THE PREGNANCY HOAX AND FAKE, MADE-UP MISCARRIAGE
In an effort to solicit further attention and garner sympathy for a situation she had created and staged, Jendusa manufactured a story about a fake pregnancy and then a subsequent miscarriage; neither of which were ever real. Her attempts to dramatize and sensationalize every aspect of the very things she had choreographed are incredibly astounding to say the least.
As unbelievable as it is, the federal court relied upon Jendusa's unsupported statement that she was pregnant and miscarried while she was in the hospital, as if it were gospel. The court did so even though there was a complete absence of factual support in the record for an actual pregnancy, let alone an actual miscarriage. Jendusa's medical records simply do NOT show any evidence of a pregnancy nor a miscarriage in January or February 2004. Further, there was no medical evidence of a pregnancy presented at trial, and there was also no expert medical testimony to support such.
Most concerning, and completely ignored is this: If a miscarriage had actually occurred in a hospital setting as claimed, one might reasonably expect some type of annotation of that event within the medical records. Yet, there is none! Furthermore, if there was even the remotest, slightest minimal chance or likelihood that Jendusa "might have been pregnant", the anesthesiologist involved with her surgery would have insisted on a confirmatory blood test before proceeding with the surgery that she underwent. However, once again, this too did not occur. At the end of the day, only Jendusa's unsupported statement of a pregnancy exists, and the likelihood of such a pregnancy is actually contradicted by her medical record.
What makes this whole "fake pregnancy and made-up miscarriage" all the more outrageous is the fact that it is undisputed that Jendusa's medical records do contain a "documented miscarriage" in December 2003, which was about 6-7 weeks prior to the alleged incident in January 2004, at which point she was once again claiming to be 5-6 weeks pregnant. It is extraordinarily improbable, and nothing other than inconceivable, to believe for even a moment that Jendusa became pregnant a second time on or even around the very day she had a verified miscarriage; it simply isn't possible. OB/GYN experts that Larsen's appointed federal counsel had consulted with stated that it would have been "virtually impossible" for Jendusa to even be 5-6 weeks pregnant yet again, after the documented miscarriage just 6-7 weeks earlier in December 2003. They stated that a woman's body simply needs time to recover before another pregnancy would even be possible. Yet, Larsen was sentenced above the guideline range, in clear error, purely on account of this one unsupported statement.
During the two-day federal trial, Larsen, on more than one occasion, directed and demanded that federally appointed counsel address the whole fake pregnancy and nonexistent miscarriage issue. Despite Larsen's repeated demands and requests, he (appointed federal counsel) adamantly insisted that they need not do so for three reasons: 1) No medical evidence had been presented to the court to even show there was a pregnancy or miscarriage; 2) There had also been no "expert medical testimony" on that subject; and 3) The medical records alone already clearly contradicted the very chance of any such pregnancy. Appointed counsel further reasoned that Jendusa's "unsupported claim of a miscarriage" (in a hospital) was little more than "hearsay", and should be treated as such. So, counsel ultimately proceeded contrary to Larsen's demands to address the nonexistent miscarriage.
In the end, the judge chose to use Jendusa's one completely unsupported statement (that she had suffered a miscarriage) as his sole reasoning for sentencing two full levels higher than the top of his guideline range. The sentencing, as a whole, was conducted as if the judge had just picked up a newspaper that morning, and made all of his judgments and decisions based on what the media had promulgated verses what had actually been presented in court.
The federally appointed attorney not only apologized for proceeding contrary to Larsen's wishes, but also acknowledged his "ineffective assistance of counsel" in so doing. He offered to handle Larsen's appeal of the district court's decision and assured Larsen that the whole "made-up miscarriage" issue would be fully addressed in said appeal. He did follow through and address it within the subsequent appeal, but the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals essentially then claimed that the "miscarriage issue" had been waived on account of Larsen's appointed counsel not having addressed it within the district court.
It is beyond outrageous to first deny Larsen of his constitutional right to obtain "counsel of his choice" (with his own funds/assets), then be given appointed counsel who disregards his client's direct wishes and demand, have that appointed counsel acknowledge (in writing) his ineffectiveness only to last be told that his ineffectiveness waived the very issue that Larsen all along had insisted he address! This is not justice. Larsen was sentenced in clear error!
An even further injustice followed when Larsen then continued to be denied access to his own rightful and legitimate assets and funds in order to be able to pursue an "ineffective assistance of counsel" claim, which the previous appointed counsel was not only fully willing to cooperate with, but had also encouraged Larsen to file on account of his ineffectiveness.
At the end of the day, there was NO pregnancy; there was NO miscarriage; Larsen had repeatedly insisted during the federal trial that his issue be addressed, and Larsen was ultimately sentenced in clear error (for something that wasn't even real) on account of it not having been addressed!