Jensen's Jailmate: 'He gave Julie antifreeze'
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 янв 2023
- Aaron Dillard, who served time with defendant Mark Jensen years ago, told the jury that Jensen told him he gave his wife, Julie Jensen, Paxil and juice with antifreeze. What do you think about jailhouse "snitches" who testify? Are they reliable witnesses?
MORE HERE: www.courttv.com/trending/wi-v...
#CourtTV #MarkJensen #AntifreezeMurderRetrial
COURT TV IS BACK! 24/7 LIVE gavel-to-gavel coverage, in-depth legal reporting, and expert analysis of the nation’s most important and compelling trials.
WATCH COURT TV LIVE:
www.courttv.com/title/court-t...
WATCH TRIALS ON DEMAND:
www.courttv.com/programming/t...
WHERE TO WATCH:
www.courttv.com/where-to-watc...
Join the #CourtTV investigation. ⚖👇 MORE HERE: www.courttv.com/trending/wi-v-mark-jensen-antifreeze-murder-retrial/?
Best jailhouse witness I've seen.
Snitch? Yes, but too much detail that can be corroborated with Julie's toxicology, etc. Mark is an arrogant, smug, narcissist. I have no doubt he murdered Julie, with or without Julie's letter.
Except it wasn't corroborated with her toxicology results. The prosection decided not to even test it because they knew it would be negative and they wouldn't be able to use any of his testimony.
Mark Jensens face permanently looks like the creepy smile scene from The Grinch.
Sooo true!😅
Horrifyingly accurate
Mark was trying to drive her crazy … and it was working
Jensen is so smug
Most narcissistic sociopaths ARE smug, as they lack empathy or compassion or remorse…
The suspect literally looks like Kevin bacon lol
Looks more like Kevin Spacey than Kevin Bacon to me.
His celle seems to be telling the trurh. Jensen is done!
Yea im listenin
HELL YES, I BELIEVE THE JAIL HOUSE INFORMANT!!! HOW ELSE WOULD HE KNOW ABOUT THE KIDS!!!
Was there no cross-examination of Aaron Dillard?
Damn his doctor just gave meds out like nothing ! That poor woman & those children !He is a POS ! He’s gonna burn 🔥 👿
wish he was my doctor..
@@mbuckholz ditto
@@mbuckholz same
🙄 *I'm a big fan of this channel and I've been subscribed for some time now BUT it's incredibly disrespectful and ignorant for that female to say "singing like a canarie" about an inmate who came forward with legitimate information that can now be used to bring justice to a grieving family. Comments like that is what discourages people from coming forward to help solve cases that don't have enough evidence to convict dangerous people, who are then released into the World to cause more harm and destruction. Instead of being disrespectful, why not commend this man for coming forward with the information he learned? He could have kept this to himself or traded his silence for Ramen. He could have also tried to gain brownie points through loyalty, but he did the right thing regardless. It's baffling that people are so comfortable saying dumb things in the face of good deeds.*
Canary...if your gonna ramble get your spelling right!
@@gingerwoo3910 oh back up gingur
What is it that he is wearing in his ears? Is he hard of hearing?
Hard of hearing.
He is soo guilty; I’m so glad they put his sorry ass away!
Sounds like Dillard is a professional con-artist . He’s perfected manipulation
I’m always skeptical when it comes to a snitch.
Same to a point. But when a Snitch testifies? Prosecutors KNOW they also must Tie his testimony Closely to other facts. I'm a retired county sheriff m25 yrs. You'd be surprised how much these inmates BLAB to each other, lol.
@@alphaomega5909 I'm sure they do but he had something to gain clearly and provided nothing but bolstering evidence to others claims. The claims he made were either unfalsifiable or the prosecutor decided not to try them.
@@settame1 Well,,I'm a retired county sheriff. One Grandson is a Asst Prosecutor. All I can say from my own 25 yrs professional experiences n the cases the grandkid has talked about? "Snitches" are ones preferred choice but ARE NECESSARY. We'd never have taken out many serious Killers, Mafia ,Drug Dealers W/O insiders, some "Snitches" ,etc.
Blatantly leading the witness
Any good lawyer will tell u to never talk to anyone in jail
WoW, WoW!!! what a rat!!!
Im a crook, and a snitch.... He did it. 😝
more evidence in this case than scott peterson. and they're both guilty
Don’t think this snitch caught a break in testifying……
Terrible sound. Keeps cutting out.
No, CourtTV intentionally censors foul language.
@20:24 what she says. Love it.
Just you and he Just I
I believe this guy. Jenson forgot he said about cheque, that will be the definitive proof the guy is telling the truth
why was Aaron Dillard in jail?
Fraud
Much much fraud
This is NOT HEARSAY AT ALL. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
In the event that Mark personally informed Aaron in detail... of any efforts to kill Julie, then you'd think there's only better chance that Mark could've made something of incriminating statements to Ed too. That said, it would appear contrary for Mark to deny making any mention to Ed, but spill his guts to Aaron regarding the base of the inside information... regarding such a murder taking place. However, in the event that Mark only denied the allegations of which came from Ed and made no claims of committing murder himself,, then it's possible that Aaron would want to provide himself with a less guilty conscience, by tellingartial truth (admitting Mark's denials) so that he wouldn't feel as if he is just purely blowing smoke, while performing for the prosecution.
Mark would appear to greatly lack incentive to tell another inmate about any instances of violating his children's privacy by escorting them (while the children are naked) or at least worse... forcing them to strip down after they inhabited a bedroom or what not. Mark was already said to be being black mailed in a threatening manner by a younger inmate as it was... according to the timeline as best recalled. And as far as Mark saying that the police "missed evidence" inside of his home... this could perhaps indicate that Aaron is a bitter individual towards police (his experiences with the law and being incarcerated Co sisered) and prefers to criticize them without the means to do so... And also, make it out as if Mark already got lucky guiding police away from what could help convict him so don't let it happen again... so to speak. And in the event of any pre-medtation on Mark's part, he could always rid himself of any incriminating evidence ahead of time, unless that is... any chance he wcould've tried to enable the police to conclude Julie committed suicide by way of such a poisoning. Although I haven't heard that Mark ever entioning that he ever speculated such an event taking place.
Aaron said that Mark regretfully mentioned to Ed that he actually poisoned Julie during the alleged time that he allotted to kill her. However, as best recalled anyways... the prosecution said that the only incriminating mentionings to Ed revolved around methods of killing one's wife... according to Ed. That said, perhaps maybe did Aaron mention something else the first time around or did the prosecution not pass on what Aaron claimed, because it wasn't in.line with what Ed was specifically making claim to.... Aaron does sound as if he's having something of more difficulty in his choice of words on a couple of occasions and sounds reduced in confidence in general as he borderlined into presenting incriminating evidence against Mark. It's a wonder anyways... if Aaron meant to say that Julie was sick from poisoning at a hotel or motel, instead of being at home, with this alleged allegation of poisoning said to have taken place 302 miles away from Kenosha during a trip.
Aaron mentioned that he had lunch inside of his cell while Mark attended the common dining area on an ocasion. It sounds as if Mark could've found opportunities to research information kept by Mark. And with 11 prior convictions, at least one or more being fraud-based... Aaron could've thought that testifying against Mark could give him a plea dea. And it's of course still possible that Aaron still could've followed through with testifying, even if he wasn't promiseda major reward of any kind as originally hoped for... being that if he had already brought such claims to the surface for the courtroom to look into, then the law at which point... couldve at least something of expected continuous cooperation from him... Perhaps Aaron could've thought he had at least a shot in.the dark, if not even quite more than thst... at recieving a plea deal. And the way he claims to have encouraged Mark to acknowledge "the truth" regarding his case... sounds like Aaron mayve been digging for details beyond of which would be casual to go out of his way to do.
It wasn't preferable for Perry to first respond to the question of who he mayve suspected was harassing Julie... with "Oh, Mark. Absolutely", because his mentioning of the word "oh" indicates that he was caught off guard when replying, before he next tries to compromise for this modest lack of confidence, by reassuring that his belief is based on absolutism, which is as good as you can get. And although it helped for Perry to mention what Julie allegedly said about Mark... this wpuldvr been hearsay according to him, coming from a woman who was or previously did secretly cheat on her husband in a deceitful manner. And anything to make such a decision less severe, could include bad-mouthing one's spouse even based on pure gossip. Perry would've sounded better saying such as... he could only conclude Mark based on such information that he'd received.
In the event that Perry legimately gave an unacceptable answer based on the premise of what was asked of him... then why can't an attorney interrupt them to edit regression sooner rather than later.... id like to say I've seen attorneys do that a half a dozen plus times without being confronted by the judge in such a way,, who the jury sees as the leader of the courtroom. How the judge replied to the defense saying "I know you don't like the answer" which I'm assuming chances are the jury is going to something of interpret this contradiction, as the judge indicating that what he feels is the "truth" is counterintuitive to the defenses presentation of the matter. That really gave the impression of favoring the prosecution and chances are in front of the jury most importantly... both the judges tone and choice of words.
I feel like I'm watching a different trial than everyone else.
Why? I haven't been following this case. Do you think he is innocent?
@@petergriffiinbirdistheword I honestly don't know what I believe on his guilt or innocence, and that alone is reasonable doubt, so I most likely would vote NG. However, what ticks me off in this trial is how is it handled. It's 100% based on hearsay. The evidence they have to back up their main hearsay evidence is more hearsay. And it's all allowed in. The judge is 100% biased and has made that very clear in his rulings, but solidified it for me when the defense gave a motion to dismiss based on uncredible evidence and the judge read "his notes" that clearly made his feelings apparent for at least 40 minutes. That kind of bs comes after a person is found guilty. And the fact that it's on youtube means jurors have access to it- I would hope they wouldn't watch, but they still have access to it.(also, not for nothing, but the judge also talked to a juror during live stream and made him state and spell his name. I know anyone can go in the court and find out who the jurors are, but live stream online a-holes knowing seems different to me) The prosecutor comes out of retirement because he doesn't want to lose his career highlighted trial win from 2008. He is condescending and sneaky. If he could ask one question without qualifying it with "but what if..." He wants to win, not justice for Julie Jensen. Every single one of the witnesses from the state say the exact same thing. Just watch the first two witnesses and you'll see what I'm talking about. Almost none of them comes across as credible -to apparently only me. Most especially the jail house witness who the entire case hinges on. Mark Jensen is a gross human and was a terrible husband, but there is reasonable doubt of him being a psycho murderer. I wish Julie Jensen and her loved ones all the peace in the world, but if this is the justice system at its best, then that scares me to death. I would rather the guilty go free than an innocent person be convicted in an unfair trial. 99% of the people watching the live stream seem to love the prosecutor and judge and loathe the defense lawyers. I hope they are never in the situation where they're innocent and in the defendants seat with a judge/pros like this against them. So, like I said, I feel like I'm watching a different trial.
@@Driftwoodbaby Two months later I just wanna say you are not alone. When this was happening I was watching the Murdaugh trial so I only catched glimpses here and there and forgot about it until RUclips recommended me the sentencing hearing. Reading the comments seems everyone believes Mark guilty so I went down the rabbithole to find this evidence and I do not feel comfortable with the evidence.
The judge dislike for the defense is so clear and that should NOT be the case at all. Judges are supposed to be and appear impartial.
@@angiel186 uh...no. the judge was fair. watch the whole trial. all the evidence is flawlessly presented. mark is guilty
Never understood why judges allow jailhouse snitches.
It must be tied Closely to other more verifiable Facts. Prosecutors don't put snitches on the stand blindly. I'm a retired county sheriff. You'd be surprised how much these inmates BLAB to each other, lol.
Wait, isn't this witness the guy who killed his wife and got away with it?
No he was in jail for fraud, career con man
No. A very " successful" con man
I love the jailhouse rats.
You must be a right down and out rat 🐀 yourself. Imagine loving jailhouse snitches 😅😅wow 🤡😂
I SEE MARK JENSEN CAN HARDLY LOOK UP!!!
Never trust a rat, they're only trying to save themselves.
What did this witness bring that couldn't be found in the court docs he had access to or what Mark would likely mention when talking about what evidence they had in his case (not admitting to it just saying what they had)?
What stood out to me is what wasn't backed up by the prosecutor:
1) the toxicology we've heard only found antifreeze, not the st John's wart, benadryl or the other drug he mentioned mark used. They didn't even test for these others despite knowing this accusations was there. They didn't even believe him and didn't want exonerating evidence to be handed over to the defense.
2) he said Mark made a call to destroy the evidence (i think he said he overheard Mark making the call), there was no such call, otherwise the prosection would have played it (like they did the so called "sit on him" calls that turned out to be taken completely out of context).
3) they didn't take photos of antifreeze in the home, which is completely unfalsifiable and doesn't show anything. Most people have antifreeze in their home. If the cops didn't take photos of it it's on the cops and Mark can't use that in his defense (lack of evidence maybe but it's a nothing since it is easily explainable).
4) he poisoned Julie the week he was at the conference and had to clean up after her. How did Julie live with vomit everywhere for like 3 days while mark was away? She would have had to be to sick to clean up vomit but well enough to care for her son's. If she had help they would have done both of those things.
The prosection knows this guy isn't trustworthy because they know (or suspect) that those big accusations are false and yet they still decided to put him up for his testimony.
There were several toxaligy reports.
This man is truly evil
HE CAN NOT LOOK UP!!! 😮😮😮😮😮
SO?????
Mark Jensen is a Joke!!!