Uncensored Justice System Discussion

JUSTICE1st · Joined: 13 Dec 2007 Posts: 715 Location: USA

While I know a jury's verdict must be respected, it doesn't necessarily follow that everyone must agree with it. And in THIS case, I do not.

I didn't realize that this "letter from the grave," as it was called, the letter from Julie Jensen, was being given so much importance by both the prosecution and as it turned out, by the jurors as well. Since the letter was handwritten by Mrs. Jensen, I had thought that Mr. Jensen's attorney Craig Albee, would have made a motion to have the letter examined by a professional handwriting expert, to give the expert's opinion as to Mrs. Jensen's state of mind at the time she wrote the letter. That is what an expert is supposed to give an assessment on, and I was very surprised that this step, which I thought was critical to the defense, was not taken and performed during this trial. Not to my knowledge anyway.

Now, maybe he did make a motion to have this letter examined by a handwriting expert, and I also missed the discussion on that issue. If he did, and the judge denied the motion, that would, I think, be one of the items for Mr. Albee to list in his appeal. Since the prosecution introduced the letter, it should have been subject to examination by the defense.

In addition, as someone who has studied handwriting analysis -- also known as graphology -- for almost three years, there were some signs in Mrs. Jensen's writing that bothered ME. However, it wasn't until yesterday (2/21/08) that I saw the full letter being slowly scanned close-up on the television screen. It may also have been done at other times on other days, but unfortunately, I missed those. I have to wonder whether an expert with five or more years of experience would have seen the same signs I did, that something wasn't quite right about the letter, which might have created reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors, and resulted in a different verdict, or maybe no verdict at all in this case.

To the best of my knowledge, there was no testimony from a handwriting expert for the defense, and because of that, the jury didn't get to hear ALL the facts. When a jury doesn't hear all the facts, they can often reach an incorrect verdict, and in this case, I strongly believe that is what happened.

I hope Mr. Albee will be successful in securing a new trial, and if so, that testimony from a handwriting expert will be included in the second.

J Cool

_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954

Pia · Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:51 pm Post subject:

Although I do think he did it, (because of the computer searches) there are a couple of things that bothered me about this case. First, the letter that you mentioned. How was it ever allowed in? From what I heard them say on Court TV/In Session (I'll never get used to that) the judge allowed it using the law, that if a person cannot be cross-examined because the defendant did something to cause them not be there to testify then that evidence could be allowed in... He then found that the defendant did cause it by...MURDERING HER!! HOWEVER, how can a judge say that he caused it when by the law, he was still innocent when this ruling was made? I don’t get it....

The other thing that bothered me was the letter itself. IF this woman was so convinced that her husband was trying to poison her, so convinced that she told people and even wrote this letter, then WHY would she ever eat, drink, anything he ever gave her?

Oh, I realize that we are supposed to respect jury verdicts but there have been too many cases where it has been proven that the jury not only got it wrong, but also where misconduct was accused/proven, that I cannot just respect the verdict just because we should...LOL They are human too and some of them are downright self-righteous and judgmental... Razz

_________________
Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

JUSTICE1st · Joined: 13 Dec 2007 Posts: 715 Location: USA

Pia · Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 9:16 pm Post subject:

Hi Justice!

I didn't watch this trial much. I got most of it from updates so that is how I am making my judgment. Not on everything that happened in the trial. That is why I said, "I think"...I don't know if he is guilty or not. I don't like the fact that they used the snitches in this trial either.

As far as the handwriting, I don't think I heard anyone mention whether it had been checked or not. It seems like that would have been one of the first thing the defense did. But your mentioning it is the first time I heard of it. Maybe it wasn't but that would have been crazy.

Oh, the jurors in the case...I in no way think there was any misconduct or any inappropriateness by them. The 30 hours alone proved to me that they really did a lot of work on this case. I have no problems with THIS jury at all...Didn't mean to include them...LOL
_________________
Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

RayStar · Joined: 14 Dec 2007 Posts: 52 Location: Detroit, MI

I was so glued to the computer on this case. Mark may get a new trial if the USSC hearing the Giles case is approved. I don't know much about the Giles case but it is coming soon to a decision. Something about being able to question your accuser. The use of Julie's letter was fought in a higher court in WI.
I doubt Albee will be around for an appeal because of a lack of funds. He gave a good fight for his client.
Today would have been Julie's 50th birthday.
Now, I feel the letter was not the only deciding factor. All of the actions by Mark previously drove Julie nuts. Porno pics, phone calls, fake break-ins and his day planner. Besides all of that Mark had a BIG mouth!
I feel the state proved its case.

JUSTICE1st · Joined: 13 Dec 2007 Posts: 715 Location: USA

RayStar · Joined: 14 Dec 2007 Posts: 52 Location: Detroit, MI

Hi to you also. I don't think we can understand the thinking of an abused woman. You sound very strong as I feel I am the same. One of the jurors stated some of your ideas also. Fear is a motivator to cause rational and ill-rational actions by some. I'm not a head doctor, just from reading and listening to the news, abusers seem to have a common denominator FEAR.

Yes, I feel Mark Jensen is guilty. The one piece of evidence I cannot get around is Mark listening to Julie gasping for air. That had to be a horrible sound. David's classmate tesified that David told him his mother was having trouble breathing and his dad (MJ) would not take her to the hospital. That sealed Mark's verdict for me. OK he told the son he would take her later. Yes, after she is DEAD. WISN should carry the sentence. Please look up the Kenosha news for the link, I don't know how to add it.

SaberGal · Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: Oregon

This was a very strange case. All I can say is that I'm glad I was not a juror for this one because I don't know that I would have been able to make a determination one way or another.

Justice, you raised the biggest concern I had with the case which was the admission of the letter. I have a huge problem with it not being examined by a professional - and the fact that the defense couldn't question the writer. I know, I know, the G's would say...."she can't be questioned because he killed her"....and he may very well have done it but I still have a problem with the letter being admitted into evidence.

JMHO
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here)

Pia · Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 12:44 am Post subject:

I was listening to them today and I believe as they said on CTV, we haven't heard the last of this case or of that letter.
Now I may be wrong but I agree with what the defense attorney said. From everything I did see and hear from the trial, this letter was not admitted on the grounds of "dying declaration". I remember them specifically saying what I had said above..That the judge decided based on the law about Mark being the one that caused the accuser not to be able to testify. Today was the first time I heard anything like what that judge said. Admitted, I did not watch most of this trial but that was the first I heard it mentioned at all. Even from the daily updates from the talking heads. This is why we have to make sure that ALL defendants get a fair trial. In most of our opinions, we do think he is guilty but there stands a very good chance that this conviction will be overturned. This is why guilty people walk free. Because the people in charge didn’t make sure the people got a fair trial.

What if say 10 years from her death (this Dec?) some attorney somewhere doesn’t pop up with another letter from Julie where she says that she did set him up? If she did, she would have probably expected it to have gone to trial years ago. I say that because when I first heard of this case, I thought, “Wow, what a great way to get even with someone”. If I was so depressed that I decided to take my own life and wanted to really hurt the person that I thought caused it, this would be the perfect way to do it...Knowing myself though, I would never want anyone to suffer forever so that is what I would do. Make sure I set him up in the first place, then after he has served; say as many years as misery as he put me through, I would want an out for him...Maybe a few years to get him away from my children, or so I would think...Not realizing how long it would really take...

Wouldn’t that be the perfect revenge?

I say this because I still don’t understand how she can have this list and all the suspicions that she had but still let him give her the poison...Was she so depressed that she didn’t care? I don’t remember hearing anything about physical abuse...maybe the mental but the only threat I heard was he was going to take the children. Doesn’t that threat get passed out in just about every nasty divorce there is? Why didn’t this woman leave if she was so convinced that he was going to poison her? How could she have known that he wouldn’t also do it to the boys? I can understand any after she became ill but she had to have been well enough before the first dose, so why did she take it from him?
_________________
Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Pia · Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 12:57 am Post subject:

I don't mean to downplay women (or men) who have been abused. I know how hard it is for them to leave the situations. What I meant was, from what I saw of this trial, Julie did not seem to be one of them.
_________________
Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

JUSTICE1st · Joined: 13 Dec 2007 Posts: 715 Location: USA

JUSTICE1st · Joined: 13 Dec 2007 Posts: 715 Location: USA

Pia · Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:19 pm Post subject:

I think they had a copy of the letter on In Session the other day. They usually post things like that. Well they did when it was CTV. I have no idea what they do with things now. It seems as if all the Sommer info is gone...Can find plenty of OJ stuff though... Laughing

_________________
Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Pia · Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:20 pm Post subject:

Here you go....

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/19/jensen.trial.ap/index.html#cnnSTCOther1
_________________
Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

JUSTICE1st · Joined: 13 Dec 2007 Posts: 715 Location: USA