Who Killed Jane Neumann? The Wrongful Death Trial and Appeal

The Jane Neumann murder case is a Wisconsin homicide in which a civil jury unanimously found that Hudson resident Jim Neumann killed his 30-year-old wife on November 22, 1993, yet no prosecutor has ever filed criminal charges against him. Jane’s death was initially ruled a suicide, reclassified as homicide by court order after the 1997 wrongful death verdict, and remains an open investigation at the St. Croix County Sheriff’s Office more than three decades later.¹²

What Happened on November 22, 1993

At 6:18 p.m., Jim Neumann called 911 from the family’s home on Trout Brook Road in Hudson, Wisconsin, to report that his wife was dead and their two-year-old son, Jonathan, was missing. He told the dispatcher he did not know whether the wound was self-inflicted, saying, “I don’t know, there’s no gun or anything.”¹ The first officer on the scene described him as “very upset, near hysteric.”³

Jane was lying on her back in the family room of the basement. She had died from an intraoral shotgun wound that caused massive damage to her head and face. No gun was in the room.¹

The Physical Evidence That Pointed Away From Suicide

Investigators quickly noticed features of the scene that did not match a self-inflicted death. A hole had been cut through the plasterboard and paneling of the laundry room wall, offering a line of sight into the family room where Jane lay. Law enforcement concluded a gun barrel had been inserted through this hole to fire the fatal shot. A framed picture had been hung over the opening, and the cut pieces of drywall were found neatly placed in a basement wastebasket.¹²

Pink bubble wrap, black electrical tape, and shredded Kleenex were recovered from the family room floor and, during autopsy, from inside Jane’s skull. Investigators believed the materials had wrapped the end of the weapon as a makeshift silencer. Jane’s fingerprints were absent from the tape; Jim’s prints were on two telephones and on the picture frame that had covered the hole.¹²

Jane was still wearing her coat and holding her purse when she was killed, as if she had arrived home and been shot almost immediately. Three pieces of a shattered French loop earring were found together roughly six feet from her body, on the opposite side of her head from the entry wound. A diamond stud earring she consistently wore was never recovered. The hole in the wall sat four feet, nine inches off the floor, several inches above Jane’s head, making the trajectory of a self-inflicted shot through the mouth difficult to reconcile with her height.⁴ Coroners found no marks on Jane’s hands or fingers, undermining Jim Neumann’s later claim that she had pulled the trigger using fishing line.⁵

Jim Neumann’s Shifting Accounts

In his first interview at the St. Croix County Sheriff’s Department, Jim Neumann told investigators Earl Clark and Deputy Jim Richard that he had come home from work, called for his wife, assumed she was out shopping, worked on a faulty garage door, watched television, and eventually discovered her body. He said the front door had been broken in, suggesting an intruder.¹²

Two days later, confronted with the physical inconsistencies, he changed his story. He now said he had found Jane earlier, discovered a suicide note, and made what he called a “conscious effort to change the scene” because he did not want family or the public to know how she died. He admitted shouldering the front door to simulate forced entry. He said he had used plastic bags to handle the shotgun, weighed it down with boxes of screws and bolts, driven to the Hudson bridge over Interstate 94, and thrown it into the St. Croix River. He said he burned the suicide note in the furnace and flushed the ashes.¹ A dive team searched the river for three hours and never recovered the weapon.²

In January 1994, Neumann was charged with obstruction of justice for lying to police and disposing of the gun. He pleaded no contest and was convicted.¹ He collected $117,000 from a life insurance policy on Jane. The policy contained a suicide exclusion clause that had expired just four days before her death, making the payout valid regardless of manner of death. Other smaller policies on Jane carried active suicide exclusions; he did not pursue those, later testifying that collecting on them would have required him to assert the death was a homicide, and “that wouldn’t be right.”²

The Wrongful Death Trial and Verdict

Unable to secure criminal charges, Jane’s parents, Patricia and Charles Johnston, pursued a civil wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of their grandson Jonathan. Patricia Johnston called it “our only recourse.”² The seven-day trial took place in June 1997 in St. Croix County Circuit Court before Judge Eric J. Lundell. The plaintiffs were the Estate of Jane Neumann and Jonathan Neumann, represented through guardian ad litem Keith Rodli. Attorney Mark Gherty of Gherty & Gherty represented the family.³

Milwaukee County Medical Examiner Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen, a board-certified forensic pathologist, testified that Jane’s death was a homicide “to a reasonable degree of certainty.” He cited the “totality of the circumstances,” including the elaborate setup of the death scene, the bubble wrap and tape inside the skull, the manipulation of the shotgun, and the fact that Jane was dressed in outdoor clothes and carrying her purse when she died. Three other forensic pathologists in his office reached the same conclusion.¹

Gherty argued the shattered earring pieces, found clustered six feet from the body, suggested a physical struggle rather than a gunshot blast, because they would not have landed together if propelled by the shot.²⁵

The defense called Dr. Michael McGee, who maintained that the death was a suicide despite the altered scene. Neumann’s attorneys also sought to introduce evidence that Jane had heard voices she described as “scary” and “disgusting” and had received counseling from a pastor. The trial court allowed limited testimony on this point but excluded broader witness accounts. Polygraph results Neumann wanted admitted were excluded, as polygraph evidence is inadmissible in Wisconsin.¹

The jury unanimously found that Jane Neumann’s death was a homicide and that James Neumann had murdered her. Jurors rejected the alternative theory that he had solicited someone else to do the killing.¹ Judge Lundell ordered that the manner of death on Jane’s death certificate be changed from “suicide” to “homicide.”²

A damages stipulation in October 1998 required Neumann to pay his son Jonathan $482,903.26 for the wrongful death of his mother.³ The trial court also awarded Jane’s estate $400,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress.¹

What the Appeal Changed

Neumann appealed both judgments. In Estate of Neumann v. Neumann, 2001 WI App 61, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the wrongful death verdict and the $482,903.26 judgment payable to Jonathan. The court reversed the $5.4 million emotional distress judgment, finding that the trial court had improperly allowed the pleadings to be amended to add that claim and that there was no sufficient factual basis to support a finding that Jane had suffered emotional distress in the moments before her death. Neumann’s challenges to Dr. Jentzen’s testimony, the character evidence from the three women, and the exclusions of polygraph results and voice-hearing testimony were all rejected on waiver or harmless-error grounds.³

Why No Criminal Charges Have Been Filed

The civil verdict and the reclassified death certificate did not translate into prosecution. St. Croix County District Attorney Eric Johnson, who held office during the years following Jane’s death, repeatedly declined to charge the case. He told the Johnstons, “You can spend as much money as you want… I will not charge a case that I can’t win.” The local sheriff also stated at the time that he did not believe a crime had been committed.²

The Wisconsin Division of Criminal Investigation reviewed the file from 1995 through 1996 and concluded there was not “clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence” that Jane’s death was a homicide, recommending discontinuation. DCI investigators told the Johnstons it was “an old case and not a top priority” and that local investigators had “botched the job.”¹² The Wisconsin Department of Justice reviewed the matter again after the civil trial and again declined to recommend homicide charges, citing insufficient evidence for a criminal conviction.⁴

A separate review by the Mid-States Organized Crime Information Center, a cold-case organization, reached the opposite conclusion. MOCIC analysts determined the case was “prosecutable” and recommended it be tried by a special prosecutor.⁶

Where the Case Stands Now

The investigation remains officially open at the St. Croix County Sheriff’s Office, with an investigator assigned. Chief Deputy Cathy Borgschatz has said the office has received “a handful of calls” over the years, none of which have produced new information.⁶ St. Croix County District Attorney Michael Nieskes, who took office in 2017, has reviewed transcripts and reports and said he was “not willing to make a charging decision one way or another.” He acknowledged the possibility of appointing a special prosecutor but has not pursued that step.⁷ Sheriff Scott Knudson has warned that “time will erase memories” and that letting the case sit will not bring closure.

Jim Neumann remarried a woman named Heather Hess, who adopted Jonathan before the Johnstons could file for custody. Neumann testified that he spent the $117,000 life insurance payout on bills and what he called “grieving money” for a computer and a cross-country trip with his new family. He also filed to terminate the Johnstons’ visitation with Jonathan, arguing it was not in his son’s interest to spend time with people who believed he had killed Jonathan’s mother.² As of 2013 reporting, Jonathan was approximately 22 and serving in the military.⁴

Mark Gherty has remained involved with the family’s effort for decades and has publicly urged referral to a special prosecutor, saying cold-case specialists and retired law enforcement professionals have reviewed the file and called it prosecutable. In a 2013 interview, he said, “A jury of 12 people decided this was a homicide… I’m not confident it will ever be charged.”⁴

1
Findlaw. Estate of Neumann Rodli v. Neumann
2
Minneapolis St. Paul Magazine. A Wrongful Death
3
Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Estate of Neumann v. Neumann, 2001 WI App 61
4
Hudson Star-Observer. 20 Years Later, Jane Neumann’s Death Remains a Mystery
5
CBS News. Was It Suicide or Murder
6
Republican Eagle. 25 Years Later, Controversial Hudson Death Investigation in Holding Pattern
7
Twin Cities Pioneer Press. Some Want Charges in Hudson Woman’s 1993 Death