from the trial. After years of legal proceedings, the court finally ruled that Julie's letter and voicemails could be used as evidence, which meant that Julie would be testifying at her own murder trial, and as we had discussed last episode, it kind of seems

like she was the first case where that was allowed. And I think it was the right call. Obviously, we talked a little bit last episode about how laws like that are sort of taking away the voice of the victim yet again, even though they've already been silenced. So she should at least the letter and the tapes and anything that Julie created that was basically foretelling the future of what she was afraid of was going to believe it or not. But that shouldn't be taken away from them. They should have the full picture. They should have all the information. And they should be allowed as jury members to decide how important that information is to their decision-making process. That's not up for us to decide whether they should see it or not. So I agree with you. I'm glad it was allowed in. So as Mark's trial date approached, the prosecution and police continued building

their case against him. And at one point, they interviewed a man who told the police that they should speak to Mark's former coworker, Ed, because apparently Ed had some pretty important information. So Ed was subpoenaed and he testified that in early November 1998, less than a month before Julie Jensen was found dead, he and Mark read a sales convention in St. Louis. During this trip, Mark got drunk with Ed and the two men started complaining about their wives. But apparently, Mark ended up telling Ed that if someone wanted to get rid of their wife, there were websites detailing how to do so, including on how to poison your wife in ways that would be undetectable.

Mark specifically mentioned that, quote, Giving doses of Benadryl and antifreeze over a long period of time is relatively undetectable and will start crystallizing you from the inside out. End quote. The day after this conversation, Ed told a coworker everything Mark said, but he didn't go to the police because he didn't think Mark was being serious. And this is actually good that Ed went to a coworker and repeated this information the day after Mark told him. Because otherwise, the defense might be able to say, oh, you just have a problem with Mark or you're just trying to get like fame, your seven minutes of fame or whatever, and you're making this up. But now Ed can point to it and say, oh, how would I have known what Mark was going to do

a month later when I talked to my coworker about this the day after Mark told me this? So obviously it happened. Yeah, so there's in the courts, in the actual trial, the person who heard it from Ed wouldn't be, his or her testimony wouldn't be admissible because it would be considered hearsay. But to your point, building the credibility- Wait, wouldn't Ed and what he heard from Mark, would that not be considered hearsay?

Or is it not because it's directly from the suspect? Correct. Correct. He's not interpreting what someone else said to him or what they heard. I see. He's just repeating. Yeah. The co-worker saying, I heard from Ed that Ed heard this. Well, how do you know what Ed heard? You weren't there. But if Ed comes forward and says, this is what I heard with my own ears or saw with my own eyes, that's no longer hearsay. That's firsthand experience. But to your point, and it's a great point, as you said, the defense can say, Ed, you're just doing this because you want to be a part of this case.

But the fact that Ed told someone else who can corroborate his story and it was told to this individual before Julie was ever dead is very compelling. So how would they admit that into trial then? Would they just talk to that person and have somebody testify and say, we spoke to so-and-so and they confirmed. Ed would testify. Ed would testify. And if the defense went after Ed, then they could bring up this coworker and have them testify to what they were told by Ed. And now it would be very specific. They wouldn't be asked questions about, what do you think Mark felt in that moment when he said it? Was he too drunk? That person wasn't there. But can they talk to this person and corroborate what Ed said to this individual through this person? Yes. And then

obviously Ed can elaborate on what Mark told him and the condition that Mark was in when he told this story. So it could go hand in hand, but I will tell you this, it probably isn't even needed. I don't believe that this side coworker, the one who directed law enforcement to Ed, actually testified because it's overkill at this point. The defense knows what's going to happen if they put that extra person up there. They want to get Ed off the stand as quick as possible. Yes, but you do agree it just helps his case that he told someone else. From an investigatory perspective, as I'm trying as the detective to figure out whether Yes, but you do agree. It just helps his case that he told someone else. From an investigatory perspective, as I'm trying as the detective to figure out whether Ed's telling me the truth or not, what his motive is, it's extremely helpful to have that know, if he said this, that's kind of messed up. And he's like, well, I thought he was kidding. But then they asked him,

well, then Mark got arrested. He's in police custody. You still didn't say anything. And Ed said that he had a good reason for this. He said he was scared of Mark, which we're going to talk about later. And that was a valid concern. So following Ed's testimony, Mark's bail was increased to $1.2 million, which he was unable to pay for. So he was taken back into custody. And within a month of being in jail, Mark befriended another inmate, somebody named Aaron. After Mark and Aaron became friends, Mark admitted to Aaron that he killed his wife, Julie, in December of 1998. And he had actually tried to kill her once before that, but it didn't work. Mark explained that he attempted to kill Julie with poison before he went away on that business trip to St. Louis in early November of 1998. But when he got home, Julie was still alive.

Instead of dying, she'd just thrown up all over the place. Mark said he was lucky she didn't die at that time because he didn't have a good enough defense planned out yet. This is messed up because Mark was on a business trip. His wife Julie's home with their children. They're two young children. And he's poisoning her, hoping that she dies while he's gone, which means that not only would his children be left alone without a mother when she died, but they would

most likely be the ones to find her body and be traumatized with that for the rest of their lives. Yeah, it's a terrible situation. And just the building blocks are adding up here as far as a case against Mark. How many people have, quote unquote, have it out for you? All these impartial individuals who don't have any skin in the game are all coming forward, suggesting or indicating that you not only plan the murder out, but how you planned it out. And when it didn't work out, your thoughts on that as well. So not looking good for Mark. And the fact that he's like, the fact that he even wants to tell people this while he's in prison for that crime that he's saying he didn't commit, the fact that he even wants to tell anybody about it or even that he told Ed about it a month before

it happened shows not only a lack of self-awareness, it shows that he wants to talk to somebody about it like a serial killer keeping trophies. He wants to relive it. He almost wants them to know, aren't I smart? Aren't I good? It's basically untraceable. They didn't even know how she died when they did an autopsy. Like, honestly, I think it did a pretty good job and I'm going to get out of this. Another reason for maybe divulging this information is when you're in prison, especially someone like Mark, who's not a hardened criminal, you want people to be a little fearful of you because that may protect you. You want people to feel like you're a dangerous person and maybe they shouldn't steal your clothes or your money or other things that go on in the prisons that we don't have to get into here. But this could have an adverse effect because as I've

said many times before, and you can go watch some of the interviews with the real badass prisoners who are in there for life, women and children. These guys are bad guys, and you probably wouldn't want to be left alone with them, but there is a code inside there. And one of the first things that they find out when new individuals come to prison is what are they in for? And if they're there for a crime against a woman or a child, specifically a child, it's going to be a bad time for this person. Now, the women's situation, from my experience, isn't always as clear cut because if it's an abuse case, there's a lot of men that are in there for that.

If it's a rape case or something like that, sexual assault, again, prisoners do not take kindly to that and they will make an example out of you. I can't say that I'm completely against it, but that's just the way it goes inside those walls. And the guards do as good as they can to try to prevent or protect those individuals. But my point being in all of this, Mark has to be careful what he's saying in there because I don't know what his motive was for telling this to Aaron, but it could backfire on him. It clearly did in the judicial system, but it could also backfire on him in the prison as well, as far as his personal safety. Yeah. I don't see how telling these hardened criminals that you killed your wife in the most underhanded pussy

way, honestly, by poisoning her is going to make them fearful of you. You know, I completely agree with you. But he may have been thinking that. Yeah, he may have been. I don't know what the methodology is or the reasoning behind it. Again, trying to to rationalize the irrational. Right. These people are killing individuals for no reason whatsoever. So to try to understand why he would feel comfortable or why he would be incentivized

to disclose what he did to his wife before his trial is even over doesn't make a lot of sense. But again, who knows? Who knows what he's thinking at that time? What is very interesting is, remember, we said Ed was afraid to say anything to the police even after Mark was arrested. Well, we find out that Mark also shared with his prison friend, Aaron, that during the St. Louis trip, he had told a stockbroker named Ed about his plans to kill Julie. And Mark said, you know, this turned out to be a huge mistake. And now he needed someone to kidnap Ed so that he could not testify at trial. Well, there you go. Now we understand that Ed's

concerns were valid and obviously something that I think every witness in a case like this is concerned about. And this is another element that we as detectives have to handle, have to battle throughout these investigations. stop when we figure out what happened. I will tell you, there's been many hundreds of occasions where my key witnesses are people who may have had made some wrong choices in life along the way, and they were a confidential informant or witness for me in one of the cases that I was working for the narcotics division. And I would have to physically go to their house in the mornings at seven, eight o'clock in the morning, knock on the door, get them out of bed, get dressed, brush your teeth. We got to go to court, drive them down there, make sure that they had transportation home. It was a babysitting job because not every witness is just a stellar person who wants to be a part of this. And in this case, you have a situation where other witnesses who are responsible and respectful and want to contribute are scared to do so for a variety of reasons. One,

retaliation from the actual offender who's on trial. But also what I experienced the most was the perception of being a snitch, the concern of being labeled someone who could not be trusted within the community. So they weren't really concerned about the individual they were testifying against, but more the residual effects it would have after that. And I understood where they were coming from. So it did take a lot of conversations and talking to get people to eventually come forward. And in some cases, they never did. And the cases wouldn't go forward because of it, but completely can relate to this, understand where Ed's coming from.

It's clearly a valid concern. And one of a variety of things that investigators and prosecutors have to experience throughout trial that you don't necessarily hear about all the time. So let me ask you a question and be honest, as a police officer. No, I'm gonna lie. Well, you know, you may sugarcoat as a police officer when you're dealing with an unwilling witness, someone who's afraid to testify for whatever reason. Yeah. Is it more important

for you to be like considerate and understanding of the fact that like, yeah, I get why this person is scared. We're dealing with a scary person and I get why they don't want to do this. Or is it more important for you as the police officer on investigating the case and trying to get the suspect brought to justice to kind of put pressure on this person and convince them that they have to do this? Like what's the push pull like? How much of it is kid gloves and how much of it is tough love? I think it's a case-by-case basis. There's a lot of factors that go into that decision, right? So first off, if this individual is someone who is working off another charge or something else that they're a cooperating witness, well, their ability to choose what they want to do is limited, right? Hey, listen, so-and-so, I can't make you testify.

If you don't want to testify, that's fine. But understand that you're working off what we would call a beef. You're working off something that has already happened. You were arrested and charged with something else. In turn, you're doing this to reduce your charges. So if you want that to happen, this is what you got to do. If you don't want to, that's fine. If it's someone who's just a citizen who just happened to be in the right place at the right time or saw or heard something that's important to our case, we will do the best we can to make them as comfortable as possible. We would try to set up whatever they need in order to feel like they're okay and going forward with this.

But I will tell you, there have been times where as much as I've tried to convince someone that this is the right thing to do because of circumstances in their own lives, whether it's because they have children or a job in the community where this occurred, they may ultimately decide not to testify. It's happened before and I just have to accept it. It's frustrating, but it doesn't mean it's over. I'm still working for the victim. So when one door closes, another one opens and I have to find ultimately, but that's my job to find multiple means of getting to the truth. Sometimes I have the witness, which would make my job easier. Sometimes I don't. All that means is I have to work harder to build the narrative, to show a jury what happened without this key witness. So yeah,

we're never going to force someone to go on the stand no matter who they are. Is there any time you can force or compel someone like with a court order or something? Because I think you can do that in a grand jury because it's anonymous, right? You can like basically serve them and say you're testifying in this grand jury. They could be subpoenaed to testify, right? Like an uncooperating witness can be forced to go up on the stand by the judge or the court or whoever, right? The police officers can't do that. But here's the thing. How's their testimony going to be received by a jury? If they're up there and you can tell that they don't want to be there, one, they're not going to be cooperative. It's going to be, you

know, one word answers. And how do we even know they're telling the truth? So you don't want to do that. And it's usually asked right out by the defense or the prosecution. Are you here under your own free will? Do you, this, is this something you volunteered to do? No, it's not. I'm being forced to be here. Well, then how serious is their testimony going to be taken? So I've personally never had that happen.

I've just opted to not have them on the stand if they really don't want to do it because I feel it would only hurt the case. But yeah, it's it can be it's definitely something that when people ask about investigative work and the process from showing up at the crime scene to getting the guilty verdict at the end, all those things in between the little behind the scenes stuff that you don't see. Yeah, that's that's those are real things that happen all the time and they're just a part of the job. All right, let's go to our first break. We'll be right back. Hey, Spike, got everything you need

to cross the Bay Bridge and head to the beach? Check! Cool, let's hit the road. No, check, Otis. Check what? What's with this check? Check Bay Bridge traffic by calling Baseband first. Ah, you want to know before we go. Check. Always check before driving to and from the beach. Go to Baybridge.com or call 1-877-BASEBAND for traffic updates.

That's Baybridge.com or 1-877-229-7726. No? Then go. Okay, we what Mark told his friend Ed in St. Louis about administering Benadryl and antifreeze together. Real quickly, I will say it would be a good move if you're trying to cover your tracks by administering the antifreeze and somehow convincing your victim to take the Benadryl voluntarily. So that way, if anyone else saw it, the children, whatever, they could say, yeah, mom was taking the Benadryl voluntarily. So that way, if anyone else saw it, the children, whatever, they could say, yeah, mom was taking the Benadryl or someone else could say, yeah, she was taking Benadryl because she felt like she was having maybe an allergic reaction to something.

So it would boast or it would build up the story that this was an accident at her own hands. If that's the narrative he's trying to go with, which at one point he was. Like mixing medications, not taking things, not checking the interactions between them. Right. If she's taking it herself, maybe she sends a text to someone saying, yeah, I just took some Benadryl because I'm feeling a little itchy now. She may leave out the fact that Mark was the one recommending she take the Benadryl, but I could see how in his mindset,

he would maybe attempt to have her take the Benadryl, but I could see how in his mindset, he would maybe attempt to have her take the Benadryl herself to build a narrative that this was something that occurred because of her decision-making. I wonder how he did get her to take it. I mean, it is just a Benadryl. It's pretty benign. He may have even said it'll help you sleep. Yes. Yes, exactly. I talked to your doctor and he said, the symptoms you're experiencing is an allergic reaction to your medication. So you've got to take this immediately. I mean, I don't. That's probably what he did, actually.

Probably came in and said, I talked to your doctor. Wouldn't be hard, right? Somebody, if you're significant other says, hey, take some Benadryl. Yeah. He knows she's going to die. Exactly. Exactly. And he knows she's going to die.

She's not going to be able to check whether or not he actually talked to her doctor. So he could say and do whatever he wants, honestly. Right. And it might show like he might he could be thinking fingerprints on the box, you know, who's pulling who's who's opening the blister packet for all these little things that could have been going through his mind where the least that I'm touching things, the better. He could have bought Benadryl and had it in like the bag and thrown it on the bed and said, hey, your doctor says take this. And he never touched it once. Yeah. Thinking, oh, that's going to be the game changer for me. Or just part of the plot that would have him be undiscovered. So either way, after taking the Paxil and the

Benadryl, Julie became loopy. She started jumping on the bed before deciding she needed to lie down. As she was lying in bed, Mark gave her juice mixed with antifreeze to drink. Then he went online with Julie to research side effects of Paxil to make her think that what she was experiencing was normal. Which, as we know, that's just straight up gaslighting. But once again, from Mark Jensen, it's to be expected. Now, Mark told Erin that the following day, December 2nd, Julie was sick and throwing up. She was unable to keep any food down, and their sons were getting really upset, and they wanted Mark to take their mother to the hospital. Obviously, Mark didn't

want to take Julie to the hospital, so on that day, he went to Julie's doctor and got her some sleeping pills, Ambien to be specific, so she would go to sleep and feel at ease as she died. When he got home, Mark gave Julie the Ambien along with more antifreeze and juice. And later that evening, Mark and the boys all laid on the bed with Julie. Mark promised the kids he would take her to the hospital if she wasn't feeling better soon. Now, this is kind of strange to me, and I'd like some answers. Why can Mark go to Julie's doctor and get something like Ambien? I was thinking the same thing. Right?

Because it doesn't look like Julie was prescribed Ambien before. So how is Mark able to go to the doctor and be like, I think Julie needs something to sleep, and to get something like Ambien that he can now bring back home to her without the doctor seeing Julie, talking to Julie, being able to diagnose Julie? What's going on here? There's got to be more to the story. I'm not excusing the doctor here, but there's got to be more to this story where something we don't know, maybe Julie struggled, but was able to get on the phone after Mark made the call and she spoke to the doctor and said, hey, this is how I'm feeling. Maybe there was something that happened. I just can't see a world where the husband shows up and gives the symptoms of his wife and the doctor goes, sure, here's a prescription.

So actually, that's not true because I just found this. Dr. Richard Borman, he testified that he regretted not speaking with Julie before prescribing her sleeping pills at her husband's request. You regret it, dude? You regret it? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's helpful. That's a problem.

That's a problem. He said. Not why we're here today, but a big issue. He said Ambien causes sedation, which would be stronger if mixed with Paxil, which he knew she was taking. The doctor also said, under questioning by a prosecutor, that he wondered why Mark Jensen didn't follow his recommendation to get his wife medical care if her condition deteriorated. So basically, the doctor didn't do anything. And I'm also wondering, once again, you're a medical professional. You took an oath

to do no harm. And if you thought Julie needed medical attention from what Mark described to you, you should have called and spoken to her. You should have called and done a wellness check. Absolutely. You were her doctor. It was literally your job to keep her healthy and alive. Yeah. At this point, it sounds like the doctor's just trying to avoid losing his license. I wonder if Borman lost his license. I don't know if he had other infractions in his file. Maybe he might probably get a suspension or something after this, but if he's had other infractions, yeah, that might've been in the end of his career. So I just looked it up. Dr. Mark Dorman, as far as I can see from Doximity.com, he does still currently have his medical license. It expires in 2025 and it is valid in the state

of Wisconsin. So it looks like he's still practicing. He is still practicing. He obviously didn't kill Julie, but he himself admitted he made a mistake and he regretted it. Doesn't bring her back. Doesn't that violate HIPAA? Like prescribing medication to a patient that's not there and talking about her. I mean, unless Mark was her. But even still, even though my husband would be my health care proxy or even have power of attorney, that's not going to kick in until I'm actually not there anymore. So I don't believe that somebody can just make medical decisions for you on your behalf when you're conscious and alive. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. I don't want

to judge him too much. Clearly he still has his license and I'm sure this was looked into extensively. So either way, I agree with you. You know what they say about assumptions though. And even the doctor as well, he agrees that that was a missed call, for sure. Well, that's very helpful at this juncture. But anyways, Mark told his prison friend, Aaron, that by the morning of December 3rd, Julie was still alive, but she couldn't get out of bed. So Mark took the kids to school. And when he came home, he said Julie's breathing seemed to have improved. And this made him panic that she was going to survive, and he'd have to take her to the hospital like he promised the boys.

So he rolled Julie on her side, and he sat on her while forcing her head into a pillow until she was dead. Later, he picked up the kids from school, and when they came back home, he had them wait outside while he went in to check and see if Julie was dead. She was, so he called 911 and made it seem like he was shocked to find his wife dead in their bed. After hearing all of this, Aaron went to the police and spilled everything. And they believed what Aaron was saying because he knew details that only the killer would know, details that had never been shared publicly, such as the fact that Julie had been asphyxiated. Right. We didn't know that. And nobody really knew anything because the medical examiner didn't have super clear findings at that point. Another inmate named David came forward and told the police that Mark mentioned needing to kidnap Ed before the trial. And after hearing this, David decided to act like he would help.

He told Mark that his fiance could kidnap Ed and keep him hidden until the trial was over. Mark then called his mother and asked her to contact David's fiancée and send her money so that they could take care of something. He told his mother, quote, We have to do whatever we possibly can to make sure we are on the winning side of this thing, end quote. And Mark's mother, she didn't ask questions. She didn't say, what do you mean anything possible? Like, what does that mean exactly? What's the context of that? What do you consider to be, you know, the epitome of whatever's possible? She didn't do that. She agreed to contact Dave's fiancee, stating she was, quote,

willing to do anything at all, period, end quote. Mark also talked with his mother about doing paid talk show interviews and getting a million dollar book deal and how everyone would relax and have some fun when the trial was over. Thankfully, David and his fiance didn't really plan on helping Mark and instead they went to the police and obviously, lucky for Ed, he was never kidnapped. Yeah, you know, I will tell you now that we're in part three, as I'm hearing all this, and we're still going to get there, the fact that Mark is still defending himself as hard as he can. Very interesting. It's an interesting move, but I guess when you're behind bars, what do you have to lose? But wow, here we are. And I think it's interesting that Mark basically gave all of these details, right?

So once again, I don't think it's so much of a, I'm trying to act like a tough guy. It's like, I'm proud of myself for what I did. Look at how I handled roadblocks I didn't expect. I adjusted, I adapted, I got it done, even though there were things that were trying to prevent me from getting it done. What's important here is the source of the information. So you have this prisoner explaining everything to you, and you may ask yourself as a jury member, well, what's in it for them? Why are they coming forward with this information? And are they lying? Yes, that's possible. You have to consider that. It wouldn't be the first time. But what's compelling here, and usually in any case when this happens, is having a prisoner divulge information, as you said, that's not been released publicly.

Then on top of that, having the forensics, in this case the autopsy, and the physical condition of Julie at the time of her death align with the narrative that the prisoner was allegedly told. So in this case, the asphyxiation. As we mentioned in last episode, it appeared that her face was somewhat smushed. And as the detective said, there would be no other way for that to occur unless something was applied to her face at the time of her death.

That's information that Aaron did not have. And I'm pretty sure he didn't have access to the autopsy reports or the investigator's notes that were taken at the crime scene. So him putting this out there and being an impartial person, but being aware of this knowledge makes it very, very compelling from a testimony standpoint, but also paints a full picture of what actually happened to Julie Jensen. Because before this, all you have is Mark's testimony, which again, he has an incentive to lie. So what can you really believe there? Yes, exactly. And Mark's not the most reliable source at this point.

Right. You always want to have multiple sources. You always want to have more than one narrative because if you're building your assumptions off one person, if that person had a reason to lie, then you're, I said this analogy before too, you're building a house off of a false foundation. So it's never going to work. January 7th, 2008, more than nine years after Julie was killed and due to pretrial publicity, his trial was moved to Walworth County, which is around 45 miles south of Milwaukee. During opening statements, the prosecution told the jury that Mark poisoned Julie with ethylene glycol, and he did this for multiple reasons. One, he was having an affair with Kelly, his co-worker, and he wanted to replace Julie with her. Also, he remained bitter about Julie's brief affair, which is why he engaged in a campaign of emotional torture against Julie by leaving the penis pictures around the house for years.

The prosecution said Mark's bitterness over Julie's affair was, quote, deep-seated and obsessive and gave him a motive to kill Julie, although it was not his sole motive, end quote. The prosecution said Mark spent months conducting internet searches so he could commit a near-perfect crime and make Julie's death look like a suicide. He also spent months trying to make others believe Julie was crazy, like when he told his friend and co-worker that Julie had lost a bunch of weight, which wasn't true at all. In fact, between Julie's appointments with Dr. Borman on September 21st and December 1st, she'd only lost eight pounds,

which isn't a life-threatening amount of weight to lose like Mark was making it seem to be. The prosecution told the jury that Julie had confided in multiple people prior to her death that she thought Mark was trying to poison her, but she didn't leave because she was terrified Mark would try and make her seem crazy and the kids would be taken away from her. The prosecution said evidence showed Julie was not suicidal prior to her death, and instead, she was concerned about her safety and upset about the future of her failing marriage, neither of which are usually things someone would worry about if they were planning to end their own life. The prosecution said Julie was so worried about Mark killing her that she wrote a letter,

put it in a sealed envelope, and gave it to her neighbor Ted. The prosecution read the letter to the jury and also brought up the voicemails she had made to Officer Cosman, relaying her fears that Mark was going to kill her. During the defense's opening statement, they told the jury that Julie killed herself and tried to frame Mark for her murder because she knew he was having an affair. Because yes, that's exactly what people do. My husband's having an affair and I'm going to get back at him, not by divorcing him, not by taking his money because we're married and I'm legally entitled to half of it, not by taking custody of the kids because he really doesn't want them to begin with. I'm going to take my own life. That's really going to show him and I'm going to frame him for it. You know, in the slim to none chance that that works. You know, and a lot of this is all, what you're saying all makes sense, right? But it can be, someone could say, yeah, you might not think that's reasonable,

but maybe in her mind she did. Here's what's not up for debate. If this is true, if Julie had taken her own life in order to get back at Mark, she can't suffocate herself. She can't hold a pillow over her face and asphyxiate herself. That's why this testimony from Aaron and the autopsy findings from the pathologist are so critical to this case.

Because as much as we don't believe it, a jury may, depending on how the defense presents their case. But when you have this added element of, oh, wait a second, she was physically suffocated. She can't do that by herself. So if you can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, then Mark's defense goes out the window. And not only that, it's like, okay, you're saying she did this to herself. There's no proof that she did. The prosecution is saying you did it. There's tons of supporting evidence that you did it. The search is on your computer. You telling people about it. Yeah, it's just a plethora of information. The fact that you do have a motive, that she did

have an affair, that you were actually trying to just cause a campaign of terror against her for years, which the police had proved that he'd done that. He admitted to it. He admitted to being the one to leave the penis pictures because he was mad. All of that stuff is not going to look good for you because you may think it's a legitimate kind of defense like, oh, yeah, I did the penis picture thing because I was mad. But to anyone else, they're like, that shit's crazy. That's not what normal people do. So you think it's normal because you live in your deluded reality. But everyone else who is actually mentally sane looks at something like that. And it doesn't matter why you did it. They're like, the fact that you did that is bananas. It's a banana split sundae with

extra nuts. And so right now you're being colored by that perspective even before the evidence comes out. Yeah, absolutely. No, this is an interesting set of circumstances. And you can see, depending on who you want to believe, spoiler alert, we believe the prosecution in this one. Yeah, we believe Julie. Yeah, we believe Julie, even though she's no longer with us. She's still speaking to us and she's making a pretty clear cut case as to what happened here. Mark's defense team claimed Julie was depressed and disturbed, which is why she'd lost a bunch of weight and had seen a therapist at least three times. Yeah, three times seeing a therapist means you're depressed and disturbed. The defense said, quote, her depression and her despair and her anger and her delusional thinking caused her to point her finger at Mark, end quote.

The defense told the jury that in order to frame Mark for her murder, Julie made all the Internet searches about poisoning. Then she told her neighbor, her son's teacher and Officer Cosman, that she was in fear for her life. But when those people tried to help her, she didn't take their help, which was further evidence of her not truly being scared of Mark. The defense lawyer said, quote, Julie Jensen did not want or need any help. Instead, she sent a letter pointing the finger at her innocent husband. A letter? What protection does a letter provide? Open it after my death?

That's something out of the movies. End quote. What a douchey statement. He also criticized Julie's choice to simply leave a voicemail for Officer Cosman when she supposedly feared she might die one weekend. He said sarcastically, quote, She did what anyone who feared not living through the weekend would. She left a voicemail for the police, end quote. Ew, this is gross. This is gross. Ew. It's like you don't have to be a dick about it. You can give a defense without

smearing the name of the dead. I see what he's trying to do here. He's trying to say it's ridiculous. It's ridiculous to think that this woman was so in fear of her own life that she would, and there was a sense of urgency, and yet all she did was leave a voicemail. But here's the problem, and we haven't discussed it a lot in this case, but when it comes to domestic abuse, especially when children are involved, it's extremely difficult for the victims of domestic abuse to come forward at all because they understand the ramifications of what could happen here. Not only could their abuser turn up the heat on them and make it even worse for them, but it also impacts their children. But it also impacts their children because as we've seen in other cases, when you go to law enforcement, it's not a guarantee that they're going to do something about it. You could go in there, present your case, and because of the laws that are in place,

they say, okay, we're going to note it and we'll let you know. But you're going to need this or that. Or they could even show up and start questioning Mark and that sets him off. That's right. But either way, the victim has to go back there and they have to continue to live their life. And the officers are not going to be standing by babysitting everyone. So that person is back in that situation. So even though they

built up the courage to finally come forward, they could be left on their own to defend themselves, which is not where they want to be. So yes, is it exactly what you would want in a murder trial? No, but the fact that she took steps to speak out against her abuser and use multiple ways of doing it, ensuring that it would be recorded or documented, I think is brilliant. And obviously, it was a good decision because here we are talking about it, and it may be the difference in this case. Yep, exactly.

Exactly. Let's take our next break, and we'll be right back. So on the first two days of witness testimony, the prosecution had Dr. Shambliss, the pathologist who performed Julie's first autopsy and was unable to conclude her cause of death, testify. On the first day he was on the stand, Dr. Shambliss said he originally didn't have enough information to determine a cause of death for Julie. But when he showed up to testify the second day, he said he had reviewed photos of Julie while she was still in bed and noticed that her nose and mouth were pressed to the side of the pillow as if she'd been smothered. He suggested this could be why there was unexplained throat bruising and petechia in Julie's upper chest in the original autopsy. You think, Dr. Chambliss? You think? We've talked about this before, too. I tell you, pathologists love them. Many of them are brilliant.

By the way, rest in peace, Dr. Cyril Weck. I had put something out on Twitter a while ago. When did he die? He passed away a few weeks ago. Yeah, great man. You know, he had some controversial takes as well. Yes, he did. But when I had the opportunity to work with him multiple occasions, he was always very kind to me and the

rest of the film crew. And just, he always, he shed a lot of light on multiple cases I worked, but yeah, rest in peace, Dr. Sir. But back to this, it, there's a lot of interpretation there. They don't have just this book of answers when they see the body, they're trying to interpret what they see. And in some instances, they play it conservatively, which I don't necessarily have a problem with. But when they do that and they first come back and say it's undetermined and then later change that, the defense is always going to bring up the why. Well, why did you change it now? What influenced or who influenced your opinion? And in reality, it could just be, hey, listen, I needed to conduct further tests. I needed to know

more information about the case before I could come to a definitive conclusion, even though there were things that I had already noted that were questionable or suspicious. Either way, when they do that, it does open a small window for the defense to bring up reasonable doubt. And that's what they're trying to do here. Yep. And I just think it's ridiculous. He's like, hmm, maybe that could have been the reason there was petechia and bruising on her throat. Huh? Like, come on. That should have been factored in originally. Anyways, you should have checked. He should have checked for asphyxiation based on those things, I think. Let's just play the other side of the coin real

quick, because I am guilty of being like, oh, pathologists ruined this case for me, the undetermined. But think about the responsibility they have, because they know how critical their report will be in any case. And they're looking at it two ways. One, they want to get it right for the victim. But also, depending on their ruling, someone could be charged with murder and they want to make sure they got it right because you've already lost one person. You don't want to take away the freedom of an innocent party. So I feel like that burden is on many of them where they really are skeptical about speculating because they want to make sure that they can back up whatever conclusion they come to with facts because they know that there's probably going to be someone on trial based on their

findings. And that's a big cross to bear. And I understand where they're coming from. And I do respect the fact that they are very cautious about saying anything until they have the full picture because they understand the significance of whatever ruling they make. Yep, exactly. And I don't always love it, but it is what it is. It's a tough job. Well, because of this unexplained throat bruising and petechia in Julie's chest, Dr. Chambliss then concluded that Julie's primary cause of death was asphyxia by smothering, and the ethylene glycol contributed to her death, obviously making her weak, making her unable to fight back, making her sick, and out of it. And his testimony came as a huge shock to everyone, because up until that moment, the prosecution's theory was that Julie had died from ethylene glycol only. The defense was very upset about this surprise testimony, and they motioned for

a mistrial, which thankfully was not granted. Later, another pathologist agreed with Dr. Chambliss' conclusion of smothering, which matched up with what jail inmate Aaron had told the police, that Mark was worried Julie was going to live, so he rolled her onto her side and sat on her while forcing her head into a pillow until she was dead. The prosecution also had experts testify about how there was no physical way Julie would have been able to administer the second dose of ethylene glycol to herself because she would have been too weak. The experts told the jury that it was very possible for Mark to have hidden the ethylene glycol in juice and given it to Julie without her knowing because what is something we know about antifreeze, the way it smells, it's very sweet smelling, very sweet smelling. So you could hide it in something sweet. And orange juice is kind of thicker. It's fruity.

Yeah, the acidity would break down the taste. Yes, yeah. It would be very hard to figure out that you had anything in there. We're talking small amounts too. Well, yeah. It never really says how much he put in, but since he was trying to do it over a long period of time. Yes. I'm assuming it was smaller doses. Yeah. So to prove this to the jury while on the stand, medical examiner, Dr. Mary Mainland was handed a glass of antifreeze, which she then sniffed and said, quote, it's pleasant. It smells sweet like a tropical cocktail, end quote. She was then given a styrofoam cup of a very small amount of antifreeze, which she put her fingers into,

then put her fingers to her tongue. When asked how it tastes, Dr. Mainland said, sweet. And that's, I mean, that's how you would have to sort of prove that, I guess. You can smell it, but you do have to taste a little bit of it if you want to know that it's sweet. But I can tell you it is, so you don't need to. We don't recommend doing that. Don't do it. So as the trial continued, the prosecution had multiple people testify about all the times Julie brought up how scared she was that her husband was going to murder her, including the voicemails she left for Officer Cosman, the statements she made to neighbor Ted and her son's teacher, and of course, the letter she wrote to the police. Knowing that the defense was going to try and say the letter was full of lies, the prosecution made sure to corroborate almost every single sentence with outside testimony,

which was a great idea and a great job. So for example, the first two sentences of Julie's letter stated, quote, I took this picture and I'm writing this on Saturday, 11-21-98 at 7 a.m. This list was in my husband's business daily planner, not meant for me to see. End quote. Remember, this picture was of a list written in Mark's handwriting that included items

like her own drug supply, bag hands and syringe. To corroborate these two sentences, the prosecution had Julie's neighbor, Ted, testify about how Julie told him she saw the list and how he suggested that she take a picture of the list and give it to the police. They also had Mark's sister testify that Julie showed her a picture of the list as well. Mark's own sister had to testify and admit that on the stand. Then there were sentences four and five of Julie's letter, which stated, quote, Our relationship has deteriorated to the polite superficial. I know Mark's never forgiven me for that brief affair I had with that creep seven years ago, end quote. To corroborate those sentences, the prosecution brought up how, in Mark's interview with the police, he admitted to never forgiving Julie for the affair. Sentence six of Julie's letter stated, quote, Mark lives

for work and the kids. He's an avid surfer of the Internet, end quote. And to corroborate this and refute the defense's claim that Julie was the one looking up poisons online, the prosecution presented abundant evidence that Julie rarely used computers and that, in contrast, Mark was a skilled computer user and avid internet surfer. For example, the technician who searched Mark's computer in 1998 found 2,100 hits for the word poison. However, when they looked up gardening, something Julie loved doing, the only result that came up was from the Anarchist Cookbook, which suggested people visit a home and garden center to buy the fertilizer needed to make

homemade bombs. Furthermore, the time of day the internet searches were made was late at night or early in the morning, times when Mark was home, and when Mark was away on business, there was no internet activity on the computer. So this is something we've discussed before on this channel, and it's imperative in these types of cases, especially with this, what's at stake. When we're building our case as detectives, we're putting in line all the evidence and we're doing it in chronological order to tell a story for everyone who's going to consume our investigative report. But in addition to building that story, which will be like big chunks of information that ultimately get you to the conclusion of the victim being killed, we also have to look for the holes in between those chunks of information. Why? Well, when the

defense reads our report, they're going to look at those chunks and they're going to see the gaps between them and they're going to try to fill those gaps with their narrative to create that doubt. So in addition to building the case based on facts that indicate a specific person committed a crime, we also have to put in those gaps information that rules out other potential forms of defense. So we're doing two jobs. We're serving as an independent investigator working the case, seeing what the prosecution will need to ultimately charge someone and potentially get a conviction. But we're also looking at it from the perspective of a defense attorney to see what they're going to attack. And if we can figure that out, we can also investigate those possibilities, rule them out for ourselves, and make sure that we document them with factual information and maybe experts like this to prove

that whatever theory they may try to conjure up, we can dispute it with actual factual information. So it's a lot. It's not just building the case against one person. It's also showing that there couldn't be a potential for something else, which you don't always have, but it's imperative to do that because the defense will absolutely take advantage of it if you don't. And it's interesting because Mark's sister, her name is Laura Koster, and she was also Julie's best friend. She testified that Julie had mentioned to her that she thought Mark was maybe trying to kill her. And Laura also took the stand to talk about Julie Jensen and a conversation they had before they died.

And Laura said she told Julie, you should leave my brother. You should leave my brother. Yes, she was my sister-in-law, but she was also my best friend. And Laura said that Julie was worried about her own family's history of depression. And on the Monday before her death in 1998, she told Laura that she was going to go to the doctor and she was going to be treated for depression. Now, Laura said that the afternoon Julie died, she had stopped by the Jensen house. It looked like no one was home. And after Julie's death, Laura denied telling police she thought that her brother killed her best friend and even denied speaking to the police at all. She said, quote, I had no reason to think that Mark had killed her, end quote. So I think that's interesting

that Mark's sister, Laura, was best friends with Julie, enough to the point where Julie felt comfortable telling Laura, I think my husband, who's also your brother, is trying to kill me. And Laura was on Julie's side enough to say, you should leave him. But, you know, she kind of tried to retract that statement once she had talked to the police, but she ended up having to testify to it anyways. Yeah, and this does happen often where you'll have a sibling or your sister-in-law, brother-in-law who the victim will confide in and

who knows the offender better than their siblings or their parents, right? They've experienced them through childhood, maybe saw some things that the outside world had never seen because they were behind closed doors. So they do have some interesting insight to provide. But as you also mentioned, once the victim is, you know, something happens to them and the offenders have an opportunity to speak to their siblings, they may feel differently knowing that's their brother or their sister. And they can retract some of those initial thoughts because they don't want to be the family member that's responsible for their loved one going to prison. So there's a lot of stress there. And it's a big burden on those family members to be truthful. Now, here's some other stuff that Laura Koster said. And let me know if you think this is true

or if this is something she's trying to say to sort of undo the damage that she already did to her brother's case. So Laura's Julie's best friend. She was the maid of honor and Julie and Mark's wedding. And she told the jury about an event, which was the night during the day. And one day, Julie called Laura and said the kids had smeared feces all over the walls. So Laura called her brother Mark and she said, you know, get your ass over to the house. Mark and Laura both drove to the house. Mark got there first. And according to Laura, when they both arrived, they didn't see feces anywhere. And Laura said this concerned her. So she stopped bringing her son to be cared for by Julie after this. And Laura also said that she and Julie had lunch shortly after Julie had started seeing Perry, her affair partner.

And Julie told Laura that she wanted to marry this man and not tell Mark about her affair. Laura also did not tell Mark about her affair. Laura also did not tell Mark about the affair. And Laura testified that at one point, Julie filed for divorce, but then it was dismissed from the court action soon after. So at the end of the day, it kind of makes it seem like Laura's trying to paint Julie as somebody who does have mental health issues. Like, oh, she called and said the kids had done this, and then we got there and it hadn't been done. But she also did say that Mark beat her there and he was there first. So he may have cleaned it up. And then when his sister, Laura, arrived, he was like, oh, there's no feces. She's crazy. She made it all up. We don't know. But do you think that Laura's making this all up to make Mark look better and Julie look worse

because Mark's her brother? And maybe there's a little intimidation and fear there, too. Or do you think it's true? But maybe Mark got there first and cleaned it up? Could be. Could be that she's lying to make Julie look bad. It could also be a situation where Laura is trying to be as honest as she can be, while also maybe subconsciously giving her brother the benefit of the doubt and trying to find a way to rationalize how this could all be one big mishap and her brother is actually a good person. It's unreasonable to assume that

Laura wouldn't have some type of bias when it comes to evaluating the behaviors of her brother. So you're in a situation where you want to believe him. You love him. You're hoping that what he's telling you is true. So now when you replay a scenario that you had been playing over time and time again, but now through the lens of what your brother or your loved one had been relaying to you, it's not as clear. It's not as clear. And you can see how there's a world where, huh, maybe Julie was just making it all up. And so in hindsight, she's probably sitting here thinking, listen, I'm trying to be honest, but she can't help the fact that she loves her brother

and is hoping that he's telling the truth. So she is skewed. There's no doubt she has some type of incentive to skew the narrative towards her brother, even if she's not intending to do so. So it could be a combination or back to your question, it could just be an outright lie where she's decided now she doesn't know what happened, but those children need a father because their mother is gone. And that's the way she's

rationalizing in her head that she needs to protect Mark going forward. Not maybe even for him, but for the kids. Yeah. And I think that the jury is probably smart enough to understand that Laura Koster is not the most unbiased witness. Right. That's why talking in general, jury members should be allowed to hear the information. And most of the time, I shouldn't say 99% of the time, most of the time they're intelligent people that are able to put a number scale on each witness to say, hey, listen, this is compelling information, but this person is also married to this individual, or this one is the brother of this individual. So it will the scale will be adjusted on that curve to include the relationship these

individuals have to whoever they're speaking about. Yeah. And we've always looked at all the evidence in a case as sort of like puzzle pieces in a greater picture. And the more puzzle pieces you're missing, the less clear that picture is going to be. So why not give the jury every available piece so that they can put it together and see what they see? Yep. Come to their own conclusions. Absolutely. You know, let's stop right here for a second. Let's take a quick break. We'll be right back.

All right, we're back. So when the defense argued their case to the jury, they focused on getting them to believe that Julie was depressed and had committed suicide. They had Julie's former psychologist, Paul DeFazio, testify about how he treated Julie for depression in 1990. And another forensic psychologist, who had never met Julie, testified that she was suicidal and angry and possibly delusional. The defense then had toxicologist Barry Rumack tell the jury that the toxicology results proved Julie took a large dose of antifreeze in order to take her own life. And despite the fact that Mark told the police that Julie was completely incoherent on the morning of December 3rd, Barry testified that Julie would have easily been able to get up

and walk around the morning of her death. He further claimed antifreeze has a foul taste, which is impossible to hide in drinks, a statement that, as we've already kind of talked about, that's just simply not true. Many people have poisoned other people with antifreeze before based on the fact that it is easy to hide in drinks. Before the defense wrapped up their case, Mark chose not to testify, which is probably the smartest decision he's ever made. I agree. That was a good decision by him and his team. I want to go back to what you were just saying a few seconds ago as far as Julie's depression or alleged depression. And she might have seen some people for said depression. Depression doesn't automatically

equal suicide. There's a spectrum there. And I hate that, by the way. I hate that because it deters people like you and me and everybody listening to this who might be thinking like, oh, I'd like to seek mental health help for, you know, a small issue I have going on just to talk to somebody. And now if something happens to you or if somebody wants to make you look bad, they can use that against you. No, I think two things can be true. I think someone can be depressed and also have been murdered. It doesn't automatically mean they're going to kill themselves. I think most people who are watching or listening to this have at some point in their life had a bout of depression and been through some things, some more than others, some it's

pretty consistent, unfortunately for them, but it still doesn't mean that they're going to take their own life. There's a lot of factors that go into that. And there doesn't appear to be any formal documentation that suggests she was suicidal. Yes, she might've been battling depression. We've all been there, but it doesn't mean she was on the verge of taking her own life. In fact, I would say that her willingness to write these notes and talk to people about it shows that she was clearly in a right state of mind where she wanted to make it very clear, hey, I am not suicidal. Yes, I may have my things going on, but I am in a good state of mind. I know what's going on around me. And actually, I believe my husband might try to kill me. And actually I believe my husband might try to kill me. So to me, it says the opposite, but I can see again how someone would take an individual seeking help for depression as an excuse to say, yeah, you know what? Of course they're going to drink a gallon of antifreeze. They're depressed. It's bullshit. I don't agree with it. I don't like it. And it's, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's the wrong move. I get that everyone has a job to do, but depression doesn't automatically mean suicide, which

aggravates me that that's where we're at in some of these cases. Yeah. And it's like mental health is used in these criminal cases so often on both. Well, usually by the defense, right? To say either my client has a mental health issue, therefore shouldn't be held as responsible for what they did, or to state that the victim had a mental health issue, therefore shouldn't be held as responsible for what they did, or to state that the victim had a mental health issue, therefore their client shouldn't be held as responsible for what happened.

So it's basically just like mental health is a real thing. You wouldn't tell a victim that they were to blame if they had a physical ailment, if they had cancer or something, but we're going to look at everybody who's ever sought help from a mental health professional as someone who could potentially be crazy and then kill themselves and poison themselves to get back at their husband and leave their children behind with said husband that they don't trust and are afraid of. Come on. Yeah. And do you see what's going on here? What's going on here is you have a situation where the antifreeze, the Benadryl, the Paxil, you could spin a narrative that she was depressed and she took these things

to kill herself and to frame her husband. Okay, I'm with you. But you know what the defense isn't harping on? You know what they're not attacking? The fact that two experts have said she was smothered, that her face was smushed at the time when she was found. They're not attacking that because you know why? They can't explain that away. So they're hoping that the jury forgets about that and focuses on this because they don't have an excuse for it. I've been in situations where I've had on video my target of my investigation completing a hand-to-hand transaction or shooting someone. But they don't touch that. They say, listen, we can't dispute that. We're going to focus over here

saying that the investigation that was conducted was faulty because that's the only way we get you off. So they're going to focus on what they think they can poke holes in. And I find it interesting that they keep going back to the depression and the alleged suicide as opposed to focusing on the whole picture, which would include the potential asphy the case, which is from a science perspective, from a forensic angle, it doesn't look like she died took the stand and was questioned for hours about emails that she and Mark exchanged back in 1998. The deputy district attorney, Carly McNeil, asked Kelly, so he would complain to you about his wife and would you complain to him about your fiance? And Kelly answered, yes. And McNeil, the DA, she said, in those lines, what is he describing? And Kelly responded, having sex with his wife. And McNeil said, and he indicates he was thinking about someone else. And Kelly answered, yes. And McNeil said,

that would be you. And Kelly said, yes. So that's less than two months after Julie Jensen was found dead. So Kelly said that she knew Mark was planning to get a divorce. But when she testified, she did not say that she was aware of any plan for Mark to kill Julie, which I mean, she wouldn't. Right. Like, let's be honest. It's kind of like a Fotis Dulos thing here. Like, if you admit to anyone ever that he said to you at any time, I'd like to just kill my wife, that would be so easier. Even if it was in jest, right? That's still something that she should repeat at this point after Julie Jensen is dead, but she doesn't. And she says, I never heard anything like that. I don't know if you believe it, but if he did say anything, she's not going to ever say it. No. Yeah. No, definitely not. She will not divulge that information voluntarily. No. And if it wasn't in an email, then it's not going to.

That's it. So at the time that she testified against him, she was his wife. And after Julie died and Kelly's first marriage fell apart, she moved to Kenosha and married Mark Jensen. Obviously, she later filed for divorce. Okay, so back to the trial. On February 21st, after deliberating for around 32 hours, the jury found Mark guilty of first-degree murder. When court was let out for the day, the prosecutor told the media, quote, I cannot recall a more cold-blooded, calculated, brutal offense than this one. Mark obsessed for months about killing Julie.

And after he murdered Julie, he worked so hard to murder the love her children had for her, end quote. Mark's sentencing was scheduled for the week after where the judge could decide on one of three sentences, life in prison with parole after 20 years, life in prison with parole eligibility after serving at least 20 years

or life in prison without parole. So you know what I find interesting about what you just said there? 32 hours. I'm actually surprised by that. I'm actually surprised it took that long, considering what we talked about over these last three episodes. But that does tell you that there was some back and forth maybe in that room where it wasn't as clear cut as we think it is. And there

may have been some conversations amongst those jurors where they weren't exactly sure whether or not they should come back and find him guilty of first degree murder. Because I've seen them shorter than that. I've seen eight to 12 hours. I've seen even shorter than that. I've also seen a lot longer. And the longer it takes, the more indicative it is that there was some dissension within that room and maybe some disagreements as far as what the verdict should actually be. So that's the one thing I take away from that. 32 hours. Very interesting. So on February 27, Mark's sentencing hearing was held and Mark's parents, his sister and his wife, Kelly, were all in the court, but none of them

spoke. Julie's brothers gave victim impact statements, with Paul stating that Mark, quote, hid behind a mask of fatherhood after Julie died, then he spit on her grave by claiming she killed herself, end quote, agreed. Paul said that if that wasn't bad enough already, Mark also convinced Julie's sons that she had left them stranded. The sons, who are now 18 and 12, actually wrote a letter to the judge asking him to let Mark out of prison as early as the law allowed. Wow, that's wild. That breaks my heart more than anything. That breaks my heart more than anything right there because Julie loved those kids so much. There's another set of victims.

Absolutely. And now he's manipulated them, which, you know, he's going to do that to try to get his narrative implanted in their head. And that's what they believed about their mother, who loved them. Well, he's the only source of information at this point. Yeah. He's the conduit relaying everything to them. So what can you expect? And probably keeping them away from people who knew Julie like her friends and family so that they don't add anything.

Right. The letter was read in court by the defense attorney, and it read in part, quote, Throughout this case, we have remained silent, and the true character of our father has remained obscured. We write this to give voice to the type of man he is, end quote. Does that sound like something kids would write? I mean, I know they're 12 and 18, but like, our father, our father's true character has remained obscured. It sounds like Mark wrote that letter, honestly. Who knows? But either way, I can see how the sons would write this, because if they're hearing one

side of the story and they're only getting one perspective, then they're looking at it like they're not only did they lose their mother, but their father, their poor father is a victim of being accused of a crime he didn't commit. So they're completely skewed at this point. And I don't know if they were sitting through the entire trial. I'm assuming. Probably not. They were not.

Yeah. But even if they had been, if they're leaving that trial every day and they're communicating with people that are in Mark's circle, because at this point, Mark was in prison, but they're still dealing with his friends and family members. They're going to be able to relay whatever narrative Mark wants set for them. So it's still going to skew their judgment. Well, your mother died, right? And she was your primary caregiver. Now the only person left is Mark. And kids are going to be traumatized enough by losing their mother at a young age.

They're going to want to attach to whatever parent is left because that's all they have left. He's going to say and do whatever it takes. And they're going to believe him because that's the only person they have left. Even if there's a part of them that believes their mother, what are they going to do? Turn on the person who provides them food, shelter, care? No, there's a point of, you know, survival. There's a point of. There's a power dynamic there as well.

I mean, he controls everything, like you said. Well, the boys went on to describe Mark as innocent, supportive, and loyal. Then they referred to Julie as their birth mother, stating, quote, we were all of us devastated at her loss, end quote. After the letter was read, the prosecution said they understood why the boys thought their dad was innocent. However, they encouraged them to look at the evidence. In the end, the judge decided to sentence Mark to life without parole, stating, quote, If I were to impose anything less than the maximum, I'd feel I had cheated other people. Because your crime was so enormous, so monstrous, so unspeakably cruel

that it overcomes all other considerations, end quote. And in April, Kelly became the legal guardian for both of Julie and Mark's sons. And a month later, she filed for divorce from Mark, which this is probably the best case scenario. And like I said, it breaks my heart knowing that Julie tried to set the stage for what she believed was going to happen to her. And she stayed with Mark so she could protect her son so they wouldn't be taken away from her. And in the end, they did sort of turn on her, not their fault, but they did.

But at least she knows she, if she's out there somewhere and knows what's happening, that she saved them from him ultimately. And I'm sure Kelly's not a bad person. She was probably bamboozled. And once she heard the evidence, once she saw what was going on and kind of put two

and two together. She jumped ship. Yeah. Well, she's like, I want a divorce. And she's not a terrible person. She's not like Mark. So she'll probably be, at the end of the day, the best caregiver for those boys. I mean, out of the available options, I suppose.

Yeah. And to what you were saying, as far as Julia, we all have different beliefs and religions and everything out there. But I do also believe that if it were me and I was no longer here, but able to see what was going on, then I would understand where my children were coming from based on what they're being put through and what they're being told. Yeah. And I'm sure it happened to her. So she understands. Of course.

Of course. So if she's out there anyway, capacity, any type of form, she she's aware. And I don't think that she'd ever hold that against her children. And maybe now, you know, we're covering this case, but there's still some more to go here. And we don't know how her children feel today and maybe how they feel behind closed doors as well, which is also important. They could be saying one thing in trial, but deep down feeling something different when they're alone speaking with each other. Yeah, I agree. And like anything that's going to be nagging at them too, they're going to be like, well, we can't really pay attention to this because our father is the one taking care of us and providing for us. But let's take our last break and we'll be right back. So Mark Jensen, obviously, I don't think this is a surprise to anybody considering his personality. He appealed his conviction. No. Yeah, I know. Right. Whoa. Really? Yeah. He has a hard time taking accountability. What? OK. He claimed that Julie's letter should not have been admitted as

evidence. And while this appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court decided on another case that ended up directly affecting Mark. With that case, the court refined the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, which, if you recall from the last episode, stated that a defendant gives up their constitutional rights to the confrontation clause, which gives a defendant the right to confront a witness if the defendant is the reason for that witness's unavailability, that changed with the Supreme Court's new ruling, which stated that the doctrine applied only when the defendant caused the witness's unavailability with the specific intent of preventing the witness from testifying, which is so stupid. That is so stupid. Oh, it really, really screws up this case because he's not trying to prevent her from testifying. She's already dead. I mean, you might say that killing somebody would prevent them from testifying. He did say that he poisoned her. And then when she didn't die, he was like worried because now he'd have to bring her

to the hospital, which then the doctors would realize she'd been poisoned, which would get him in trouble. So that's why he smothered her. So technically, if you were a good prosecution person, a good DA, you would say that he said he was concerned that he would have to bring her to the hospital. At that point, his crimes would be found out. At that point, maybe he is trying to prevent her from testifying by smothering her. Yeah. So in this situation, based on this new ruling, it's a lot more there's a lot more specificity to it. So what you have here is a situation where it's not about a victim of a crime not being able to testify at court through video recordings and or notes.

Now they're making it more specific by saying, hey, if you're a defendant in a case and you're one of the witnesses decide that they're going to testify against you, if you take them out so they can't testify against you, then if they had written something down or recorded something before their testimony, that can be used in court because you deliberately did that so they wouldn't be able to speak on their own behalf. So they're going to use whatever means they have, which is whether it's a note or recording, that's what they have available to them. That's what they'll be able to use. And you don't have the right to cross-examine them or confront them. Yeah. They made it more specific, which cuts out, you know,

just I killed this person because I wanted them dead and I had a motive to do so. Yeah. And I will say it kind of sucks for Julie because this is a not a common situation where the victim of a homicide has the forethought to write things down or make video recordings or leave voicemails in case something like this occurred. So she's kind of in that little gray area there where this ruling wasn't designed for her, which sucks because she's kind of in the middle somewhere. So because she's in the middle and it doesn't apply, then she's shit out of luck, which is unfair as well. Yeah, it's awful. And the Court of Appeals applied the new rule to Mark's appeal, stating that they assumed that Mark had not killed Julie specifically to keep

her from testifying at trial. Therefore, he had not forfeited his confrontation clause rights. Which, by the way, I think we can both agree with that. I don't think he did intentionally do that because he never thought he'd be in this position where he'd have to testify. He thought he was good to go. That's what I'm saying. These are the gray areas in the context that the stupid Supreme Court is not taking into account. Like you kill someone, you kill someone. It doesn't really matter why you kill them. You shouldn't silence their victim further. He got off here on a technicality. He never thought he'd be in the position where he'd be defending himself. And when he killed her, he just thought it'd be done and he'd be a hero and he'd move on.

Clearly, that's not the case, but that's why he benefits from this new ruling. Well, because of this new ruling, because of this decision, this meant that the circuit court had indeed made an error when admitting Julie's letter at trial. However, the Court of Appeals also said that the circuit's court error was harmless, given all the other evidence supporting the jury's guilty verdict, such as the computer searches and the incriminating statements Mark made to other people. The Court of Appeal stated in their ruling, quote, this case was not a classic whodunit, end quote. Even without the letter, a rational jury would have taken all the evidence and concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Mark, quote, cruelly planned and plotted and in fact carried out the murder of his wife, Julie, end quote. So Mark's appeal was denied. So he appealed that decision and the federal courts agreed with Mark that it was not a harmless error to admit Julie's letter. Oh,

Mingya, like these people go back and forth, back and forth. How many times does this man get to appeal something that's been already decided on five million times? Ask Scott Peterson. Right. True. I mean, listen, you got a lot of time in jail. You can do these things. In December of 2013, they vacated Mark's conviction and ordered that he be released from custody unless within 90 days of the decision, the state initiated proceedings to retry Mark.

The prosecution appealed the case, but years later, the decision was upheld. So the prosecution had no other choice but to retry Mark. The prosecution appealed the case, but years later, the decision was upheld. So the prosecution had no other choice but to retry Mark. And this time, Julie's letter and voicemails would not be allowed in trial. And this is something that I had alluded to episode one, where the letter is impactful and important and critical in this case. But I had alluded to the fact that

the investigation that they did outside of the letter, not just relying on the letter, is why we are in the position we are today, because the investigators did a great job of sewing up all those loose ends and ensuring that they had multiple angles to prove Mark was responsible for Julie's murder, not just relying on the letter itself, which if they had, which some investigators might have done, they'd be in a really tough situation right now. So on January 11th, 2023, there's a new trial. Opening statements in a now 63-year-old Mark Jensen's retrial began. Now, this trial was almost identical to the first one, except

for Julie's letters and voicemails not being shown to the jury. The same prosecutor from the first trial was back, and he argued that Mark poisoned and possibly suffocated Julie, while the defense said she was suicidal and framed Mark. Again, Mark did not testify in his defense. And on February 1st, after deliberating for only six hours, 30 less than before, the jury found him guilty of first degree murder. Mark then told the media he planned on appealing. What? Surprise.

Which the prosecutor scoffed at, stating he didn't think Mark would get another trial. He added, quote, but if he does, I'll be back and we'll try this son of a bitch again. Bam. Yeah. Bam. Phew. You want to know something that's interesting? When there's a retrial, obviously not ideal. Prosecutors would prefer not to have to do it all over again. It takes away resources from other cases and they also have to prep and get ready to do it all again. Now the prosecution has had the, and defense has this privilege as well, but now both sides

have had the opportunity to see what the other person is going to say. And the prosecution can prepare for those defenses, stitch those holes together or fill those gaps in the boat so that it doesn't sink. And also they become more streamlined and more efficient and more tactical knowing what had happened in the previous one. Just like anything in life, when you have the opportunity to practice someone, a mock trial, if you will, you get better at it. And I do think that probably contributed to the quick deliberation of the jury being only six hours, which I had mentioned earlier, not knowing that this one was six hours, because clearly the case that was laid out was much stronger for the prosecution. And the defense probably put out

exactly what they had put out before without addressing the smothering and the indications that she had been suffocated with a pillow. Clearly this group of jury members didn't care about the glycol poisoning and all that. They said, sure, you have something there. Maybe you're right. However, you haven't explained how she was suffocated. There's no excuse for that. The pathologists have said it multiple times, two different experts. The detectives have testified that her face was smushed when she was found. What's your explanation for that? Oh, you don't have one? Couple that with everything else that Mark had told the prisoner, Aaron, had told the colleague or the person down, Ed, there as well.

Add all that together in totality, even without the letter, you have an extremely robust investigation and case for homicide, and you don't usually get all of that. So still a very strong case without it. But great job by investigators and the prosecution to relay that information to a jury properly and clearly more effectively than they even did the first time. Yeah. And I mean, like I said, I think that there was enough evidence outside of that stuff. But Julie's voice is still heard. Yeah. Yeah.

It sucks that her voice wasn't heard. But deep down, she that stuff had already been reported on so it's not like the world didn't already her message was out there which i'm sure mark would use in his appeal and to be like it was such a publicized trial everybody already knew the information i heard about the letter and heard about the tape and it's like yeah that's fair i mean he listened he ain't wrong too bad so sad mark you don't think the jury knew i mean i know they knew i know they knew i don't care he knew that there was a letter and that based on a technicality mark got it thrown out.

Yeah. But they do do the vetting process at the beginning where maybe the defense asked the jury members if that was something they were aware of, how familiar they were with the case. And they might not have been. Maybe that's why they were selected. elected. But to your point, it's human instinct that you're going to look things up and hear about things. And it wouldn't take much of a Google search to find out that there was this letter and basically it was thrown out because the ruling was later changed. Yes. And what I'm saying is like, I know they knew. And even more than that, I'm glad they knew Mark. So anyways, son of a bitch, son of that son of a bitch so in april of 2023 mark had his sentencing hearing where he faced the same sentence possibilities as before life in prison with parole after 20 years life in prison with parole eligibility after serving at least 20

years or life in prison without parole the prosecution asked for life without parole stating quote he should not breathe the free air outside of a prison cell end quote feels like the prosecution is even more mad now that they got to do a second trial. They're like, that son of a bitch shouldn't breathe air. And Julie's family asked the judge to give Mark a maximum penalty of life in prison without parole. Her brother, Paul, said, quote, I respectfully ask the court today to show no mercy for Mark Jensen. Why, you might ask? Because he showed no mercy to his wife, my sister, Julie Jensen, end quote. Her brother Michael said, quote, I strongly appeal to you to sentence Mark

Jensen to life without parole, end quote. And her brother Larry said, quote, I feel that Mark Jensen's cruel and inhuman actions towards the life of Julie are unforgivable, end quote. Now, Mark actually did speak at this hearing and he stated, quote, please grant parole eligibility so the family and I can move forward and heal, end quote. Well, we don't want you to move forward and we don't want you to heal. Mark said this would allow him to be there for his three sons because remember, he had a child with Kelly. Then he added, quote, it's taken a toll on them. They deserve my help if they want it, end quote. Dude, you're the one that put them in the position for the tool to be taken. And I hate these people like Mark who make all of these messes and then they use what's happening to their children as a result of the trauma and

the chaos that they've caused to be like, well, they need me now. You're the one who did it. I will say too, at this point, he's going to be 83 years old when he would even be eligible for parole. So how much are you going to really be there for your kids at that point? But I get where he's going with it. He's just trying to get out of prison at some point if he makes it that long. I mean, we all know how these parole things go. That dude could have been in there and been on his best behavior and made everyone think he was an angel for five years and then gone to the parole board and they would have, you know, maybe made a decision to let him out early. Well, I mean, wouldn't it be, wouldn't he only be eligible after 20 years or life within life, life in prison? Yeah, no, I think the way you read it.

I feel like, yeah, I feel like those sometimes they say that like, oh, you're eligible for parole after 20 years, but then they make exceptions. Oh, let him out early for good behavior. Let him out because of this, let him out because of that. Yeah, might get some time knocked off or whatever. Yeah. Well, it's life without life without pearl so well the judge he wasn't falling for mark's manipulation and he asked quote but what about julie she has nothing today she's dead he caused that he's the one that put that in motion he says well my boys don't have two parents well guess what he's the one that murdered julie end quote. I mean, yeah, stating logic here. But once again, people like Mark, they don't work with logic. They don't work within the realm of reality.

The judge continued, stating, quote, There's no doubt in my mind Julie Jensen suffered for a long time. He could have divorced her, separated, whatever. But he chose not to do that. What he chose to do was torture her for a long time. The lack of calling a doctor when she was dying, it was a painful death. And it was all caused by Mr. Jensen. This was planned out for a long time. The lack of calling a doctor when she was dying, it was a painful death, and it was all caused by Mr. Jensen. This was planned out for a long time. It was intentional. It was researched for a purpose for evil, end quote.

And for those exact reasons, the judge sentenced Mark Jensen to life in prison without parole again. And unless Mark's next appeals are successful, he will die in prison, where personally, and I think you agree with me, that's where he belongs. He belongs in prison. Yeah, I think the judge nailed it. We've said it numerous times over the years. It's one of those situations where if you're found guilty

of first degree murder and you're asking to get out at any point, why should that be the case? How is that fair? How is that fair to not only the victim, but the victim's families to think that there's a world where you have been found guilty of taking someone's life, and yet there will be a point where the victim's family members could potentially run into you at a convenience store or a gas station or at a restaurant. Yeah, it's going to be many years later. You might be much older. But like the judge said, Julie's not going to get that opportunity. Julie will never after 20 or 30

years, come back to this world and get to sit down with their family members and talk about what happened and get the chance to quote unquote heal. So why should you, and I'm not only directing this at Mark, I'm directing it at all of these cases. This is a situation for me where, again, it goes to the point of the charge, but if it's upheld and it is a first degree murder, then it's an eye for an eye. You took someone's life. You're responsible for doing so. They can't come back and neither should you.

I'm not always, and we talk about death penalty as well sometimes and i've been pretty clear on that unless it's definitive i'm talking video footage that shows indisputably that You committed that crime. I don't necessarily believe in the death penalty Either because there's always a possibility Something could come out that may prove your innocence So I have no problem with you being in prison for the remainder of your life. I do have an issue if for some reason, I don't care how good you are. I know that prison is supposed to be a form

of rehabilitation, but I think circumstances like this where you took an innocent person's life, there's no coming back from that. In situations like this, this is where the death penalty should be allowed, in my opinion, honestly. So you do think so. So see, that's where we will differ because I can't stand Mark. You don't think he deserves death for what he did to his wife, not only killing her, taking her from her sons, but torturing her mentally, physically, emotionally for years? So my personal opinion is everything you just said is true. I think exactly the way it was laid out is what happened. But I try to consider the fact that maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe I'm wrong. And what if I am wrong? If we kill Mark, you can't correct that wrong. If he's in prison, it's still miserable for them. And he's going to be where he needs to be to ensure he doesn't do it to anyone else. I hear you though. I don't know how miserable it is for them to be honest. It's not as miserable as it is for Julie. I just will say this. This one's close for me. This one's very, very close to being where you are. I will say that in defense of what you're saying, I'm right there because of the pictures and the conversations and the discussions he had with outside parties. I'm so close and I could be swayed.

It's a little, so for me, another five minute conversation between you and I could be swayed for me. It's not even the whole, everything it's, it's the fact that when he poisoned her and then left her there to die alone while he took his kids to school and then came back and realized like, oh, she's not dead. He then decided to physically smother her like Chris Watts style. Okay.

Do you think Chris Watts deserves the death penalty? Because I do. So why not Mark Jensen? Because with Chris Watts, he eventually admitted to it. So did Mark, to his prison buddy. Well, that's the difference. There's your difference, right? Because the argument would be made, Aaron's lying.

Now, I don't think he is. Well, how would he know that she's been asphyxiated? Listen, I agree. I was the one that was preaching that from the hill earlier in the episode. I agree. Chris Watts, the situation, the fact that he admitted to it, the fact that he's the one who ultimately led them to the bodies, I believe. Right. I remember that.

Chris did. Yes. Remember, he was sitting in the room with the female detective and she. Yeah, exactly. So it's it's over. He's the one who ultimately put the nail in his coffin. Why is he still around? See you later, buddy.

Especially with, we're not going to go there with what happened before the two children were killed. But one of the most horrific stories I've ever heard. One of the most horrific, like I still can't. Yeah. Yep. Nope. Nah, no, hate it.

So yeah, see you later, buddy. He's already been alive too long. That's an easy one for me. This one, Mark's still claiming his innocence. Just like Scott Peterson. That's another one. Well, because he didn't have the female detective that Chris, because Chris was claiming his innocence too for a long time, remember?

For a long time, yeah. Until they kind of got him on the spot. And they were like, listen, Chris, we know. We know. And so he did it to save himself. Oh, of course. It was self-preservation. Yeah.

For sure. But no, that's where I stand on this one. I think they got it right. I think the charge was appropriate. I think the sentencing was appropriate. I would like to know right now. I mean, the reason we covered this case is because it was in the news. It was relatively recent.

Yes. And this appeal that he did where he got sentenced. So the second trial ended and he got resentenced to life in prison without parole in April of 2023. So just about a year ago. Yeah, that's it. So relatively recent compared to some of the cases we do. And I say that to say this. I wonder where his children are now and Julie's children are now as far as where do they stand on this whole thing now that they've had an opportunity to be separated from Mark for a year and kind of maybe go back and review what was being said about their father and their mother. I guarantee you they've changed since all of the, I'm sure they looked, but, and I would like to know, but I also want them to have privacy. And if they never want to talk about this or think about it again, then they have that right. Yeah. Yeah. No, I would like to know where they stand because ultimately I think that will start the healing process for them as well. That's never going to bring their mom back. But when they get to a point where they realize what their father did,

they can still love him and love her, but choose to move on on their own and be better people because of what they went through. So we're thinking about them for sure. They may hear or see this. Someone that is in their circle may hear or see this. And we're thinking of them because it's not only Julie who's affected, it's Julie's family. It's also Mark's family as well. A lot of people will never be the same because of one person's actions, this monster who luckily is now behind bars, hopefully for the rest of his life. Crazy case, though. But we'll keep an eye. If he has an appeal, we'll keep an eye.

Maybe we'll do a Crime Weekly News about it if it goes a certain way. Absolutely. This may be one where we do have an update because depending on how the laws are, depending on who the judge is, this may seem like a slam dunk to us, but we've seen it before where it can go off the rails really fast. There's no final words from you. Are we good to go? I hate Mark. I think he should get the death penalty. If he can't get the death penalty, I don't ever want to see him walk out of prison and breathe that free air again, that son of a bitch. Those are my final thoughts. Let's hear from you guys on that one. That's a

good question. You've heard all the facts and circumstances. You've heard what the judge thinks about it. If you were the judge in this situation, what would your ruling be? Would it be 20 years in prison without the possibility of parole, 20 years in prison with parole after 20 years, 20 years in prison with the eligibility of a parole after those 20 years? Or if you had the opportunity. Electric chair. Electric chair. Would you go that route? We want to hear from you guys. As always, we appreciate you being here. We're going to have a new case next week. We're not going to spoil it for you now.

Just stay tuned for that. And we will see you very soon. So everyone stay safe out there. Have a good night. Bye. you