Watch Live: Antifreeze Murder Retrial — WI v. Mark Jensen — Day Eleven

Watch Live: Antifreeze Murder Retrial — WI v. Mark Jensen — Day Eleven

Mark Jensen was charged in 2002 for the 1998 death of his wife Julie Jensen and convicted in 2008. Prosecutors say he poisoned his wife with antifreeze and then smothered her with a pillow when she wasn’t dying fast enough. In 2013 a federal judge overturned that life sentence, arguing a letter Julie had written before her death shouldn’t have been admitted as evidence. In that letter, Julie wrote that she was afraid her husband would try and kill her. Jensen will now face trial for a second time in January 2023.

Reminder: The defendant, Mark Jensen, is wearing headphones because he’s hard of hearing. Thanks.

#AntifreezeMurder #MarkJensen #lawandcrime

STAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:
Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3y
Where To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5
Sign Up For Law&Crime’s Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletter
Read Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2Iqo

LAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetwork
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrime
Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetwork
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrime

LAW&CRIME NETWORK PODCASTS: https://lawandcrime.com/podcasts/

SUBSCRIBE TO ALL OF LAW&CRIME NETWORK YOUTUBE CHANNELS:
Main Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz8K1occVvDTYDfFo7N5EZw
Law&Crime Shorts: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVXOqoOCYbi-iXChKAl6DTQ
Channel B: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXCLaaClAWQiTkl3pw9ZdLw
Channel C: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMV3pzWIhJGLYzoHyxBjjNw

source

Share this post

36 thoughts on “Watch Live: Antifreeze Murder Retrial — WI v. Mark Jensen — Day Eleven

  1. This man has such a guilty look to him. I've never seen him or heard of his crimes before now and the pics of him all reflect the demeanor of a guilty person. It's not cuz he's been found guilty either. He just LOOKS very guilty

  2. I wonder how does Mark manage to get re-trials for himself (I understand that this is his third, isn't ?) … it looks such an obvious murder committed by him, so I can't imagine what could be the reason to allow the re-trials.

  3. @2:54:45 I am so surprised that they allow him to do that; he is basically doing the jury's job and kinda leading their thinking process towards the homicide (which I agree that it sure looks like one).

  4. Whaaaaaaaaaat? Maybe ketoacidosis is different from the acidosis this doctor is describing but people experiencing a diabetic acidosis crisis are not bouncing around making phone calls with no altered mental status. I guess I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt; maybe all acidosis processes are completely different? 🤔

  5. 155:00 splitting hairs OMG…get past it. Lawyers 🙄 Its hard to believe that this is going through the courts 3 times! Criminals have more rights and waste more taxpayers dollars it's shameful. That poor woman made a mistake and it caused her years of grief then her life it's so sad.

  6. When judge says "We don't want Jensen four" he means he doesn't want any mistakes made during this trial that could make yet another appeal possible that would lead to a fourth trial. He wants all the 't's' crossed and all the 'i's' dotted so there is no room for mistakes.

  7. I went and read the inadmissible letter from Julie Jensen's last trial:
    …if anything happens to me, he would be my first suspect," she wrote. "Our relationship has deteriorated to the polite superficial. I know he's never forgiven me for the brief affair I had with the creep seven years ago … Anyway, I do not smoke or drink … Mark wants me to drink more with him in the evenings. I don't. I would never take my life because of my kids — they are everything to me!"

    "I pray I am wrong and nothing happens … but I'm suspicious of Mark's suspicious behavior and fear for my early demise."
    Poor lady. R.I.P. Julie.

  8. That Dr is a full blown narcissistic ahole!! Hey doc…some people know more than you do. I love how she says poisoning patients for studies is "unfortunately unethical" vs abhorrent and illegal. Psycho!!

  9. We need a whole lot more like Mr. Jambois. Giving a voice to those whose voices have been taken. And what a voice he’s given her. I absolutely love him! Every other attorney in this room could learn a lot from this man.

  10. The toxicologist likes the sound of her own voice.
    Mr Jambois is asking the questions I would like to ask if I was a juror. He is the jurors’ voice.
    The toxicologist is most dismissive and patronising to him and therefore ultimately to the jury.
    Not a good look.

  11. Man, I really dislike this overpaid arrogant defense 'expert' Dr. Hale….almost as much as I dislike the female defense attorney.. But I loved Mr. Jambois' skillfull and slighty passive aggressive cross.

  12. The two women defense attorneys are the worst and I was just referring to their personalities because I won’t even get into their sense of fashion, or lack there of….especially in court! 🤦🏾‍♀️.
    Also, the lead female defense attorney kept yelling about how the lead prosecutor was being argumentative…WTH?!?
    Dr. Hale was the one who was argumentative! She would fight him even on the simplest of questions. If he said the sky was blue, she’d argue it was green….ridiculously irritating!! 😤

Comments are closed.