Day 22 – 2/7/08
Trial coverage is by Intrepid and ritanita
Ok, here we go, after a snow day. Dr. Rumack on the stand, Jambois on cross exam.
Starts off with Jambois calling him "Mr." Rumack, which was quickly corrected by Albee. As if Albee hasn't been calling the various prosecution pathologists "Mr." and "Ms.", and various police officials "Mr.".
Jambois asking about whether or not Dr. Rumack has a laboratory anymore - no he does not. Doesn't have access to a library, personally. He got University of Kentucky to look over the reports of what was in the toxicology screen of Julie Jensen.
Jambois asks about how much Dr Rumack is being paid - he's being paid $500 an hour for his services, to the total of $4,600 so far, but it will be more than this, depending on whether he charges for the snow day or not!
Rumack hasn't tried to consult any lab for clarification on the "unknown" substance in Julie's system.
Referring to Dr Rumack's power point presentation about the absorption of EG in the body.
Typically, EG absorption is fully completed within an hour and a half or two hours of ingestion? Not sure about the specific case. He’s being evasive. Jambois points out the "TYPICAL" case.....
Article Dr Rumack relied on - gives the hour and a half - two-hour rate. True? Yes, but it cannot be tested on a live patient.
Now he's not sure about what would be a normal distribution curve.
Pointing out that those who absorb EG slowly is at one end of the curve, those who absorb EG quickly is at the other - correct? Yes.
What Dr Rumack knows about this case about EG and Glycolic acid - came from report from Kentucky lab. They reported:
1. GA level was 7.2 mili-moles per liter. This would represent a point on the chart, correct?
2. 4 milligrams per deciliter. This is another point on the chart.
Glycolic acid has a different half-life than EG, correct? Yes.
Rumack's assertion was that because of the numbers above, this is how he creates the curve on his graph.
Rumack concluded there was one initial dose based on the two points above.
Half-life of GA - 19 hours. Different absorption rates? Yes. But He just will not answer a straight question from Jambois!
Jambois brings up chart of pathology report on Julie Jensen. Does Dr Rumack disagree with any of the levels of EG/GA in the liver, blood, etc? No, probably not.
Symptoms on report - somnambulance, intoxication, vomiting, blood in vomit - you agree with this? Begins 12 to 14 hours after ingestion, agree? Yes.
Most deaths occur in this phase, agree? No, more likely in 3rd phase. 24-72 hours - 3rd phase begins, agree?
Man, Jambois is rattling off the questions like there's no tomorrow! And Rumack won't answer! Judge had to smack him down, twice!
"Is ethylene glycol a sweet tasting odorless liquid?" That's the one he won't answer!!! He keeps waffling, fudging. Wants to get the word "PURE" in there. Jambois gets testy!
Jambois reads report to Rumack from American Journal of Medicine which categorizes EG as an "Odorless, colorless liquid that is sweet.....” CORRECT? Yes.
Case in this report was of a murder.
Did Julie get emergency care? No. She didn't receive dialysis, did she? No.
Rumack will not answer Jambois' questions re: how Dr Long categorized EG - "Sweet, odorless liquid"! Judge tells him to answer the danged question. Rumack argues with judge - judge calls him on it!!!
Won't even answer the judge!
Judge smacks him down!
Jambois is asking questions from Dr Long’s point by point if Dr Rumack agrees - he for the most part agrees, but is nitpicking.
When you hear hoof beats, you don't look for a herd of zebras when you're in the mid-west, correct? Yes.
So we're not talking about the outlying issues, correct? Yes.
Reports about how Julie's symptoms were categorized late in the evening of Dec 2 by Mark Jensen, and if they were consistent with EG poisoning......can't answer/don't know/she may have been....
At this point, I feel sorry for the court reporter, cause the questions are coming fast and furious!
Jambois finished - Albee back up on re-direct.
Now talking about size of a dose of EG, and when someone would show inebriation......and comparison to alcohol. Asks Rumack to explain size of dose and how quickly it affects you.
Comparison with alcohol: One shot of Jack Daniels-vs.- 6 shots of Jack.......with 6 shots, very inebriated, as opposed to 1 shot. Degree of inebriation would be different.
Absorption is the same - with more of a dose, the effect is greater.
80 Percent of fatalities were suicides, in EG poisoning! According to 2005 study - American Association of Poison Control Centers. Breakdown between men and women - more likely to be women.
Men use motor vehicles for suicide?
Now he flips, saying its slightly more women than men.
Albee asks about having women with children commit suicide with poison and drugs - yes.
Dr Rumack says he cannot do a distribution curve about EG poisoning, because you cannot give it to humans to do the testing.
He's casting doubt on Dr Long's findings, even though he himself agreed with most of the statements and conclusions Dr Long made/drew!
Now talking about his studies with Tylenol overdoses.
Albee brings up Dr Long's 3-page report again. Refers to Mark's statements about Julie's vomiting on December 2nd, from bedroom to bathroom. Dr Rumack isn't aware of this statement being made?
Also, refers to an incident a month prior......Albee asks about a "test" done by a nurse. Judge jumps in and says he didn't think what was referred to was a "test", but a nurse's "observations" about the conclusions drawn by a doctor.....
Does Dr Rumack know of any medical training by Mark Jensen? No. Do you get laypersons' reports about symptoms? Yes. Do the lay people get things wrong? Yes. Not trained medical observers. Sometimes they get it wrong.
Is there a difference in what people look like they're capable of doing, and what they're actually able to do? Assuming from a "lay person's point of view"........ sometimes there’s a gap between what a patient says they can do, and what they can do.
So he's trying to get Rumack to say that Mark Jensen was WRONG when he said Julie couldn't get out of bed on the evening of the 2nd of December and even on the morning of the 3rd!
Well, except for that pesky vomiting and all the other symptoms......
Here we go again with the potatoes and the peppers in Julie's stomach - Julie must have eaten and Mark just didn't see it!
Now we get the photos of Julie's bedside table - there's a glass there. Maybe 10-12 oz glass. Julie had 22 oz of fluid in her stomach, so that means the amount of fluid in that glass would not account for all the fluid in Julie's stomach.
Now talking about the stages of EG poisoning - does everyone have them? Everyone does, but there aren't lights that signify when a person is going from stage to stage, so it's different.
Dr Rumack's report - last five paragraphs. "Based on the circumstances reported, it is possible for ingestion of EG to be 36 hours prior to death, and she was acting inebriated...."
Objection! Leading witness. Sustained.
Why did you say this? It was reported at 2:30 in the morning she was acting inebriated, strange. Would indicate she had ingested it just prior to that.
Can toxicologists be that precise? Not so very, but given the events, all of it adds up to roughly 36 hours before death she consumed EG. Could be up to 42-46 hours, but best estimate would be 36.
"It is not possible to determine whether or not this was suicide, but it is unlikely to be able to be given surreptitiously".
"Crystals could have been due to earlier ingestion....." Could come from eating plants! Spinach! Dieffenbachia plant!
Stating that crystals came from EG. But from earlier exposure - suicide or homicide cannot be determined.
So he's saying that there were multiple doses.
The body doesn't know why EG has been consumed!
Albee ended his re-direct with reading Dr Rumack's report that he doesn't agree with the conclusion that the prosecution has drawn that Mark Jensen killed his wife.
Five grand buys a lot nowadays!
Mark called the doctor and got the prescription. Her prescription for Paxil was for 10 mg. That is a low starter dose! Mark kept bugging her to see the doctor. As for the Ambien, Mark arranged for that, not Julie. Dr. must have taken Mark's word for it that Julie had a humungous adverse effect from the small dose of Paxil. He said she was up all night and very, very hyper!
We're back early, with legal arguments, of course. Albee wants to bring back the Stallings case again! This man cannot let this go! Judge says no, rules of evidence preclude this, but you got your legal arguments on record.
Judge says he's not going to try the Stallings case; he's going to try THIS CASE!
Jambois coming out swinging! On the money - how many invoices have you submitted? Two. Jambois asked HOW MUCH HAVE YOU BEEN PAID? $4,600 plus $2,500.
Ok, now we're getting a bit more into it!
Now he's squirming - doesn't remember when he sent last invoice, maybe six months ago! Jambois hammering him like mad! Do you know how much you've done on the case since the last invoice? Dunno. Do you have it written down? Dunno.
Testified, traveled, (excluding the snow day), testified Tuesday, plus PowerPoint presentation, plus today - Jambois hits him on the misleading thing about saying "his last invoice was $4,600" when he was asked how much he was paid in this case.
Jambois brings up slide on his Powerpoint - symptoms of EG poisoning......
He had discounted everything other than what David had said - breathing heavy. So Dr Rumack discounted ANYTHING other than what they said! Rumack said he discounted them because there was no evidence of it!
Dr Borman prescribed Ambien without talking to Julie - Dr Borman said "take her to ER if she's not better", you remember reading that? Not sure.
Did Mark disregard Dr Borman's advice? Yes.
Did Mark disregard David's advice to his dad to take his mom to the ER? OBJECTION! Overruled.
Now about a graph about EG metabolism. I've seen that somewhere before....hum, wonder where?, says Jambois..... Were you aware of the searches that were done on the Jensen HOME COMPUTER?
Hah! Albee objects, with a very mealy mouth tone of voice.....Overruled. Albee still objects!
Jambois makes an offer of proof. Marty Koch will get into this document, but he wants it entered. Cool, says judge.
Document of Effects of EG - Consistent with what you've provided? Interesting graph, not complete, can't read some of it.
Albee objects again!
Judge says he can ask what he wants! Albee like dog with bone - not giving up! Judge wins.
Jambois reads statements on graph - really fast! Rumack does his best to smack it down.
Now Judge breaks in with points of what Albee said, cause now Jambois is getting into truth of matter.
Albee sites law.
Judge says Albee is confused about offering document and asking the witness about it.....overruled.
Albee is stuck on objections! Judge said witness has offered opinions on consistencies and probabilities, and the prosecutor is asking questions pertaining to this so, overruled.
This document is print outs from what was accessed on the Jensen home computer on December 2, 1998 about EG poisoning, and if it contains things he'd agree with.
Rumack says "oxalate" is misspelled in previous document, now in this one it's spelled correct.
Now Judge says that this is outside the witnesses' expertise. Jambois re-directs his questions.
Symptoms on printout - Rumack reads the symptoms, mumbling. Looks like someone looked this up on Jensen home computer, right? Objection! Re-ask the question.
Did you take this into consideration that someone looked this up on the Jensen home computer when you made your determination? No.
Are you aware that Mr. Jensen was describing Julie as unable to get out of bed on December 2, morning of December 3? Yes, but she was sitting up. Jambois: But with assistance! He propped her up so her sons could say goodbye. Yes.
She couldn't go to the bathroom by herself because she was so dizzy and weak? Yes.
This was Mark Jensen's reports about Julie's condition on the 2nd and 3rd, correct? Yes.
Albee - objection! Not waiting. Jambois: he answered - I'm going to next question. Answer stands.
Mark never saw Julie get out of bed from Wednesday, falling over - correct symptomology with EG poisoning, correct? Yes.
Dr Borman made it clear - if Julie's condition deteriorated he was to take her to ER, correct? Yes.
Jambois is as mad as a wet hen!
About Julie having eaten, potatoes and peppers in her stomach - how long prior to her death did she eat? Not sure. Don't know.
Now talking about why the potatoes and peppers are significant - catching Dr Rumack on why the potatoes and peppers are still there, and how he can state that the dose of EG was ingested prior to or after that.......
Albee up on re-re-direct.
Oooh, Jambois moves for production of all Rumack's billing records in this case. Albee says he wants that to happen outside jury's presence.
Albee asks if Dr Rumack is hurting for work as an expert - Rumack says no, he has to turn down cases. He's often called on by Johnson and Johnson, maker of Tylenol.
He does consulting work with FDA, and drug manufacturers. Listing what he does with drug companies.
Receives retirement income from University of Colorado.
Why don't you know what you've billed? Didn't memorize what the billing records were. He's sorry - he didn't think they'd be important.
Is he charging the going rate? He's charged the same amount for a number of years, many colleagues charge more.
Jury sent out.
Albee mentions that Jambois asked Dr. Rumack about what Dr. Borman told Mark Jensen about taking Julie to the hospital. Albee wants to bring in other information. Jambois points out Albee can ask Mark about it when he takes the witness stand! Doctor originally relied on the information provided by Mr. Jensen and that's why the he allowed it in.
Slap down to Albee.
Albee on re-direct:
Someone who is committing suicide may potentially look up symptoms?
Jambois objects. Judge overrules.
Do you know who is conducting the search? No
Is the material a learned treatise? No
Would the person have all symptoms of each stage? No
Is the course of symptomology the same for all? No
Is the fact that computer searches were done 12/2; affect his prior opinion of suicide? No.
Reviews his position as chemical analyst.
Jambois asks him to explain "unknowns" in gas chromatograph. He says when he generates reports with unknowns. He issues reports without unknowns. He tries to identify all unknowns. He reports what he's found and uses spectral libraries to identify them. When he can't identify unknowns, he reports them as such.
This guy can do double duty here!
Back to Mark Jensen's desktop from Tuesday.
(He reboots the computer)
Koch reads the icons
Note: They had a greeting card program and used AOL, Quicken Deluxe, etc.
Microsoft Outlook: All files are empty. Jambois, what does that mean? Koch says it wasn't used for e-mail. Jensen didn't use Outlook Express for e-mail. He accessed his e-mail from the company internet straight from the browser.
Hmmm... if they were able to produce a baby shower card, did Mark print it out from home or work?
Jensen used Internet Explorer as a web browser. He opens it and closes notice that it cannot detect a modem. He closes that and a new dialog comes up.
We see ******** for his password. Anyone who wanted to could automatically connect with the internet.
Koch goes to "work offline."
Jambois asks, "If this was your computer in 1998, and there was information you wanted to keep from your spouse.
Next: Home Page is Yahoo
Koch explains how cache (temporary internet files) can be deleted. Essentially, delete history, delete settings, delete files. Done those a few times myself...
Jambois: Can you show the history currently available?
Koch opens the file and it only has the Yahoo site that was just picked up in the demonstration.
Jambois: Did booting the computer on 12/17/98 have any affect on that? Yes! We should have had a history going back 20 days as of that start up. I assume that is how some files were lost?
12/2/98 - Was there a search for EG? Yes.
He will pull up the actual pages found.
He visited the site on 12/2 and revisited 12/3.
Yahoo search "Ethylene Glycol Poisoning" - over 3,000 sites found. Hyperlinks that were followed are blue here (were purple then). Can also follow with the cursor. Turns into a hand when links are followed.
Article shown from cache using Shadow 2.
Hyperlinks in article also demonstrate if they'd been followed by using the cursor.
Judge points out that the page was displayed, not necessarily read.
Did NOT follow link for Antidote!
Mark also followed link for oxalic acid.
Dog Owners Educational link followed!
Another EG link followed. On this page, you can't tell which links were followed since they are not hyperlinks, just bookmarks for the page.
Jambois starts to read aloud from the page on symptoms!
Oh! Mark didn't follow links on symptoms except for RAPID BREATHING! He was searching Julie's symptoms only!
"Stuperous or Comotose".....followed.
Jambois wanting to get Koch to say why someone would follow sites like this....Objection! Sustained.
Anatomy.adam.com. Followed hyperlink for "Stuperous" to get there.
User followed "Hypoxia - Bluish discoloration of the skin due to lack of oxygen..."
"Unconsciousness" followed - a state of unawareness or lack of ability to respond.
"Alcohol use" followed. And cross-linked to another page. Same with Coma.
Following Coma. Under consciousness decreased.
"Poisons" was followed.
"Diseases" was followed.
Now they're going alphabetically through what links re: diseases/symptoms were pursued by hyperlink on the Jensen's computer.
Under H - Hypertension.
Judge asks about what Koch used to get to these sites - Koch says first reference from yahoo would be the only thing visible. Will Internet History show what hits occurred on yahoo? Yes. Does it show the sites that were accessed? Yes. Jambois said he wants the jurors to see exactly what the user saw when the sites were accessed.
I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S were not followed.
T - None of links followed.
U, V, W, X, Y, X - not followed.
Drugs, nutrition not followed. Poison was followed.
Links followed under POISONS:
ANTIFREEZE - Ethylene Glycol was followed. (that's been looked at) Under symptoms - rapid breathing (followed), blue lips and fingernails (followed), low blood pressure, alcohol use (already seen), loss of consciousness (already seen)
Nothing else under A.
B, C, D not followed.
E - followed. Ethylene Glycol. Saw this page already.
F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, V, W, Y, Z - not followed. (Where was Q? and X? confused- Nobody knows!)
Main menu - Symptoms followed.
A - Absent pulse. "Pulse weak or absent". Alertness Decreased.
B - Not followed
C - Changes in Consciousness. Coma. Consciousness decreased. Cyanosis.
D, E, F, G - Not followed.
H - Heartbeat - Fast. "Pulse bounding"...."Tachycardia" (rapid heart rate)
I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, R, S - Not followed
T - Tachycardia (Pulse bounding). Tachypinea (breathing rapid).
U, V, W, Y - Not followed
Oh no! The "A's" in diseases wasn't gone over - let's go back!
Jambois: Now, when were these sites last accessed on Jensen home computer? Koch: Look at Internet history - exhibit S90. These sites that are a part of anatomy.com.domain were accessed on December 2nd, 7:30 PM. Some were visited again at 11 Pm, on December 2. Continued till 11:02 pm. Picking up again at 11:08 Pm on December 2nd, 1998, continuing through 11:19 PM. Again, visited on the 3rd, at 7:41 am, for less than a minute. That tells me that it was revisited from history but not looked at seriously.
Jambois: How can we see this on Shadow? I thought this was deleted? Koch: We're viewing browser cache, not history.
So, Mark thought he was smart by deleting the history, but he forgot to clear his cache too!
Jambois: how did the user clear the history? Koch: Go to "View" menu, left click on it, go down to Internet Options, click on it, click button that says "clear history". (Jambois is taking this by individual steps - judge corrects the steps!) 8 Steps to deleting the history. Must make a decision to take each individual step, so 8 individual decisions to delete the history!
This was done on four occasions! At 7:42 am on December 3rd, these 8 individual, volitional decisions were made to delete the history on the Jensen home computer, correct? Yes.
Is there another record if the jury wants to see what was accessed? Yes, a master internet activity and the photocopies sitting on your (Jambois') desk.
On October 16, 1998, at 10:10 pm, can you bring that up? Now Koch is explaining something that makes my upper eyelids wish desperately to visit my lower ones.
Koch is explaining how to delete internet history and what is left if it's deleted, and how good cookies are and how we want.
Side bar of some kind.
They're being very careful with this testimony. It is being videotaped in detail so that it can be put into the record without the court reporter having to take all this down (an probably all of the content on the computer). This was because Mr. Albee asked how it could be entered and this is what they decided, so Mr. Albee can submit it to the Appellate Court. LOL!
Now going back to the October 16, 1998 occurrence - he's looking for it.
So on October 16, 1998, at 10:10 pm, this page was visible to the user? Yes.
Mercurial fulminate? Used in explosives.......... it's a recipe for an explosive and involves syringes.
Julie photographed things on Mark's computer, did you know this? Yes
Jambois wants to link this line of questioning to this expert, but this expert may not be the one who should get these questions. Albee bitches about the speaking objections again! Judge tells him, "THANK YOU", meaning "Shut up!" Jambois goes in a different direction.
On October 15, 1998, 11:54.56 PM - searches done on that computer:
Yahoo search for "underground" 8 categories, over 1000 sites. Couldn't find it if you were just a user, because of the 20 day cache dump.
10/15 11:54.56 pm through 10/16 12:21.28 pm - number of sites accessed. Mercury fulminate, botulism - correct. Yes.
Ok - everyone returns to their seats. Next line of questioning is about State's exhibit 280 - attachment with report sent on March 14/15 of 2002. Reconstructed web pages from folder of selected web cache from earlier on in the case. Prepared by Brad Hallard.
Albee on cross exam
Albee asking about the 8 steps previously mentioned - could that be made into 12 steps? Yes, when you consider the little box to ask if you're sure.
How long does it take to click on all these boxes, do all these steps? For an experienced person, a few seconds. For someone inexperienced, a good bit longer.
Albee asks if this is a sophisticated computer activity - No.
So just about anybody could do it? Yes.
Had some user in the past deleted temporary internet files? Yes.
But the person on Dec 2 and 3 did not do this? No.
Albee asking about the lab's standard operating procedure. Is it SOP that you don't turn on a computer without making a mirror image first? Yes.
Albee is asking questions about how the computer could have been messed up when someone in the lab turned on the computer without doing write-block or making a mirror image.
For heaven's sake - it's not as if a whole book was written on that computer in the lab!
Woo - Albee says "Contaminate the evidence".........Koch says he doesn't understand what the term "contaminate" means. Albee wants to drive home that the computer could have been irreparably harmed by that kind of mistake.
"If a suicide letter had been on the computer...." Judge heads that off at the pass. So Albee sticks with a one page document, how it could have been changed or over written.....
(Someone thinks its page 119.... whisper whisper whisper.....) (someone needs to find he exhibit number...whisper whisper whisper)
Data/history lost on Index.dat file when the computer was turned on, but it did not contain any kind of relevant data.
Exhibit 273 - a December 2nd file over written? Created on November 29, overwritten on December 2nd.
On Internet history log - no activity on Nov 30 or Dec 1.
Albee asks how many standard procedures were violated? No
He asks a series of questions about the Quicken files.
Is the only record of Quicken usage the backup files? No, it has last written date. You can't account for exactly how many times it was used.
There were 3 separate Quicken accounts. Last written date changed for all 12/17 with Hallard.
We are apparently going through some Quicken records for the computer. Albee puts up huge monthly calendars with post-it notes to show usage.
July 11, 1998 Sat. 11:36 Quicken is first installed on the computer. Jensen (family portfolio), Sorensen, Home (Jensen family records) are the three accounts.
He shows September, October, November, there is none in December except for the 17th (Mr. Hallard) and Mr. Koch reads off what each usage was. (I'll spare you and myself the details of this!
The point of this testimony is to show how often the program was used during daytime hours, ostensibly by Julie Jensen.
There is no copy of Julie Jensen's resume on the home computer.
Albee asks Koch to access the Jensen "Home" program for Quicken.
There are alerts on 12/17 when Mr. Hallard opened it? Yes.
Would Hallard's actions have overwritten previous alert? Probably.
Albee asks him to show October 12th: Shows the check register.
Kenosha Volunteer Services: $10 Smock.
I believe they are referring to cached pages on index.dat files.
Albee: Ms. Mitchell's PowerPoint didn't show entire page that came up? Much flipping of pages...
Jury sent out.
Mr. Albee begins questioning...
Rhonda Mitchell's Power Point presentation has abbreviated pages? Yes
The same 17-page densely typed article was looked at 3 times in 10 minutes (gives exact times)? Yes
It would seem unlikely someone would read the entire article in the time periods? (1st 2 times looked at 1 minute or less, 3rd time about 8 minutes) and with dial-up it may have been read for less time? (Not really answered) And you were here when Rhonda Mitchell did her word search, and if the word appeared 3 times it would count 3 times and skew the graph? Yes
Koch said he would not use key word search except to find evidence.
All the words in a medical dictionary would show up in key word search? If they were there.
Exhibit 280 - Mr. Hallard had a cover sheet for each page viewed. Contains, File Created Date, Last Accessed (can't know for sure if anybody read it then? - Yes, most fragile date as it can change for a number of reasons,
Is it possible to look at a page without changing last access date? No
Did Mr. Hallard end the session by pulling the plug? Not likely, he could have.
Albee: Internet History Exhibit
If we go to middle of page (points), there are 20 pages with exact same time, more with the same time below, what's happening?
Indicates the user is revisiting the page and it loads faster because it's coming from the hard drive.
How do we get 15 pages in 2 sec.? Various elements of the same page. They are made of frames.
10 things don't mean 10 pages, rather, 10 elements of 1 page.
This is getting confusing a bit - so the user deleted the history on the 2nd, but there was new history from the 2nd that was deleted on the 3rd.
Albee trying to get in that whoever deleted the history didn't know to delete the cache, so that person maybe wasn't very savvy.....(hint - it was Julie!)
Going back to when the computer time was off - three separate days when the time was 8 hours off.
So Rhonda Mitchell made a mistake with history time?
Problem is attributed to a software problem, not analysis.
All kinds of stuff about glitches, software problems, etc. Sometimes you know them, sometimes you don't. Yes.
Now talking about the computer at Stifel - owned by Jensen, kept in the office. This is the computer that had pornographic images on it.
Aware of claims of harassment against the Jensen’s in the 1990's? Yes.
None of the images on the computer matched the harassing images in the 90's right? I didn't see the images from the harassment, so I don't know! Albee tries to make a point on this, but it's moot. Koch didn't see the harassing photos, so he can't tell if they're the same or not!
Did you see pictures of Julie on the computer - the harassing ones? Didn't see any of the harassing photos!
Are you aware the harassment dated back to 1991? No, not aware.
Were people using the internet in 91, 92, and 93? Certainly it was around then, AOL is been here....... Certainly dial-up was around.
Do you know any statistics on internet usage from the early 90's? No.
That black and white photograph, are you familiar with it? I printed it off myself.
Was there anything unique about what you found in 2002, that couldn't have been found in '92? As far as downloading/printing them off a computer? No, it was around.
You didn't need special computer technology to get pornographic pictures, right? No.
Albee asks if he knew that photographs were used in the harassment of the Jensens? Objection - no foundation. Sustained, then overruled.
Image given to witness - is this a photograph? Objection! Overruled. Looks like a picture.
Albee is trying to confuse the jury and the witness, because Det Ratzburg said most of the harassing photos weren't even photographs, but looked like photos printed off a computer, or photocopies of photos.
Koch stays strong though, and keeps saying he hasn't seen but one of the harassment photos. But that computers for the most part didn't print out photos in 1995.
Albee: The user deleted history at 7:4016? Yes, but it was active 12/2 and deleted 12/3. (Sorry, I'm not getting this at all!)
Albee says history is off 8 hours in some places? (October 19, 25th and Nov. 29th.
July 16? Yes
Should have been deleted by the operating system? Yes
Glitch? Not if you're a user of Internet Explorer and had a crash.
Aside from errors (8 hour) and glitches and IE crashes, sometimes you know you have a problem and sometimes you don't? Yes
Office computer: it was owned by Mr. Jensen and kept at the office.
It's the computer that had the pornographic images on it? Yes
Are you aware of harassment? Yes
Are you able to say pix from 2002 match original harassment pix? He never saw them.
None of the images would be spitting images of Julie Jensen? I didn't look that closely.
It had been reported to police that photos were of Julie Jensen? Objection sustained
Koch is continuing to be grilled about the Jensen harassment. Koch is aware it occurred in the '90.
Early 1980's what percentage of people used internet? Doesn't know.
Image you printed was b/w? Yes- I printed it of the office computer.
Koch is only aware the harassment pics were of a certain sex act. There was nothing unique you found in 2002 that you couldn't have found in '98? As far as downloading, it would have been available in '90's. Were there porn photographs you could have bought in the 90's? Yes
Did you know some of the harassing pictures were actual photographs? Objection - hearsay
There was one image that was available from Pleasant Prairie Police. Shows Koch the photo. Objection - overruled
Koch - it appears to be on photographic paper. In 1995 it would have been difficult to produce in 1995.
Porn was placed on computer in 2002. These images couldn't have been used for harassment? It's an unlikely possibility because I haven't seen pictures from '95.
Could they have told if pictures super-imposed in '95? If you had the sources. He's not a photographic expert.
GC Mass Spec -
He identifies controlled substances.
He's not used to working on toxicology that works on drugs in people? No
Albee goes on to talk about the "unknowns" Koch could have a "target substance' such as a white powder. Yes
From visual standpoint, you have an idea of what it is? Lots of thinks are white powder.
When we have the blood in a person who has died, it's more important to know what the unknowns are? He's not a toxicologist.
Koch - blood is a more complex matrix than what he works with, and blood may have more unknowns than substances he tests.
Koch asks Albee what he would do if he COULDN"T identify it. Koch is not involved in toxicology? No, but he's testified in death cases.
Albee - today, he doesn't do computer forensics on a daily basis? No
Albee - Outlook hadn't been used? Yes, web base site used.
E-mail could have been sent from anywhere in the world from the Stifel site!
A home user could go on the computer and read e-mail from Stifel? Yes, but you need password and username. Koch never found out what they are.
Albee: Spouses share passwords? I don't, but some people might.
Koch is currently in drug Identification unit - most of his work done in this unit? Yes. Short time I was in computer unit.
Uses Mass Spectrometer? Yes. To identify substances. Not involved in identifying substances in the body.
Now asking about cocaine, and Koch's identifying the unknown. The fact that cocaine is illegal to possess isn't affected by your findings of it being actual cocaine or not? Yes.
Now trying to get Koch to be a toxicologist and to admit he should have dogged out the unknown.......Koch is adamant that he is not a toxicologist.
On a daily basis - you're not doing computer forensics? Correct.
Outlook wasn't used as e-mail program. All e-mails were web-based. Originated at Stifel. Or created at the work place? Not completely correct - you'd have to know where the person was. Could have been created/sent from anywhere, as long as the person was on the Stifel site. Albee keeps trying to get him to say Jensen was on the e-mail program at work, not at home.
Asking about password practices - most people use same password, spouses share passwords etc....Not necessarily - Koch doesn't share his passwords with anybody!
And with that, we're done for the day. Albee said he has another 30 minutes worth, so judge pulled the plug.
Many, many thanks to Intrepid and ritanita for the fine reporting!
TodaysTMJ4 latest report