Guest Entry by ritanita!
Day 21 – 2/5/08
Court opens with Judge Schroeder talking outside the jury's presence. He states that it is relevant that Mark Jensen more than likely was the person doing the searches. The prejudice here does not substantially outweigh the probative value.
He cautions Mr. Jambois not to get bogged down.
Mr. Jambois intends to have Mr. Koch hook up Jensen's work computer and a black and white printer. This evidence is to show that Mark was the person who was producing the photos that were being left around the house.
This also rebuts Julie Jensen's note that Mark had told her his '95 computer did not have photographic capabilities.
Mr. Albee objects that the pictures are from 2002 (and not from Mark's original work hard drive, which was somehow "fried."
Judge says Jambois is using this only as a demonstration. Albee questions if it's the same kind of printer. He also says the pictures don't look like photocopies.
Albee says he had no forewarning of this testimony. Jambois says that a trial isn't scripted and is a live event. (We've heard this argument from Albee before.)
The Judge feels Albee can cover his "issues" with his cross-examination.
Albee says, "These photos are supposed to be of Julie Jensen" She is not in the files!
Jury is being called in.
Koch is back on stand. He is explaining how the images are organized. 750 images in the file under discussion.
Jambois asks if the work computer is capable of pulling pictures up on screen.
Albee objects that this is a 2002 computer, not one from the time before Julie died.
Judge says they can use it for demonstration purposes.
Jambois asks if this computer was available in 1998.
Albee objects. It's not the same computer.
The original computer with the fried hard drive was made available to authorities. Jambois questions the different capabilities. Koch says they are very similar. "Fry" means that the hard drive was functional had no information from 1998.
Laser printers were widely available 1995-1998.
Albee objects that we don't know the type of printer in Mark's office. Overruled!
Koch printed out a picture from Mark's file. The photo could be similar to a laser printer or a b/w ink-jet printer widely available at the time.
The photo is briefly displayed for the jury.
There is a short break for Koch to set up Shadow 2 to the Jensen's home computer.
The Jensen home computer is now hooked up to Shadow 2. Koch boots the computer.
Albee questions how this testimony that can be entered into the record. Jambois suggests the media tape be entered. The media will focus on the testimony and the computer and the tape (according to Jambois) can be submitted to the Appellate Court.
Koch explains how he boots the computer with
As he starts the computer, he sets the date at 12/17/98 (date of last access) and checks that the time is accurate. He then re-boots the computer.
Jambois questions if it was forensically unsound practice to boot computer the way it was booted on 12/17/98. Yes, it is. He would have done it if someone's life was in danger. The Shadow 2 technology wasn't available in 1998. In 1998, it would take Encase about three hours to acquire.
About 6% of the 22,464 files had a change due to the 12/17/98 booting. (Not quite sure what was changed, this testimony goes so fast and is so technical.)
.4% had last use date changed.
Koch testified that the content of the files did not change, just the last access date.
Differences between user created files and system files.
July 6, 1998 - system history files created by user as he/she surfs the internet.
July 10, 11, 1998 - pornographic files were user-created files which were saved on the hard drive.
The user-created files are the ones of interest.
Temporary Internet Files folder - it opened up immediately and it is "strange." This is probably due to Hallard's 12/17 boot.
The computer has no password, just the username BUDDY.
Anyone in the Jensen household could have turned on the computer and used it. There were no separate profiles for different users.
Koch explains how to access time settings.
This computer was accurate when it was seized. 5 minutes fast.
Koch found no evidence that the system clock was frequently altered, although it can be hard to tell.
Time Zone - is critical to some uses. Internet files use GMT.
Jambois asks Koch to show "recent" files stored on hard drive. It records the last 15 documents accessed on the computer. It will show documents that one deleted. Here, they show Hallard's access.
The Jensen computer was set to Pacific Time zone.
Koch demonstrates desktop.
"Recycle Bin" - is empty because it was never used or recently emptied by user. Don't need to use recycle bin to delete files.
My Documents - Koch opens each file and explains it.
1. Baby - shows invitation for Robin & Doug's shower
2. Microsoft Excel (used for Mark's business)
3. GRPUKE - Shows a picture
4. Investment Policy Statement form
Kann-ISP (This is the name of the person’s investment portfolio) Names are not to be mentioned. There are also spreadsheets not part of the Jensen household. (Obviously Mark's business files)
Recess: A defense witness is to be taken out of order.
Defense witness: Dr. Barry Rumack, retired U. of Colorado, clinical professor of pediatrics, active in a poison center. He gives his CV.
Did research on drug metabolism at NIH in Bethesda, MD
1973 did research on toxicology at U. of Edinborough, Scotland. He is a licensed physician in Colorado (had ones in Colorado and California).
Medical, Clinical Toxicologist - sees patients who have been poisoned for bad drug interaction. He saw mainly adults, since poisoning mainly is seen in adults. Points out a PhD toxicologist cannot treat patients.
Prosecution accepts 28 pages CV into evidence.
He's been treating poison patients since 1973. Worked as director of Rocky Mountain Poison Center (was made director when smaller poison centers were combined to make RMPC) and University of Colorado. He is still affiliated with it as Director Emirates. Still teaches there.
He is Board certified in pediatrics and toxicology.
The good doctor is quite the distinguished figure. Pure white hair, learned glasses. Dark suit, white shirt, bow tie.
He's done a lot of studies on Tylenol poisoning and developed an antidote for it. He did not keep patent rights for it; he felt it belongs in the public domain.
In the middle of the 70's he worked for the Dept. of Defense on treatment of toxic chemical destruction.
I can't wait for his testimony on ethylene glycol poisoning. AND, I can't wait for the cross by Jambois.
(Growing up he lived next door to the Zucker bros. and Leslie Nielsen was named Dr. Rumack for him in a movie.)
He has treated hundred of ethylene glycol poisoning. He has testified in criminal and civil cases. Some have involved ethylene glycol poisoning. He usually testified for the prosecution. He has experience with drug assay labs and is familiar with how they test for the presence of substances in the body.
In 2002, he became involved with the defense in this case. He received and reviewed police reports, autopsy photos, scene photos, Dr. Long, Dr. Mainland and Dr. Lavin's records and statements. Statements and records of Dr. Borman, Dr. Denton, Mark Jensen. He viewed the lab reports from St. Louis lab, National Medical Services, Wisconsin State Crime lab, Missouri Crime lab, and AIT.
In Dr. Long's 3-page narrative from March 11, 2002 and lab results from St. Louis, he was struck by amounts of ethylene glycol. He re-calculated them (he always re-calculates for himself). He didn't agree with the term "large" amount. Blood is reported by milliliter, urine or gastric contents, you need to know total contents as compared to amount of ethylene glycol. He would consider Long's terminology "misleading." Knowing the "total exposure" is critical. You need concentration and volume calculation.
Poison Center Data: Shows chart of Poison Control Center 2005-2006 report. 5,469 exposures of ethylene glycol reported. Divided by age, intentional, unintentional (only humans, no animals in report). 738 were considered intentional. "Other" would include industrial or other type of exposure.2298 treated in health care facility. Outcome: None: 937 (no problem detected), Minor 947, Moderate 415, Major 176, Death 16.
Asked if he considered the professionalism in the handling the case by the St. Louis lab and Dr. Long. He found a number of very concerning issues.
Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (he explains the process and equipment verification works) One should be able to get the same results over and over.
The initial run was missing peaks at two locations.
Peak 12-C is considered an unknown compound. It was not investigated. This does not meet standards of any organization.
There are also other unknown peaks.
Most concerning of all, he took all the mass peaks and charges for each of those and possibly misidentified it as ethylene glycol; it could also be another compound.
"Close" is not good enough here.
He would want to have had an ethylene glycol standard and have Mrs. Jensen's blood compared with it.
Judge mentions the weather. 14 - 27'' of snow is expected. Jury is to call the machine at 7:00 or 7:30 AM. Bailiff will take jury members phone numbers.
Dr. Rumack is back on the stand for continued direct examination by Mr. Albee.
University of Kentucky report on testing of Julie Jensen's blood for ethylene glycol and glycolic acid. He gives the results. Positive results for peripheral blood. Dr. Rumack is confident that there is ethylene glycol in Julie's system. He has expressed concerns about "standards of care." The lab had inconsistent results. Other agents may have had influence. His concern is what other agents may have contributed to Julie's illness.
Chart (exhibit 207): Work that Dr. Long falsified in the Stallings case. He changed the mass peak numbers and whited out various numbers on it.
Mass peak 100 whited out and marked 94
Mass peak 62 whited out and marked 61
Mass peak 281 whited out as well.
This is not acceptable. The numbers are incorrect and the original numbers indicated the compound wasn't ethylene glycol.
Dr. Rumack briefly indicated this falsification resulted in the wrongful conviction....
OBJECTION and Judge quashes the witness.
Rumack points out that absorption time can vary.
Shows levels in a patient who didn't peak for at least 8 hours or more.
Peak of ethylene glycol is usually when it develops toxicity. The body tries to get rid of it by metabolizing it and it takes different forms.
Stage 1 takes about 1/2 hour to 12 hours. Similar to ethanol, both are two carbon compounds. Intoxication, central nervous system depression can result in a coma. Julie was not reported to be in a coma. Metabolic acidosis due to chemical changes in the body. Julie had mild to moderate acidosis although CO2 was normal. Dr. Rumack relied on Mark and neighbor's call. Vomiting can occur at any point but is not "officially" a symptom. Vomiting doesn't seem to have played a roll in this case.
Stage 2 Cardiopulmonary effects - 12 to 24 hours. More rapid breathing to help body reduce acidosis. Rumack explains acidosis. Hyperventilation (reported by Mark and David),
Stage 3 Renal effects from 24-72 hours. Abnormal kidney tests (BUN was normal), renal failure (no evidence), Olguria (had 150 ml urine in bladder), Flank pain and hernaturia (no blood in urine), calcium oxaluria and anuria (no crystals reported in the urine and she was not anuric (no urine in bladder) Hypocalcaemia (wasn't measured), could have killed her by stopping the heart.
Vitreous Electrolytes at death are reported. The vitreous humor (clear fluid in the eyes) is a good indicator of status at death since it doesn't metabolize after death. (Electrolytes include BUN, CO2, Sodium, Potassium, Chloride).
Julie's vitreous electrolytes were fairly normal at the time of death. They would not have affected her ability to think or move.
Ethylene Glycol Metabolism: a chart is shown and explained.
The end result of this explanation is that the U. of Kentucky tests does not take into account the amount of time this metabolism took place. The consumption of ethylene glycol was quite a bit of time before (death?)
Could not have had consumption the afternoon of 12/3 based on the numbers from the U of Ken. report.
Albee brings up Aaron Dillard's statement.
This section mentions all the drugs and anti-freeze Mark gave Julie on evening of Dec. 2.
The ratio of glycolic acid and ethylene glycol are not consistent with that. It would be more consistent with dosage given earlier in the 36-hour range. (Late the 1st, early on the 2nd of December)
Inebriation at about 2:30 am is more consistent with that.
Urine... there were some abnormalities in kidney tissue (disrupted, extra blood in tissue, crystals?). The chart also notes that there was no urine in the bed, so she must have been able to get out of bed to use the bathroom.
The good doctor goes to a chart and shows us how to do math problems related to the case.
Stomach... Has a little less that 1/2 tsp. of ethylene glycol in stomach based on his calculations.
No vomit on bed, she could probably get to the bathroom.
Pepper and potato in stomach indicate gastric process had been delayed. The ethylene glycol in her stomach could have been introduced 36 hours before death or by it's leaking back into the stomach. She also had a fatty liver, which would delay the metabolism of ethylene glycol.
This all leads to his conclusion of ONE dose 36 hours prior to death.
The contents of the stomach indicate water being drunk on the 3rd.
Blood... Long reported 55 micrograms/L. This would be a minimal level for treatment in the hospital. Taking Julie’s weight, he shows distribution in her body. She had 1/2 of a teaspoon in her body. This doesn't include the gastric contents. Suggests dosage given approx. 36 hours earlier. Toxicity takes time to develop.
He also indicates she didn't aspirate food or liquid into her lungs. This is often found in the lungs of poison patients.
She was not forced to drink the fluid. Difficult to force 22 oz. of fluid without aspiration.
Albee - was she forced to eat food or drink water on Dec. 3? No.
Julie's activities on Dec. 3
Drank 22 oz. of liquid
150 ml urine in bladder
Able to take a pill (Ambien)
Not significantly acidotic
Julie could walk, use telephone and computer on the 3rd!
Gee- didn't Mark say she couldn't get out of bed???
On to Dr. Long's narrative report of March 11, 2002.
1. Ethylene glycol cause of death - Could have been cause of death, but this opinion overstates the issue. Unknowns on test, medications she was taking.
2. No "large" amount of EG in stomach
Dr. Rumack still on direct with Mr. Albee
Continuing with Dr. Long's report and the doctor's disagreements with it.
Dr. Long should have been able to do the calculations that HE did.
He agrees with blood content low. He disagrees with time of ingestion being shortly before death (10-15 minutes prior to death). He doesn't agree with findings that she had multiple dosages of EG, for all the reasons they have been discussing. She was not forced to drink 22 oz. of pure ethylene glycol prior to death. Amount of EG in stomach to low.
Rumack concludes that Julie could have taken a small dose the 2nd or 3rd.
Could Mrs. Jensen have consumed water the 3rd which had residual amount of EG?
There could have been EG in house. The police didn't look in the garage.
More reiteration of previous testimony. This section of Dr. Long's report is the summary of all the above.
Julie was capable of hiding EG if she could use the bathroom if she drank any. She would only have taken a "trivial" amount.
Dr. Rumack AGAIN states that there is no medical evidence of more than ONE dose.
Referring to her fear of Mark's poisoning. Ethylene glycol is hard to mask, especially if she was suspicious of her husband. Antifreeze has fluorescent green chemicals, other acrid tastes and smells. She could not drink a beverage without noticing? No, especially if she is suspicious.
Julie's letter - is not medical evidence.
Albee shows photos of Julie Jensen at the scene. Shows Julie's nose in pillow, then her smashed face.
What is his opinion about force being applied on her head into the pillow?
Jambois objects since we don't know how many autopsies he attended.
Judge: he's a doctor
Albee asks. Several hundred.
He's seen patents who have been found lying on ear, against an afghan, etc. Has seen bent ears at time of autopsy.
He believes the appearance of her face is consistent with the position she was found in. (notice he didn't answer Albee's original question)
Cause of death from Doctor Long... EG poisoning.
Dr. Rumack prepared a report.
Jambois: Objection, hearsay
Judge: Overruled, it's provided for
His report summarizes everything they went over today.
His conclusion is that the scientific evidence does not indicate her husband murdered her.
Albee is trying to ask if it is consistent with medical evidence that Julie consumed EG by herself? Yes!
Cross by Jambois:
Points out that the doctor had said that molecules don't know how they got there.
Acrid taste to anti-freeze? Starts to say that it only applies to dogs. Is he aware of legislation to change antifreeze to give bitter taste? Yes.
He's ingested antifreeze 3 times.
Jambois: Did he testify that the amount ingested can effect the person can change the effects? Yes.
Can the amount ingested change the rate of onset of symptomology? Ans: the question is too broad.
Jambois refers to Stage I (neurogenic stage) the amount ingested causes the change in times of onset? Answer: Relatively (small, medium, large amount can cause same symptoms).
The doctor isn't giving clear answers. He makes is so complicated!
Jambois indicates that how much they took doesn't matter? He says other things come into play and lists factors.
Jambois: The larger the dose, the quicker the onset? Answer: generally. Rumack says that the dose doesn't matter in the symptoms, only how severe they are.
Due to her fatty liver, Julie would metabolize EG more slowly. Peroxitine (Paxil) Jambois asks if he's ever heard of side effects such as Julie suffered the night before she died? Dr. says he doesn't have that information with him. He says patients CAN have adverse reactions to the first dosage.
Jambois asks if 10mg. Paxil could have that effect? No, it was probably the EG. Rumack indicates the dose could have been given late the 1st, early the 2nd. Admits Julie could have ingested EG as early as 6 PM Tuesday evening? Correct, but not likely due to other medical findings.
Jambois reiterates that Julie could ambulate (vs. walking around) and use a computer. Brings up Mark's information that she couldn't get out of bed. Is Mark Jensen lying? No, I believe she could get up.
Jambois is bringing in Mark's statements to confront the doctor. Objection... will come back to it later.
Brings up Ratzburg's taped interview.
Is witness aware that Mark Jensen's report is different from your conclusions? Yes.
Does that change your opinion? No.
Dr. says Julie MAY have been unwilling to get out of bed while Mark was there...
Jambois... doesn't answer the question!
Dr. says she was misrepresenting herself that morning.
Jambois: Was Julie malingering, Mark lying? Don't know, I don't know if he was there the entire time.
This doctor is making statements that have nothing to do with the medical testimony here!
Jambois: Was Julie acidotic at autopsy? Mildly.
How much glycolic acid should be found in the average person's body? None.
Jambois asks about the ratio between EG and glycolic acid. EG goes down as glycolic acid goes up.
Judge: It is snowing now. The worst is to come from 9 tonight to 9 tomorrow. The highway dept is going to try to keep highways 50 and 12 open. If there is thunder snow, or drifting... well, everything should be okay by 1:00 tomorrow. Asks the jury to vote. Take the WHOLE day off tomorrow, start at 1 and go to 5 or 6, or start at 1 and go to about 8. They vote and the jury can't agree! Judge will announce his decision later.
Glycolic acid level 2x EG 7.2 vs. 4
Judge sends the jury home. Shuffling of papers and stuff. The judge will leave a message on the machine.
Guess it's snowing harder???
Guess will find out in the morning if there will be court session tomorrow!
ritanita provided this entire report and we love her for it!