Jensen trial: The truth is out there

IF one is to believe the snitches... all of them, and the medical examiners are editing their opinions as to cause of death baed on their testimony, you have to wonder how observant the examiners are to have missed this intitially. I mean if these injuries are indicitive of asphyxia now 10 years later why weren't signs of asphyxiation then. It seems to me that each witness has had some self serving reason to be there, that none of them are truly credible either for the defense or the prosecution. I certainly hope that if something happens to me or a loved one that it does not happen in Wisconsin where it appears that the criminals are supposedly solving the crimes.
I feel that Mark Jensen will probably be convicted, but if I were on that jury it would be hung because I can't see where either side has truly proven their case.

Just because she was taking pills for depression doesn't automatically mean she is suicidal! Albee seems to think so. Everyone one is on some form of anti depressant/anti anxiety and it doesn't mean it's one giant suicidal nation. I think the bruises on her ribs say more then the pills.

Yes, put all the days of evidence together, all the various witnesses and yes, he is most likley telling truth.

Well, if the forensic evidence backs him up, I'd say he told the truth.

IF a snitch can clear a case that has been open 10 years why is it that so many jury members ignore them? Most likely because a "snitch" is looking for something in the end. Be it a free pass on a crime they did or something "extra" while they are in jail.

KC
Missouri

Mark Jensen doesn't need any help from either side as far as looking guilty. He is the poster child for that!!!! Nancy, Cape Girardeau, Mo

Paco says: "...I’ve been following this Jensen trial… and this guy looks guilty as sin."

Well, that's enough for me.

As long as he "looks" guilty...why bother with the trial??

Good lord...

The main problem with the American Justice system is that evidence is excluded from the Jury. All cards should be on the table. It is unlikely that this woman committed suicide. If she did, then why didnt she just shoot herself or jump off a bridge? People who are depressed and who commit suicide 99 percent of the time dont do it to frame their husband for murder. I am not saying it could not happen but you have to look at all the facts on both sides of the case. I seriously doubt that is the case here.

I am afraid our justice system once again will be burdened with circumstantial evidence, which to me is never full-proof. In the last three years more than 100 inmates have been found wrongliy accused and released. American Justice is supposed to hold presumed innocent until found guilty. In today's society it is the opposite. I am unsure if Mr. jensen is innocent, but I see no evidence that has not been manipulated or changed to match. This is not a proponderance of the evidence. It is ironic that it took both the eye witness changing the position of her body from his original testimony, and the coroner adding terminal asphyxia in order to bring Mark Jensen to court. I hope that we are not so eager to punish someone that we are willing to make up evidence to do so. I hope after this trial the district attorney office is investageted for the same kinds of behavior that happened in North Carolina.

How do you manage to commit suicide yet your mouth and nose be so distorted that they are angled to one side while your face is deep in a pillow.....sorry folks that is one trick that just answers itself. You can not do that to yourself. Did the snitch know this about the distortion?? Why wasn't that brought up before?? Some questions that may have some interesting answers.
Sometimes cops are too quick to make conclusions without all of the evidence. I also don't believe all liars are in jail. )

A jury can certainly understand a "double" cause of death...don't we all experience it with relatives or friends who die? My sister died of pneumonia–caused by cancer. My friend died of a cerebral hemorhage–caused by a traffic accident. Certainly smothering doesn't cancel out the poisoning. And, anyone who has ever seen someone experiencing intense pain–poisoning–can understand the desire to stop the suffering, the gagging, the noise maybe. He poinsoned her, then couldn't stand to wait until she actually died...perhaps he didn't even know if she would actually die. The pillow another weapon.

I've missed how she supposedly drank the anti-freeze. I don't know about you but the nasty taste, even though sweet would have caused me to spit it out. In the absence of some kind of splatter that indicated invountay consumption I'd have to give the defense the nod that she was crazy enough to do it herself

I'll bet my last dollar the husband did it. For goodness sake, he remarried so fast with his wonderful girlfriend who probably knows just as much as the snitch. the snitch has nothing to lose but is helping a poor woman rest in peace and also know that the children will be in safe hands away from that monster. Too bad it took so long in finding the truth of her untimely death. She should have told her brothers and they would have taken care of that loser.

Aaron Dillard had no way of knowing such intricate facts of the case if he didn't hear them from someone who was there. It is true that a person doing time has a motive for giving a statement if its going to shorten his time... but in this case there was no way of knowinf the facts that he had about the case. Amy

I THINK THE DEFENSE WAS RIGHT IN SAYING THAT MR. DILLARD COULD HAVE SEEN THE TRANSCRIPT. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND PERHAPS NOT. THE QUESTION IS ...DID HE SUFFOCATE HER, AND WAS THAT THE CAUSE OF DEATH....THAT AND THE EITHOGLICONOL( SP) WHO KNOWS, BUT SHE DIDN'T KILL HERSELF. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TOO PAINFUL TO GO THAT LONG WITH THAT "STUFF" IN HER SYSTEM, AND THEN TAKE EVEN A LARGER DOSE.....NO NO NO MY FRIEND HE MURDERED HER i AM SOOOO SURE. SHE WASN'T DYING SOON ENOUGH FOR HIM, SO HE SUFFOCATED HER.

Amy said..."Aaron Dillard had no way of knowing such intricate facts of the case if he didn’t hear them from someone who was there...."
But has anyone considered the idea that someone from the prosecutor's office might have passed that idea to Mr. Dillard?

I am believing Aaron Dillard is telling the truth. The reports that have been out about Julie's death have said that it was anti freeze....how would he know that her face was also pushed/smashed into the pillow if he wasn't told first hand? I pray that the jury can see the evidence in this case and find Mark Jensen guilty of his wife's murder. She hasn't been able to rest in peace until he is where he belongs, locked behind bars like the monster that he is.

how did this case come to trial after the crime was comitted 10 years ago ?

I agree with Shakespeare......."first kill all the lawyers" Who would the attorneys find in jail ? Nobel prize winners ?

Dillard testified that Jensen said he killed Julie and then left to pick their boys up from school. He further testified that Jensen said he told the boys to stay in the car when he got home with them while he went inside to check on their mother.

I wonder if either of the boys can testify to that being the case. Even at their young age at the time, wouldn't they have a recollection of their father not letting them go in the house until after he went in and checked on their mother.

It seems as though testimony from one the boys to this being the case would be a huge boost to substantiating Dillard's story.

If Dillard were lying, he would have alleged that Jensen admitted poisoning his wife. But he had details relating to the suffocation that match the physical bruising and distortion on the decedent that were noted by the medical examiner (ME) but unexplained. Seems to me the ME needs some continuing education if she couldn't diagnose asphyxiation.

Wisconsin does'nt have the death penalty. If Jenson is convicted, He'll spend the rest of his life in prision. The only opinions that really count, are those twelve people in the jury box.

The long delay in bringing the case to trial is not merely due to waiting for the testimony of the jailhouse informant to come out. There are many other aspects of the case, because when the evidence is largely circumstantial, the prosecution must build a picture of the alleged crime out of many parts. It is the consistency of the entire picture that convinces the jury. I believe the jury will find the correct answer in this case.

Jensen may very well be guilty, but I would give absolutely no weight to Dilliard's testimony, none at all. When prosecutors and police are light on evidence it is amazing how all of sudden there is a jail house snitch who heard a full confession. Total BS. Jensen could be guilty as heck, but in no way should the jury give any weight to a jailhouse snitch.

So many who have had their convictions overturned by DNA evidence, were convicted by snitches who got reduced sentences for seeing or hearing something they never heard.

I also would seriously question a medical examiner who amends their findings a decade later.

Not all "snitches" are lying...just because someone is incarcerated for committing a crime does not mean he is incapable of being truthful.

Julie Jensen was taking medication for depression but that does not mean she was suicidal. It is possible to suffer from depression or take anti-depressant medication and not want to kill yourself.

But, if she did in fact have and express suicidal thoughts, that does not prove that she killed herself. It is not uncommon for people with depression to express wanting to die or see dying as a way to escape their current situation yet have no intention or plan to do so.

Was her body facing down? And, it if the snitch stated that he sat on her back and he pressed her face into the pillow, and if the her body was found faced down, how would he have known?

Dillard can not be taken seriously

To Angie, there was physical evidence that she was bruised on her back and behind her larnyx. These observations were noted in the record but not made public. A 'soft kill' of suffocation doesn't necessarily show evidence, although a strangulation does show physical evidence. The husband is guilty as can be. You should move to California so you can be a juror out there. Those jurors seem to miss the obvious and certainly don't use common sense when deliberating the facts.

OH PLEASE!! HE LOOKS GUILTY AS SIN SITTING IN COURT ALWAYS HAVING THAT SMIRK ON HIS FACE.DID THE JAILHOUSE SNITCH SOLVE JULIES MURDER...THERES A FIRST TIME FOR EVERYTHING.HOW COULD SHE HAVE GOTTEN HER FACE PUSHED SO DEEP IN THE PILLOW THAT HER NOSE AND MOUTH WERE DISTORTED.I DONT BUY IT FOR A SECOND AND I DONT BELEIVE ANY SANE JURY WOULD.

There was physical damage on her back and neck, most likely from the result of someone pushing her face into the pillow. If the prosecution really wants to prove that she was smothered, why not hire a surrogate - the same size as Julie, same weight, same height, same age, and of course in a weakened condition (maybe with the help of sedatives). Have someone the same size and weight as Jensen sit on her back, and push her face into the pillow without smothering her, of course! Then check the physical damage on the woman's back. If it matches up with what forensics found, then they are one step closer to a conviction. Of course finding a surrogates might be tough! )

This guy counldn't of cracked the case his record goes all they way back to 1995...
He's only lookin for a get out jail free card... Visit wisconsin circuit cort access...
Search Aaron J Dillard 11-03-1973 http://wcca.wicourts.gov

For all of you folks saying "He looks guilty!" I have a little story to tell you. Back in the 70's I worked for law enforcement. Every once in a while one of the detectives would need someone to fill out a line up so they would usually ask this one programmer. Fun part was he would almost always get picked as the suspect! We all knew he had nothing to do with the crime but he sure "looked guilty." I'm really hoping none of you have made it to jury duty if that's your idea of surpassing reasonable doubt.

I believe Dr. Mainland is very credible and she would not risk her own reputation if she did not absolutely believe that Mark Jensen did all of this. Con artist or not, Aaron Dillard could only know what he knows because he was told by the person who did it!!! Too many people are coming forward to state that Jensen could not keep his mouth shut. I see a lot of grasping at straws to discredit the prosecuting witnesses and too many pieces of this puzzle fit together toward a guilty verdict. It gets even more bazaar to find out that creepy stuff was sent to Mark's work. He wants/wanted "everyone" to think he was/is the victim and take away from the fact that he is/was the master manipulator in all of this craziness...so much so that he would even bring it to his job. I am embarassed for any employer of Mark Jensen whose company name has had to be addressed on national TV and associated with this very strange and bazaar case!!! I can't even imagine how this will play out with Forensic Files, Murder by the Book, The Investigators and New Detectives. It is soooo bazaar and extremely sad for Julie Jensen and her family!!!

Hey guys! I love your show.

This case is eerily similar to one in TX in 1991-92. Richard Lyon was convicted of poisoning his wife Nancy Dillard Lyon

Similarities:

1. Poisoned with arsenic that he had bought to help kill ants in their back yard.
They were separated and he had moved out of the house, but he showed a
strange passion for making sure that these ants got killed and he provided the arsenic.
2. She took him back and no too long after that she died.
3. He had had a mistress for a while, wife knew about it, mistress knew she knew. 90 days after wife's death he and his mistress took off for international holiday.
4. He tried to convince everyone she'd committed suicide She also was at home for days dying while he was there with the kids watching her. He finally "rushed" her to the hospital.
5. He said she poisoned herself because she had been molested (incest) as a child and had never gotten over it, she had problems with sex with him. But, it was proven in court that he had a somewhat strange view of sex (into weird toys, porn all over where she could see it, etc.) He said she was emotionally and psychologically too damaged because of all of this and his affair.
6. He went as far as to have his mistress order and pick up the arsenic and then dummy up the receipt with his wife's name on it so that it looked like she had bought the poison herself. (Store owner recognized that the receipt was a fraud and that yes a woman had picked it up, but it wasn't the wife, it was the mistress.
7. He took some notes that his wife had written about the incest issues she was dealing with in counseling and he forged a "suicidal thought" onto it, but they were able to prove he had written that part.
Really interesting case just outside of Dallas. I remembered it when I started watching the Jensen trial.
Have a great day!

Anna W. Austin, TX

There’s a lot of things that do not make sense. Like how Mrs. Jensen would be so smart to know that even if deleting things from her computer, investigators would find it. Nothing clicks. Just seems like excuse after excuse for the defense.

Tiffany C., WI

aaron dillard..pshh PEOPLE ITS AARON KAISER HE DOSNT DESEARVE TO RUIN THE DILLARD NAME, AARON KAISER IS MY UNCLE AND HAS MADE MY FAMILYS LIFE A TAD HARDER BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE HE'S ROBBED, HE'S A SNITCH AND DESERVES TO BE IN JAIL.