Scary that someone could be depressed, visit a doctor and several years later have it used against you. Reason people do not get help when they need it. Depression is curable and treatable and should not be held against someone for the rest of their life. Thank you jury
I’ve kept an open mind with every witness that was called to testify. Dr. West wasn’t through talking about her qualifications and I was struggling!! She was grinning ear to ear at weird times, and I knew the DA was going to devour her. And he did! If I was a juror, I would disregard everything she testified to, and it’s something when the jailhouse snitches are vastly more credible then a doctor.
Agreed! It was crazy to listen to her talk and see her facial expressions. And in regards to the DA, even when Dr West was given extra info (in hypotheticals), she still couldn't stop being bias. It would be interesting to see if she was often hired by this same defense team.
She looked like she was reading off a page the whole time and was told to never sway from what she was told to say even if she contradicted herself a million times
Try putting yourself in her shoes - imagine you are being paid to produce ostensible clinical justification for the possibility that Julie was at risk of suicide.... You examine the paperwork, talk to a few people, and find that the only evidence of anything remotely resembling any of the signs in psych 101 for diagnosing suicide risk is a note by her GP, Boorman, that Julie seemed to be feeling down the day before she was poisoned by her husband. He used the word "depressed". It's depressing that GPs are still so willing to prescribe addictive antidepressants to wives whose lives are unfulfilled by their inattentive husbands, to the extent that it became widely known about and talked about, so much so that the Rolling Stones made a song about it: "She's running for the shelter / Of her mother's little helper..." And it's depressing that so many medical practitioners are willing to compromise their integrity by becoming "rent-a-guns" making up fairy stories, exaggerating and mislabelling justifiable anxiety to make it sound like irrational abject despair. That's two good reasons for us all to be depressed, but that doesn't mean we are all at high risk of suicide because of it.
She’s a hard headed hired gun. She won’t accept anything but defense theory. Glad she’s not treating anyone I care about. I would be embarrassed as a psychiatrist to let the courtroom and viewers to think I was that dumb to not recognize if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
$400 an hour for that quack, ripped off!!! She’s a shocker. Her diagnostic journey to her conclusion was seriously flawed imo. Her inability to have the slightest flexibility,in her paid opinion,seriously damaged her credibility. Jambois thank you for fighting for Julie.
David Jensen, I'm sorry this tragedy happened in your family. Your Father didn't treat your Mom well and I pray for emotional healing from trauma. God speed.
Exactly what I was thinking earlier. I’ve never ever seen it within criminal trials. I have seen tv shows doing what she’s doing, like diagnosing deceased famous figures and so forth but never this. I’m really really insulted by it and I hope to god the jurors do not take any notice. Also I hope it is never ever repeated within courts. Imagine if that was your loved one. 😓 So sad to see.
@@mollycuddle9990 my problem with her was she only responded positively if questioned about suicide and refused to answer anything about murder. She messed up her credibility my opinion. Not logical at all.
She was an awful witness. She couldn't agree to any conclusions of harassment. Come on... she couldn't conclude or agree with the police who investigated that M Jensen, aka Mark Jensen sent the pornagrafic photo's and other items. Her facial expressions, when prosecution asked a question, plus she wouldn't look at the jury. Then when defense asked questions, she would smile and answer questions looking at the jury. She was a pill!!! No credibility, if she took evidence from defense and Mark, but not the police or anything that would explain Julie's emotions, she was biased against Julie. Again a Shameful "expert" witness.
@Molly Cuddle Also, if a Dr. can tell us how Julie was out of touch with reality. Surely we should be able to read from Julie's letter what was actually happening.
Dr. West’s testimony was concerning. She never treated the patient. She didn’t take everything into account, and “word played” Julie’s statements. She appeared to twist words. Just a whole lot of “No M’am” I am not buying what you are selling.
I didn't like how Doctor West would ask him to repeat the question so she could have time to think of a crazy answer. Got to wonder if the silly doctor is mentally out of touch with reality. All those things that were real and plagued poor Julie
Extremely troubled with Dr West’s position here. Very scary ground to walk on. As a person who has been through and still goes through mental struggles everyday and knowing others who do, I would never want them, or myself to be ‘evaluated’ by her. I’ve watched dozens of trials, I’ve never ever seen this done, forensically or in hindsight. I’d thought it was one of thee main rules of court, as a psychiatrist, never to treat an individual you’ve never met, and in this case, obviously know very little about. So insulting. Doctor west is using suicide as a cash cow. Please, please, to anyone who’s involved within the judiciary system, do not recreate this scenario in any trial. She is basically giving the okay for killers to do it and hey, you may have an extra chance to get away with this, especially if your spouse has been to the doctors recently. Doctor West is hoping her field branches out to work with insurance companies. Please god no, lady. Thin ice. What if this was your family member she was chatting about? I’d never even wish this on her! Disgusting. She should be ashamed of herself. Appalling. Rest in peace Julie. None of this did you deserve. 🕊🌸💜✨🌱 xx
It's normal and natural for you to not want to be 'evaluated' in public, least of all by someone paid to badmouth you. But in general, it is in the interests of justice for someone killed by poisoning to have the question of whether they are likely to have poisoned themselves examined postmortem by a "forensic psychiatrist", in the same way that their dead body is examined by a "forensic pathologist". Because you wouldn't want anyone to be wrongly convicted of poisoning someone who had poisoned themselves, any more than you would want anyone to be wrongly freed of murder. In this case, i don't think there's any sane person on the planet, including even the witness herself, who could for even a moment take any of her "findings" seriously, because there was not a single shred of solid evidence to support them - there's an enormous difference between Julie's having been downcast because her husband was a jerk and someone being so severely depressed that they didn't want to live any more, for which in Julie's case there was no evidence whatsoever. It goes without saying that expert testimony should be impartial and objective (which this one was most certainly not), which is one good reason why experts should be hired by and paid by the court, not by either prosecution or defence. This witness's transgression of objectivity calls her integrity into question and puts her profession into disrepute. But even more concerningly, it reveals a fatal flaw in the very nature of the adversarial system of justice, which is manifestly more like Sumo wrestling than a quest for the truth.
Julie was also active with friends, family, volunteering and would have been hired to work at the high school- big stress level changes were coming with impending divorce and financial changes plus a threatening husband who was having an affair. God bless her for taking action to help protect herself knowing the enormous challenges she was facing. If anything she’s a brave and caring mother fortifying herself .. reminds me of many instances like the flight attendant who announces on every flight, parents, if there is a emergency and oxygen masks come down, put the mask on yourself first so you can breathe and assist your children. Bravo to all who seek help because it’s a selfless act for all who love you, and many who depend on you. Bravo!
Another person evaluating Julie on others ‘unreliable’ testimony. I would say it’s an absolute joke but it isn’t actually funny!! I don’t know how these people giving credit to MJ & wanting him back in the general public can sleep at night!
I dont know how you can ever evaluate the words of others to decide whether or not someone is suicidal. The only person who would know if Julie was suicidal was Julie and she said she absolutely wasn't and would never leave her children.
She’s a class act too! Her ending “for realll??” Adorable! Genius and seems humble, sharp and empathetic towards the victim. I’d love it if she did a study on the dose of poisoning vs self harm- fascinating and terrifying all at once.
@@LibertyStation92106 I agree, not giving witnesses all the previous testimony and evidence. I'd be pissed being put in that position. Obviously, they searched for the "Perfect" biased witnesses, those willing, for a price to only to agree to the defense, not even slightly agreeing with the Prosecution. Shameful when it's clearly stated, and restated in different scenarios. They need more training at the very least. Possibly, fined for their neglect to share all evidence.
I hope to never be an expert defense witness facing Jambois in any way, shape or form. He makes these folks look like complete idiots. And i love his wife's little smirk.
David Jenson just broke my heart. He has really done well for himself even though he lost his mom, by his dad's hands, and his father going to jail for her murder. So very sad! I love the judge and Jambois!!! The prosecution is wonderful! The defense has been absolutely awful!
Actually, $400 an hour to write a report and express an opinion that the defence were seeking and to stick to her guns regardless. Mr Jambois exposed her as an utter fool.
Watch the expressions on the Dr's face when the female attorney is talking to her (watch both when she's speaking and when she's between responses) then watch the same when the male attorney takes over and starts questioning. Quite a difference. Much more "friendly" with the first (eyes, mouth, etc) than with the latter.
True. I also noticed over time her face during the direct started to show contempt. So I assume that she’s not getting the response(body language/facial expressions) she wants from the jury and is getting angry about it.
Mr Jambois The Great!! What an awesome cross of Dr West. Fantastic having her describe what a narcissist is. She really described herself well😂😂😂😂 EXCELLENT MR JAMBOIS. Julie is smiling down from heaven ❤❤
I am very concerned about Dr. West’s patients, especially who are abuse victims. Dr. West has milked the system and has a very condescending attitude fueled with arrogance and lack of compassion. It is absolutely criminal that these “so called “ experts can charge the tax payers so exorbitantly. What a shame ! Jambois! Thank you for fighting the fight, you gave it your all my friend! God bless! 🙏
The son doesn't remember much, but what occurred during that time must have been very traumatic. Eight years old and losing your mother. But then having your dad's girlfriend move in shortly after and having to call her mom.
This "expert" lost me when she basically said Julie stuck around and could have left because she had the money to do so. Completely irrational and unprofessional conclusion. It was OBVIOUS that she didn't want to leave and risk losing her children. I hope her 200 some patients find another doctor. This is very disturbing
If I ever travel to the US (from Ireland), and someone murders me, and there is a suspect, I want to say right now, I would like Mr Jambois to fight for justice, for me and my family. Bravo, sir 👏😁
He couldn't be bothered to ask the jury if they had discussed the case everytime they came back into the courtroom, whi h is customary. How F-ing BASIC and he can't even do that.
I have no problem with doctors going in circles because they don't want to say something that isn't entirely accurate. But the minute this doctor pointed out the double negative, I started to wonder if she was concerned with accuracy or with being challenged. And if she's defensive about being challenged, can she be trusted to give a fair and unbiased opinion. It must make it more difficult for the jury.
Wow....the first defense witness of the day is quite cloying. And why, why, why does anyone think that answering questions by looking directly at the jurors is a good idea? Looks so phony and coached.
Disagree with Dr. West's assessment as medical certainty. It seems likely speculation. Regardless how educated and experienced ---no one is infallible. Find it inappropriate to base opinion upon others' hearsay. I would not take this testimony into consideration. During cross she was dishonest and bias.
@@LibertyStation92106 It's not that. It's he was manipulated by his father into believing another truth growing up but has distanced himself from the situation as an adult. To be put in a bad position as your childhood-calling a cheater as your Mom. He said he still looks at photos of his real mom. Very hard to grow up with that situation and function as an adult which he seems to have done.
16:55 🙄 DOUBTFUL... _"In my opinion,"_ she was extremely biased. That came out during cross. Even when she was given ALL the info, she still couldn't put her bias aside.
Just because you’re depressed doesn’t mean you’re suicidal. There’s also a difference between major depression and mild depression. I don’t remember hearing that she was diagnosed with major depression. I also think her depression was caused by Mark.
the 1st lady who testifies is awful! & only benefits the state when she refuses to answer questions honestly, dodges the obvious answers, & smirks out of pure enjoyment that she’s a total beach
Jambois is kicking this Dr West and the defence team to the ground . I wish jambois was my lawyer because he comes at the defense expert witnesses like a missle to a target. He cuts through the Bull S*it in Dr West report and her credential as a psychiatrist. You can tell Dr West was paid to lie to the jury.
But legally, that's not necessarily true.. An innocent person can be very dislikable & their lawyer might advise them against testifying. But, I agree, I think this guy is definitely guilty!
What does the fishing pole have anything to do with his innocence. Does anyone really think, Mark is that dumb to have his kids doubt him about Mommy's death. It probably with the son's idea to make it. Defense leading question with do you remember your mom being upset about spreading feces on the wall, then anything on the wall?? Leading the witness.
I used to babysit for three small children when my oldest children were four and 10 months old. It's not easy, especially when you are caring for children who have behavioral issues, don't get along, etc. I'm sure it was difficult for Julie to do for very long days (probably nine to ten hours). If she was tired of not being able to enjoy her own boys because she was taking care of other children, or she was just exhausted that day (what mother with an infant or toddler hasn't been exhausted?) she probably would have gotten even more upset than if something happened on another day. And who knows how her relationship was going with Mark that day? She could have been under stress no one can know at this point. I think it's possible that Drake did smear feces in the bathroom; I've known people whose kids did that. I remember a fellow mom at school when I was picking up my child. She was telling me how her youngest was constantly smearing poo all over the bathroom. I thought "Yuck! I'd lose my damn mind!" but simply said, "Wow" Anyway, sorry for the long comment, but as the prosecutor suggested, isn't it possible that Julie cleaned it up by the time Mark and his sister arrived? I couldn't leave it. What if one of the children went back into the bathroom and got into it? I'm very disappointed at Mark's sister. I think she's lying about what she said to Julie about knowing what Mark is capable of doing. I think she was pissed when she had to quit working because Julie no longer wanted to babysit, so she had to stay home. Mark's sister may have been pressured by her parents to lie about things so he would get away with it.
She has maybe helped a narcissistic person use a victims vulnerabilities against them. She came off as glib . People in abusive relationships don’t trust people around the narcissists for a good reason and there is a lot more that goes into it than meets the eye. I had a hard time listening to her to be honest. 😢
Apparently, the closest forensic psychiatrist willing to testify as an expert witness on behalf of the defense is located in Ohio. One would think that with Chicago and Milwaukee being a little over and hour away, they could have found an expert in closer proximity...😏What a piece of work. Home computers were common in 1998. In fact, I recall having computer classes in junior high and high school in the 1980's. I used Word Perfect for writing term papers and essays in the late 80's. Of course, I had to print them on a dot matrix printer, lol
It’s so annoying to see MJ open his mouth wide every time he yawns, which is often. So gross; you’re supposed to cover your mouth when you yawn. I don’t know why he yawns so much - maybe he is on something to level himself out, many cause yawning. Anyway I’m glad we won’t have to see him do that all the time anymore.
@flapjackbickle645 yes he is very unlikable. He has such a sly, scheming look about him. I think he is plotting his revenge for his ex sister in law. Hope he doesn't get set free!
Very sensible of the prosecution to have the female prosecutor close; Jambois nearly stuffed it up again in his cross of the shrink - he scored an uppercut by calling into question her own grip on reality, and would have walked away triumphant if he'd stopped there and then, but he couldn't help himself trying to steamroiller her into agreeing with him, just like he had tried (and failed) to do to other witnesses. we could all see at a single glance of her pronounced chin-jutting that this woman was never going to agree with him on any point ever, which she duly did not do, and round and round in circles they went, until all a jury could remember was that they had had an argument. In contrast, the female prosecutor's quiet and gentle cross of David got her key points across - principally, his sharing of his concern for his mum with his schoolchum and his expressed wish for his mum to have been taken to the hospital. Of the two prosecutors, the female is the more credible and competent, despite Jambois' impressive memory. [edit]:correction:- having now listened to half her closing argument, i have to change my mind - its detail was excellent, but her commentary on that detail reduced its impact; for example, she spent far too much time arguing the bleeding obvious that Mark used his own computer... It sounds like she is aiming to prove that Julie didn't commit suicide, but that's the wrong way to go about it; she only has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mark poisoned her - and to my mind, the clincher for that is the high five his father gave him at her funeral. What a family!
@@Silly.Old.Sisyphus I agree that he female prosecutor did a great job crossing David. By showing Julie's photos she brought her back into focus. As for Jambois' cross of the junk scientist I beg to differ. As I saw it, he decosntructed all her arguments one by one and showed the jury how biased she was.
He mantein himself good and correct. He accepted that his life will be forever in prison.😕. If he didn't kill her...will be so hard all. He said bye to his dad.
i have a theory.. for him not to testify to me means he doesnt want to plead his innocence & that this trial is just his sick way of getting more details for his book he has been busy scribbling
Regardless of any crap the judge might come out with, juries should take a dim view of any defendant who opts not to testify in a case as serious as this one. Imagine if you were innocent of this terrible crime, wouldn't you be shouting it from the rooftops? It's right to be intensely suspicious of a person whose life and freedom is on the line and decides to say nothing when given the chance.
It's up to the prosecution to prove its case. The defendant has the right to remain silent. There are times when the defendant needs to testify in order to support their case. I think Rittenhouse is an example; had he not testified he may well have been convicted. Scumbags like Jensen exercising their right to remain silent may be frustrating but it's their right to do so.
@@geoffpoole483 Of course they have the right not to testify- my point is they are generally making a big mistake by choosing that option. When the defendant remains silent, it implies their lawyers have no faith in their credibility. I totally agree about Rittenhouse, same with Danielle Redlick- the jury needed to hear directly from them. And when Kaitlin Armstrong goes on trial, she REALLY needs to explain to the jury why she fled the country and had plastic surgery. Will she do that? Probably not. Why? Because she's guilty as hell.
At the end the video the guy swears that the year is wrong.. he is correct he states it was a friday.. 4 december 1998 WAS A FRIDAY!! 4 december 1999 was a saturday! he swears it was FRIDAY!
You have a sharp eye and a good nose for detail; yes, it's most likely that the witness Tad would remember which day of the week it was and therefore that the year must have been 1998. I was wondering why he would provide a handwritten statement only a year later... So we can conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that Tad had written down what Julie had told him Laura had told her, but that the detective had not included that in his own report of his interview of Tad, quite possibly because it is hearsay several times removed. And that means the defence attorney is up a gum tree trying to impeach a witness on a miscellaneous and extraneous question as to whether a statement date was 1998 or 1999 - because apart from anything else, it's what a statement says that counts, not whether its date was 1998 or 1999.
Scary that someone could be depressed, visit a doctor and several years later have it used against you. Reason people do not get help when they need it. Depression is curable and treatable and should not be held against someone for the rest of their life. Thank you jury
I’ve kept an open mind with every witness that was called to testify. Dr. West wasn’t through talking about her qualifications and I was struggling!! She was grinning ear to ear at weird times, and I knew the DA was going to devour her. And he did! If I was a juror, I would disregard everything she testified to, and it’s something when the jailhouse snitches are vastly more credible then a doctor.
Agreed!
It was crazy to listen to her talk and see her facial expressions.
And in regards to the DA, even when Dr West was given extra info (in hypotheticals), she still couldn't stop being bias. It would be interesting to see if she was often hired by this same defense team.
She looked like she was reading off a page the whole time and was told to never sway from what she was told to say even if she contradicted herself a million times
@@evelynborchard1879
She reminded me a lot of the Dr from the DeppVHeard trial.
EXTREMELY BIAS!
@@goose7574 yes!!!
She's a bought witness. Period. She didn't actually believe any of that. She was paid for this opinion.
Jambois is brilliant. He is the voice of reason and speaks for the victim.
Another expert just speculating on Julie’s depression…Load of rubbish…
Try putting yourself in her shoes - imagine you are being paid to produce ostensible clinical justification for the possibility that Julie was at risk of suicide....
You examine the paperwork, talk to a few people, and find that the only evidence of anything remotely resembling any of the signs in psych 101 for diagnosing suicide risk is a note by her GP, Boorman, that Julie seemed to be feeling down the day before she was poisoned by her husband. He used the word "depressed".
It's depressing that GPs are still so willing to prescribe addictive antidepressants to wives whose lives are unfulfilled by their inattentive husbands, to the extent that it became widely known about and talked about, so much so that the Rolling Stones made a song about it: "She's running for the shelter / Of her mother's little helper..."
And it's depressing that so many medical practitioners are willing to compromise their integrity by becoming "rent-a-guns" making up fairy stories, exaggerating and mislabelling justifiable anxiety to make it sound like irrational abject despair.
That's two good reasons for us all to be depressed, but that doesn't mean we are all at high risk of suicide because of it.
She’s a hard headed hired gun. She won’t accept anything but defense theory. Glad she’s not treating anyone I care about. I would be embarrassed as a psychiatrist to let the courtroom and viewers to think I was that dumb to not recognize if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
$400 an hour for that quack, ripped off!!! She’s a shocker. Her diagnostic journey to her conclusion was seriously flawed imo. Her inability to have the slightest flexibility,in her paid opinion,seriously damaged her credibility. Jambois thank you for fighting for Julie.
Totally 100% agree. Wow. What a quack
She was a paid witness. A sorry sack of poo to get paid to call a great mom crazy and who cannot defend herself.
David Jensen, I'm sorry this tragedy happened in your family. Your Father didn't treat your Mom well and I pray for emotional healing from trauma. God speed.
Isn’t it rule number one as a doctor not to diagnose someone you haven’t met with?? I wouldn’t listen to a word that lady said as a juror lol
Exactly what I was thinking earlier. I’ve never ever seen it within criminal trials. I have seen tv shows doing what she’s doing, like diagnosing deceased famous figures and so forth but never this. I’m really really insulted by it and I hope to god the jurors do not take any notice. Also I hope it is never ever repeated within courts. Imagine if that was your loved one. 😓 So sad to see.
@@mollycuddle9990 my problem with her was she only responded positively if questioned about suicide and refused to answer anything about murder. She messed up her credibility my opinion. Not logical at all.
She was an awful witness. She couldn't agree to any conclusions of harassment. Come on... she couldn't conclude or agree with the police who investigated that M Jensen, aka Mark Jensen sent the pornagrafic photo's and other items. Her facial expressions, when prosecution asked a question, plus she wouldn't look at the jury. Then when defense asked questions, she would smile and answer questions looking at the jury. She was a pill!!! No credibility, if she took evidence from defense and Mark, but not the police or anything that would explain Julie's emotions, she was biased against Julie. Again a Shameful "expert" witness.
Seems like she's gaslighting the attorney
@Molly Cuddle Also, if a Dr. can tell us how Julie was out of touch with reality. Surely we should be able to read from Julie's letter what was actually happening.
Dr. West’s testimony was concerning. She never treated the patient. She didn’t take everything into account, and “word played” Julie’s statements. She appeared to twist words. Just a whole lot of “No M’am” I am not buying what you are selling.
I didn't like how Doctor West would ask him to repeat the question so she could have time to think of a crazy answer. Got to wonder if the silly doctor is mentally out of touch with reality. All those things that were real and plagued poor Julie
Extremely troubled with Dr West’s position here. Very scary ground to walk on. As a person who has been through and still goes through mental struggles everyday and knowing others who do, I would never want them, or myself to be ‘evaluated’ by her. I’ve watched dozens of trials, I’ve never ever seen this done, forensically or in hindsight. I’d thought it was one of thee main rules of court, as a psychiatrist, never to treat an individual you’ve never met, and in this case, obviously know very little about. So insulting.
Doctor west is using suicide as a cash cow. Please, please, to anyone who’s involved within the judiciary system, do not recreate this scenario in any trial. She is basically giving the okay for killers to do it and hey, you may have an extra chance to get away with this, especially if your spouse has been to the doctors recently. Doctor West is hoping her field branches out to work with insurance companies. Please god no, lady. Thin ice.
What if this was your family member she was chatting about? I’d never even wish this on her! Disgusting. She should be ashamed of herself. Appalling.
Rest in peace Julie. None of this did you deserve. 🕊🌸💜✨🌱 xx
She should have taken off, she waited too long, unfortunately. All of those who knew couldn't be bothered to get involved. Blood on a lot of hands.
It's normal and natural for you to not want to be 'evaluated' in public, least of all by someone paid to badmouth you.
But in general, it is in the interests of justice for someone killed by poisoning to have the question of whether they are likely to have poisoned themselves examined postmortem by a "forensic psychiatrist", in the same way that their dead body is examined by a "forensic pathologist".
Because you wouldn't want anyone to be wrongly convicted of poisoning someone who had poisoned themselves, any more than you would want anyone to be wrongly freed of murder.
In this case, i don't think there's any sane person on the planet, including even the witness herself, who could for even a moment take any of her "findings" seriously, because there was not a single shred of solid evidence to support them - there's an enormous difference between Julie's having been downcast because her husband was a jerk and someone being so severely depressed that they didn't want to live any more, for which in Julie's case there was no evidence whatsoever.
It goes without saying that expert testimony should be impartial and objective (which this one was most certainly not), which is one good reason why experts should be hired by and paid by the court, not by either prosecution or defence.
This witness's transgression of objectivity calls her integrity into question and puts her profession into disrepute.
But even more concerningly, it reveals a fatal flaw in the very nature of the adversarial system of justice, which is manifestly more like Sumo wrestling than a quest for the truth.
Julie was also active with friends, family, volunteering and would have been hired to work at the high school- big stress level changes were coming with impending divorce and financial changes plus a threatening husband who was having an affair. God bless her for taking action to help protect herself knowing the enormous challenges she was facing. If anything she’s a brave and caring mother fortifying herself .. reminds me of many instances like the flight attendant who announces on every flight, parents, if there is a emergency and oxygen masks come down, put the mask on yourself first so you can breathe and assist your children. Bravo to all who seek help because it’s a selfless act for all who love you, and many who depend on you. Bravo!
Another person evaluating Julie on others ‘unreliable’ testimony. I would say it’s an absolute joke but it isn’t actually funny!! I don’t know how these people giving credit to MJ & wanting him back in the general public can sleep at night!
I dont know how you can ever evaluate the words of others to decide whether or not someone is suicidal. The only person who would know if Julie was suicidal was Julie and she said she absolutely wasn't and would never leave her children.
Dr. Mainlan is my hero.She answered truthfully and not for one side or the other but it was in the favor of the prosecutor. Brilliant.
She’s a class act too! Her ending “for realll??” Adorable! Genius and seems humble, sharp and empathetic towards the victim. I’d love it if she did a study on the dose of poisoning vs self harm- fascinating and terrifying all at once.
@Miki Miyazaki No
The Defense didn't convince me, Guilty! The Prosecution did a great job, tearing apart multiple bias witnesses.
The defense lawyers should be disbarred. So much wrong, so horrid of a "defense."
@@LibertyStation92106 I agree, not giving witnesses all the previous testimony and evidence. I'd be pissed being put in that position. Obviously, they searched for the "Perfect" biased witnesses, those willing, for a price to only to agree to the defense, not even slightly agreeing with the Prosecution. Shameful when it's clearly stated, and restated in different scenarios. They need more training at the very least. Possibly, fined for their neglect to share all evidence.
I hope to never be an expert defense witness facing Jambois in any way, shape or form. He makes these folks look like complete idiots. And i love his wife's little smirk.
Same
David Jenson just broke my heart. He has really done well for himself even though he lost his mom, by his dad's hands, and his father going to jail for her murder. So very sad!
I love the judge and Jambois!!! The prosecution is wonderful! The defense has been absolutely awful!
400 an hour to do a half assed job…it’s obscene
Actually, $400 an hour to write a report and express an opinion that the defence were seeking and to stick to her guns regardless. Mr Jambois exposed her as an utter fool.
From a script
Watch the expressions on the Dr's face when the female attorney is talking to her (watch both when she's speaking and when she's between responses) then watch the same when the male attorney takes over and starts questioning. Quite a difference. Much more "friendly" with the first (eyes, mouth, etc) than with the latter.
True. I also noticed over time her face during the direct started to show contempt. So I assume that she’s not getting the response(body language/facial expressions) she wants from the jury and is getting angry about it.
Shes a classic narcissist to me. The worst type to deal with
But perfect for a paid hack
True.
Mr Jambois The Great!! What an awesome cross of Dr West. Fantastic having her describe what a narcissist is. She really described herself well😂😂😂😂 EXCELLENT MR JAMBOIS. Julie is smiling down from heaven ❤❤
She described jamboi$
AGREED!!!
Dr West was awful!
I am very concerned about Dr. West’s patients, especially who are abuse victims. Dr. West has milked the system and has a very condescending attitude fueled with arrogance and lack of compassion. It is absolutely criminal that these “so called “ experts can charge the tax payers so exorbitantly. What a shame ! Jambois! Thank you for fighting the fight, you gave it your all my friend! God bless! 🙏
Ego strength….omg this woman…
The son doesn't remember much, but what occurred during that time must have been very traumatic. Eight years old and losing your mother. But then having your dad's girlfriend move in shortly after and having to call her mom.
The Jammer has done an excellent job. Guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, again.
I hate the way even in death Mark and defense team are trying to make Julie seem crazy, depressed and suicidal.
This "expert" lost me when she basically said Julie stuck around and could have left because she had the money to do so. Completely irrational and unprofessional conclusion. It was OBVIOUS that she didn't want to leave and risk losing her children. I hope her 200 some patients find another doctor. This is very disturbing
Major depression…what? It’s called abuse and drugged…
Who in his right mind would hire Dr. West in the future?
Brilliant prosecutor
If I ever travel to the US (from Ireland), and someone murders me, and there is a suspect, I want to say right now, I would like Mr Jambois to fight for justice, for me and my family. Bravo, sir 👏😁
lol 😅 please don't get murdered, anywhere!! 😂❤
What attorney grins widely while asking a psychiatrist “What is suicidal ideation”? How pleasant. The defense is embarrassing.
Jambois is badass! He is calling everyone out 😆
I like the judge. He has thought many variables through to help the jury reach their decision. I thought he was fair with his rulings as well.
He couldn't be bothered to ask the jury if they had discussed the case everytime they came back into the courtroom, whi h is customary.
How F-ing BASIC and he can't even do that.
How does this so call "expert' sleep at night?
On her back, legs in the air.
Upsidedown hanging from clawtoenails?
Unbelievable …🤦🏻♀️
@@williieloman1549 unnecessary
@@williieloman1549you are sicko. Get a life.
Depressed is not feeling nothing, it’s feeling too much. These are very sensitive people.
Jambois is great👍👍👍👍👍
I have no problem with doctors going in circles because they don't want to say something that isn't entirely accurate. But the minute this doctor pointed out the double negative, I started to wonder if she was concerned with accuracy or with being challenged. And if she's defensive about being challenged, can she be trusted to give a fair and unbiased opinion. It must make it more difficult for the jury.
Wow....the first defense witness of the day is quite cloying. And why, why, why does anyone think that answering questions by looking directly at the jurors is a good idea? Looks so phony and coached.
Disagree with Dr. West's assessment as medical certainty. It seems likely speculation. Regardless how educated and experienced ---no one is infallible. Find it inappropriate to base opinion upon others' hearsay. I would not take this testimony into consideration. During cross she was dishonest and bias.
Who's testimony?
@@sharonr3725 her testimony, I presume
Seems the son knows his mom was killed but doesn't want to help the defense so says I don't remember.
Well, it has been 24 years AND Davismd was 8 in 1998, FFS.
@@LibertyStation92106 It's not that. It's he was manipulated by his father into believing another truth growing up but has distanced himself from the situation as an adult. To be put in a bad position as your childhood-calling a cheater as your Mom. He said he still looks at photos of his real mom. Very hard to grow up with that situation and function as an adult which he seems to have done.
16:55
🙄
DOUBTFUL...
_"In my opinion,"_ she was extremely biased. That came out during cross. Even when she was given ALL the info, she still couldn't put her bias aside.
Great prosecutor
That woman has a permanent frown, reminds me of an old widow woman!
The first trial was so hard to watch because the defense attorney was such an AH. And he’s proving it today.
Just because you’re depressed doesn’t mean you’re suicidal. There’s also a difference between major depression and mild depression. I don’t remember hearing that she was diagnosed with major depression. I also think her depression was caused by Mark.
There is something wrong with that Dr. She looks sickly and unwell.
the 1st lady who testifies is awful! & only benefits the state when she refuses to answer questions honestly, dodges the obvious answers, & smirks out of pure enjoyment that she’s a total beach
Jambois is kicking this Dr West and the defence team to the ground . I wish jambois was my lawyer because he comes at the defense expert witnesses like a missle to a target. He cuts through the Bull S*it in Dr West report and her credential as a psychiatrist. You can tell Dr West was paid to lie to the jury.
💯
2:28:38
Is she freaking kidding me???
I hope the Jury throws out everything this broad has said. This is absolutely crazy!
If you’re so innocent then why not testify? Because you’re Guilty.
But legally, that's not necessarily true.. An innocent person can be very dislikable & their lawyer might advise them against testifying.
But, I agree, I think this guy is definitely guilty!
Wrong!
Laura should feel sooooo ashamed about herself and this Dr. Wart (or is it West?) as well.
What does the fishing pole have anything to do with his innocence. Does anyone really think, Mark is that dumb to have his kids doubt him about Mommy's death. It probably with the son's idea to make it. Defense leading question with do you remember your mom being upset about spreading feces on the wall, then anything on the wall?? Leading the witness.
It's an attempt to humanise the defendant.
I used to babysit for three small children when my oldest children were four and 10 months old. It's not easy, especially when you are caring for children who have behavioral issues, don't get along, etc. I'm sure it was difficult for Julie to do for very long days (probably nine to ten hours). If she was tired of not being able to enjoy her own boys because she was taking care of other children, or she was just exhausted that day (what mother with an infant or toddler hasn't been exhausted?) she probably would have gotten even more upset than if something happened on another day. And who knows how her relationship was going with Mark that day? She could have been under stress no one can know at this point. I think it's possible that Drake did smear feces in the bathroom; I've known people whose kids did that. I remember a fellow mom at school when I was picking up my child. She was telling me how her youngest was constantly smearing poo all over the bathroom. I thought "Yuck! I'd lose my damn mind!" but simply said, "Wow" Anyway, sorry for the long comment, but as the prosecutor suggested, isn't it possible that Julie cleaned it up by the time Mark and his sister arrived? I couldn't leave it. What if one of the children went back into the bathroom and got into it?
I'm very disappointed at Mark's sister. I think she's lying about what she said to Julie about knowing what Mark is capable of doing. I think she was pissed when she had to quit working because Julie no longer wanted to babysit, so she had to stay home. Mark's sister may have been pressured by her parents to lie about things so he would get away with it.
She has maybe helped a narcissistic person use a victims vulnerabilities against them. She came off as glib . People in abusive relationships don’t trust people around the narcissists for a good reason and there is a lot more that goes into it than meets the eye. I had a hard time listening to her to be honest. 😢
Amen, defense for bringing up the gaslighting!!! Amen. That would change perception. 100 The doctor knows this. She knows this.
And she just tried to gaslight you to get out of her own mess. Ugh
At 50:00, I thought witnesses were not allowed to read from their own documents ?
8:00 trial starts.
Pretentious B-even their own lawyer was making faces.
seeing a patient once a month isn’t frequently !
Jambois is about to stroke, he’s so flushed today and yesterday
Definitely needs blood pressure checked! First thing I noticed this morning.
i love Miss DeFazio
Apparently, the closest forensic psychiatrist willing to testify as an expert witness on behalf of the defense is located in Ohio. One would think that with Chicago and Milwaukee being a little over and hour away, they could have found an expert in closer proximity...😏What a piece of work.
Home computers were common in 1998. In fact, I recall having computer classes in junior high and high school in the 1980's. I used Word Perfect for writing term papers and essays in the late 80's. Of course, I had to print them on a dot matrix printer, lol
The quack was seen for what she is,.
It’s so annoying to see MJ open his mouth wide every time he yawns, which is often. So gross; you’re supposed to cover your mouth when you yawn. I don’t know why he yawns so much - maybe he is on something to level himself out, many cause yawning. Anyway I’m glad we won’t have to see him do that all the time anymore.
Glad we won't have to hear or see this murderer ever once he gets put back in the cage for the rest of his life.
He needs to be careful- he might come off as unlikeable.
Yawning, glaring, eating mints while the jury is walking in/out.
@flapjackbickle645 yes he is very unlikable. He has such a sly, scheming look about him. I think he is plotting his revenge for his ex sister in law. Hope he doesn't get set free!
Well, he's a malignant narcissist and anti-social.
The judge warned the defence not to cross the detective…he was so right..
Where is live chat
Closing arguments
Ok so I tell you I am worried my husband is trying to kill me but it's ok to give my husband sleeping pills. Kay.
Where are all the comments from today?
Glad the guilty freak is going back to prison. 😁
Jenson won't testify. In my opinion, he is scared of Jambois. Jambois would rip that guy to shreads.
I cannot believe Jambois is not doing the close! Maybe he’ll tie it up in rebuttal 👍
He looked really red today, I hope he is ok.
Very sensible of the prosecution to have the female prosecutor close; Jambois nearly stuffed it up again in his cross of the shrink - he scored an uppercut by calling into question her own grip on reality, and would have walked away triumphant if he'd stopped there and then, but he couldn't help himself trying to steamroiller her into agreeing with him, just like he had tried (and failed) to do to other witnesses.
we could all see at a single glance of her pronounced chin-jutting that this woman was never going to agree with him on any point ever, which she duly did not do, and round and round in circles they went, until all a jury could remember was that they had had an argument.
In contrast, the female prosecutor's quiet and gentle cross of David got her key points across - principally, his sharing of his concern for his mum with his schoolchum and his expressed wish for his mum to have been taken to the hospital.
Of the two prosecutors, the female is the more credible and competent, despite Jambois' impressive memory.
[edit]:correction:- having now listened to half her closing argument, i have to change my mind - its detail was excellent, but her commentary on that detail reduced its impact; for example, she spent far too much time arguing the bleeding obvious that Mark used his own computer... It sounds like she is aiming to prove that Julie didn't commit suicide, but that's the wrong way to go about it; she only has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mark poisoned her - and to my mind, the clincher for that is the high five his father gave him at her funeral. What a family!
@@Silly.Old.Sisyphus I agree that he female prosecutor did a great job crossing David. By showing Julie's photos she brought her back into focus. As for Jambois' cross of the junk scientist I beg to differ. As I saw it, he decosntructed all her arguments one by one and showed the jury how biased she was.
I think it's common for the prosecution to divide the closing and opening arguments.
Okay this is purely subjective. Right out the gate she seriously got on my nerves.
Jensen makes alot of deceptive looks as well as many others that are very telling of him!
Dr. Wart, lol
He mantein himself good and correct. He accepted that his life will be forever in prison.😕. If he didn't kill her...will be so hard all.
He said bye to his dad.
Is anyone seeing live chat?
No, wish I could though.
No
I see it now, it takes a bit for it to show up.
i have a theory.. for him not to testify to me means he doesnt want to plead his innocence & that this trial is just his sick way of getting more details for his book he has been busy scribbling
Regardless of any crap the judge might come out with, juries should take a dim view of any defendant who opts not to testify in a case as serious as this one. Imagine if you were innocent of this terrible crime, wouldn't you be shouting it from the rooftops? It's right to be intensely suspicious of a person whose life and freedom is on the line and decides to say nothing when given the chance.
It's up to the prosecution to prove its case. The defendant has the right to remain silent. There are times when the defendant needs to testify in order to support their case. I think Rittenhouse is an example; had he not testified he may well have been convicted. Scumbags like Jensen exercising their right to remain silent may be frustrating but it's their right to do so.
@@geoffpoole483 Of course they have the right not to testify- my point is they are generally making a big mistake by choosing that option. When the defendant remains silent, it implies their lawyers have no faith in their credibility. I totally agree about Rittenhouse, same with Danielle Redlick- the jury needed to hear directly from them. And when Kaitlin Armstrong goes on trial, she REALLY needs to explain to the jury why she fled the country and had plastic surgery. Will she do that? Probably not. Why? Because she's guilty as hell.
At the end the video the guy swears that the year is wrong.. he is correct he states it was a friday.. 4 december 1998 WAS A FRIDAY!! 4 december 1999 was a saturday! he swears it was FRIDAY!
You have a sharp eye and a good nose for detail; yes, it's most likely that the witness Tad would remember which day of the week it was and therefore that the year must have been 1998. I was wondering why he would provide a handwritten statement only a year later...
So we can conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that Tad had written down what Julie had told him Laura had told her, but that the detective had not included that in his own report of his interview of Tad, quite possibly because it is hearsay several times removed.
And that means the defence attorney is up a gum tree trying to impeach a witness on a miscellaneous and extraneous question as to whether a statement date was 1998 or 1999 - because apart from anything else, it's what a statement says that counts, not whether its date was 1998 or 1999.