Ley y crimen: El nuevo juicio por el asesinato del anticongelante

Recently, attorney Gabriel Sepulveda-Sanchez appeared on Law & Crime to discuss the developments in the Antifreeze Murder Retrial, where Mark Jensen stands accused of poisoning his wife with antifreeze 25 years ago.

The controversy behind his conviction comes from evidence that was admitted during the first trial, mainly notes and voices left by his wife where she stated being afraid of her husband.

Below are some of the most interesting highlights of the hearing. Watch the most recent episode of Law & Crime for an expert legal opinion on what to expect next.

David Thompson, Jensen’s former cellmate had no reservations during his questioning.

During his questioning, Thompson shared details about an obstruction plan regarding the murder, but both Gabriel and Bob Hille, the other guest on the show, talked about credibility issues regarding his responses, based on Thompson being a convicted felon, and how jurors are allowed to take that into consideration when evaluating how truthful he was.

Still, in case he was to be believed, his testimony about a plan to obstruct the investigation would speak of Jensen being guilty, as an innocent person would not go to these lengths to obstruct justice and remove valuable evidence.

Was it worth it to spend so much time on Thompson’s questioning?

Both guests agreed that the prosecution might have used their time better on other witnesses, as they spent a long time questioning someone with an already fragile credibility. And while his testimony would point toward the evidence they’re looking for, Thompson is far from a star witness.

In the end, both agreed that they hope that whatever plan the prosecution is working on will eventually pan out and get the results they need, but neither of them would put their hopes solely on Thompson’s testimony.

Thompson created a fictitious person that was supposed to help Jensen from the outside.

From letters exchanged between Thompson and Jensen, the prosecution was able to establish that Thompson had created the figure of a person on the outside that would help Jensen in silencing a witness. He added in these letters that this person was capable of removing the witness’s tongue in order to keep them from talking, but according to Thompson, this was all made up to make it sound good for Jensen.

While this testimony would further implicate Jensen, it also speaks about how easily Thompson can lie to someone, which can raise more questions about where the lying stops and the truth begins in his entire testimony. They also talked about the apparent carelessness on Thompson’s part when he testified that he wasn’t expecting the calls to be recorded, which seems to contradict his situation. 

In the end, it will be up to the jury to decide if they think Thompson’s testimony is truthful or not.
For now, the retrial continues. Watch Gabriel’s appearance on the show and don’t forget to follow Law & Crime to keep up to date with any developments on this case.