“The Kill List”: 20/20 Reports on Julie Jensen Homicide December 27 2024

On December 27, 2024, ABC’s 20/20 will air an investigative episode titled “The Kill List,” exploring the haunting case of Julie Jensen’s death in 1998. Julie’s passing initially appeared to be a natural tragedy, but her ominous handwritten letter, warning authorities to suspect her husband, Mark Jensen, should anything happen to her, would later turn this case into a chilling example of premeditated murder. Over decades, the twists and turns of this case became a legal and emotional battleground, captivating public attention.

This feature delves into Julie Jensen’s tragic story, the revelations of her letter, and the long road to justice in the courtroom.

Julie Jensen: A Life Interrupted

Julie Jensen was a mother of two and part-time worker who lived with her husband, Mark, in Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin. Friends and family described Julie as a devoted mother to her sons, David and Douglas, and someone deeply invested in her family’s happiness. Yet, beneath the surface of her suburban life, Julie harbored growing fears about her husband’s behavior, which she meticulously documented in notes and conversations with others.

Julie’s fears stemmed from Mark’s increasingly controlling and suspicious actions, exacerbated by his knowledge of a brief affair she had years earlier. This tension culminated in Julie writing a now-famous letter warning that if she were to die, authorities should consider her husband as a suspect. Days later, on December 3, 1998, Julie was found dead in her home, poisoned with antifreeze and possibly suffocated. The letter became a critical piece of evidence, but it also raised thorny legal questions about its admissibility in court.

The Investigation and Initial Trial

Mark Jensen’s demeanor in the days following his wife’s death raised immediate suspicion. Julie’s death initially seemed like a possible suicide due to ethylene glycol ingestion—a substance commonly used in antifreeze—but investigators found inconsistencies in the narrative. Mark’s internet search history revealed he had researched antifreeze poisoning, and his coworkers recalled unsettling conversations in which Mark had discussed methods of poisoning.

Julie’s letter, entrusted to a neighbor shortly before her death, provided further evidence. In the letter, Julie articulated her fear of Mark and her conviction that he intended to harm her. This became a linchpin of the prosecution’s argument. At the 2008 trial, prosecutors presented a detailed case arguing that Mark had poisoned Julie with antifreeze and later suffocated her when the poison did not act quickly enough. The jury convicted Mark of first-degree intentional homicide, and he was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

The Legal Battles: Appeals and a Second Trial

The initial conviction, however, did not mark the end of the legal saga. In 2013, a federal judge overturned Mark’s conviction, ruling that Julie’s letter violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser. This decision led to years of appeals and legal wrangling, culminating in a second trial in 2023. By this point, Julie’s letter was inadmissible, but prosecutors introduced other compelling evidence, including Mark’s attempts to fabricate evidence of harassment to implicate someone else.

During the second trial, prosecutors relied heavily on forensic evidence and witness testimonies. The court heard how Mark had staged fake emails and letters to portray himself as a victim of harassment, a strategy designed to deflect suspicion from himself. The prosecution also emphasized the computer searches conducted on the day of Julie’s death, which they argued Mark had used to monitor the progress of the poisoning. In February 2023, the jury once again found Mark guilty, and he was sentenced to life in prison.

The Legacy of a Tragic Case

Julie Jensen’s death and the protracted legal battles that followed have left a lasting impact on both the legal and psychological communities. Her case highlighted the importance of documenting suspicions and concerns, particularly in abusive relationships, as well as the challenges of balancing constitutional rights with the pursuit of justice. The legal doctrine of “forfeiture by wrongdoing,” which allowed Julie’s letter to be used in the first trial, remains a controversial topic in American jurisprudence.

Mark Jensen, now twice convicted, will spend the rest of his life in prison. For Julie’s family, friends, and advocates, the conviction represents a hard-won victory, but it can never erase the pain of her loss. Julie’s letter, though written in fear, became her enduring voice in a case that continues to resonate with the public.

Conclusion: A Case That Defined Persistence

20/20’s “The Kill List” sheds new light on this haunting case, providing fresh insights into Julie’s story and the enduring struggle for justice. Her letter serves as both a harrowing warning and a testament to her determination to protect her children and ensure the truth was told. The case remains a poignant reminder of the importance of vigilance and advocacy in uncovering the truth behind the most chilling of crimes.