Guest entry by ritanita and Intrepid. Trep did a Herculean job today!
Day 27 – 2/14/08
First witness today for the defense - law clerk or legal secretary Ms Brown.
Talks about meeting Aaron Dillard on a dating website, says he's a liar and a conman.
No cross exam by prosecution.
Dr. Barry Rumack:
He didn't have his records about his fees last time he came to testify and didn't review his fees beforehand.
He didn't have a chance to review Albee's records.
He has now reviewed them and found that he received a total of $16,750 for his services through the end of 2007. He received $6,750 in 2007. His invoices summarize the nature of his services for that year.
Rumack seems very perturbed that he has to come back and answer these questions.
Now he's being shown copies of his invoice dated August 22, 2007(produced by Albee's office). For $2,625. For review of records, phone calls. Also shown copy of canceled check.
Another invoice - October 4, 2007 - $4,125 - for review of records, review of literature, depositions, phone call.
When you were here last week you testified that you recalled that your last invoice had been for 4,600? Yes.
Is what you had in mind the one on Oct 4? Yes
He testified to receiving 2 invoices - for 4,600 and 2,500.
When he was on the stand the first time, he said he didn't make much money on the case, just enough to by some stuff for his grandchildren.
Did the invoices you mention come from 2007?
Yes, he was referring to them.
Since then he remember he received $5000 in 2002 and $5000 in 2003.
He didn't remember them! (Remember, the Judge said he should have been prepared for this!)
The 2002 payment was for anticipated services. He performed these services about that time.
He received 16 materials that were sent along with the retainer.
The 2003 payment was for anticipated services.
June 2004- June 2007 he performed any specific services, although he met with Albee once or twice.
Are these fees a significant part of your income for professional fees? No
$186, 000 2002
He doesn't have specific numbers for 2004, 2005, 2006, as he didn't work on the case then. He knows it was in the six figures each year.
What is his $500/hr. fee for: it is the same as for other similarly qualified people.
Rumack was reviewing material for the case the last time he testified. He would never give an opinion he wouldn't believe in because he was being paid by a party.
Cross: Jambois points out this is his business.
He normally doesn't charge ahead of time, but he did in this case. He reviewed documents in the case in 2002. Same for 2003. He didn't work until paid in this case.
Jambois: You forgot? Yes.
When asked 1st time, he answered $500/hr., then said $4600 for last invoice he sent.
Jambois says he let it go after cross. On re-cross he asked how much he'd been paid for the entire trial to date. He answered there is one previous one. How many invoices did you send? 2 Do you remember how many? 2 Asks how much have you been paid, Rumack had answered $4500. He didn't have his billing records with him? No
Jambois goes on reading from the trial transcript and it is clear to me that Rumack, when asked about how much he was being paid was a bit devious. He first gives hourly fee, then last invoice, then last 2 invoices! He had to remember how much he charges for a standard retainer!
Jambois doesn't want Albee to go past the point in the transcript previously stipulated.
Albee wants to play part of the video.
Judge: they'll bypass the stipulation and see what the records say
Physical state of Julie Jensen in recorded statement available to Dillard to come up with what he testified to. This comes after page 140 (where stipulation ends).
Judge: We'll have to take it statement by statement.
Jambois: His objections go from p. 140 on.
P.140 - Jambois OK
He objects to the rest.
Albee: all questions Ratzburg asks on a certain page (something about Julie possibly having something in Julie's throat that she had been choking on).
Judge: What did Dillard say about this?
Albee: He turned her over
Judge: That's earlier in this transcript. Overruled
Jambois objects to all... he stands by the stipulation. They have to go back and check the transcript. So, they need to go through EVERY question Albee wants to ask, then... Jambois will object to them all.
Albee: She wasn't breathing well on her back... would she breathe better turned over? Talks about head in nose and pillow... allowed
Jambois continues his objection.
Albee: reads off pages and lines. Jambois has no objection other than his standing objection.
For the most part, Jambois doesn't mind the information in these pages, I just think that there's other information on the tape he objects to but would come in by the playing of the video. Albee probably combed through the transcript for the key words he was looking for. Jambois' point is that this material is in the original stipulation.
Here's a good example: One page, Mark denies putting a pillow over Julie's face and this doesn't correspond with what Dillard said. Jambois points out that it is hearsay and the judge says it's not the source of Dillard's testimony.
Jean Casarez mentions a portion of the video past page 140 in which a crying Mark concedes that perhaps Julie was so miserable, wanting to die, that he let her die.
They haven't found the stipulation yet.
Shelly Rush - another character witness for Dillard's "honesty." She submitted an affidavit via e-mail.
An asst. DA is speaking to this for Mr. Albee. He believes it can be admitted for character evidence.
The law considering immunity is not good because it can cover anything from AA groups and neighborhoods.
Ms. Rush makes all sorts of comments about Dillard that are negative but don’t come from her personal knowledge. Reputation testimony is not subject to hearsay and if a large number of people tell you bad things about someone, it can help you form an opinion about someone.
Jambois says it’s inadmissible and cites case law. The case is extremely similar to that in this case.
Ms. Rush doesn’t know Mr. Dillard, and when she made it she didn’t know him. He didn’t object to competent testimony from previous witnesses, but while Ms. Rush (who is an Asst. DA!) is a very credible witness, she didn’t have a basis for this, she only relied on documents about Mr. Dillard.
Judge asks if he has a client on trial, and someone reads the paper every night about the case, does that mean this person could be called as a witness about your client's character? No. Judge doesn't allow Ms Rush's affidavit.
Jambois now says he objects to anything coming in past the stipulation.
So the affidavit is record, but not evidence.
Now it's the battle about allowing in the portions of the taped interview of Mark Jensen by Det Ratzburg, and Jambois is battling hard to keep it out. It would be self-serving statements, and he should be able to cross-examine Mark Jensen on these statements if they're admitted!
Albee wants the stuff in about Thompson extorting commissary goodies from Mark Jensen in jail......he wants statements allowed in that will reconfirm this.
Judge remembers certain things about reports of Mr. Thompson trying to get money from Mr. Jensen, and now they want to go back and read the transcripts or records for what was discussed in chambers.
Jambois recalls going to the jail to see David Thompson about Mark Jensen saying to him he wanted a witness "Sat upon". He describes going to the jail and getting in to see him.
Jambois listened to the phone conversations between Mark and Kelly, in which it was evident to Jambois that both Mark and Kelly were engaged in a conspiracy to do something about Ed Klug! So he pursued David Thompson again.
Albee now tells judge about the conversations he'd had with Jambois on the phone about this. He was concerned about Mark Jensen being extorted for his commissary.
Now Ms Gabriel gets up and gives her recollections about it. She says Mr. Albee was kind of vague about it, but she does not remember Albee saying Thompson extorting money from Mr. Jensen.
Now the judge gives his recollections of the situation - he remembers them going to his conference room and telling him these things, particularly concern about Mr. Jensen's safety. Judge said to Jambois, "Bob, can you take care of this?"
ALBEE SAYS HE WILL GET ON THE STAND AND TESTIFY! HE KNOWS WHAT WAS SAID, SO HE'LL GET ON THE STAND AND SAY IT! Judge says, "Well, shall I get up and testify too?"
Albee is arguing with the judge about when it was who knew what. Judge is saying what Albee wants entered in, as evidence is hearsay, Albee says "NO IT'S NOT!"
Jambois says we still haven't heard who contacted Albee - Jambois said it was Dan Jensen who contacted Albee, not Mark. Albee won't say who contacted him.
Disharmony in the Jensen family over all this......
Jambois makes it clear that there was no disagreement about the document he's holding - if Guilloti showed up and ........Albee breaks in and said no there was no disagreement.
Jambois doesn't see the need to have Albee testify, but if he does then he should expect a cross exam about who contacted his office about the Thompson issue, because he'd ask if it was Dan Jensen who contacted them and not Mark.
Albee squirms like a worm on a hook!
Jambois is sure Dan Jensen called Albee. I think Albee is really, really trying to push this! Under oath, he'd have to waive some of his privilege?
This whole discussion is right out of Mondo Bizarro!
Why is it important to the prosecution that Dan Jensen called Albee's office about the Thompson goodies extortion? Why is it so imperative that Albee keeps that information out?
And why did Jambois say that he'd heard a phone conversation where someone said "You're lucky your mother wasn't sent to jail over this".
This whole Jensen family are a piece of work, I tell ya!
Albee proposes an alternative stipulation. He removes mention of Jensen.
Jambois thinks it's irrelevant.
Judge says it won't come in!
The jury brought in a special lunch today, they want to eat early. They also sent out chocolate covered strawberries if the lawyers stipulate to "be nice."
Court will resume at 12:45 Wisconsin time.
Dr Borman on the phone to allow Mr. Albee to ask further questions.....
Judge reminds him of his oath, though he is on the phone.
Albee: Some reports were introduced regarding your care of Mark Jensen - regarding September 3, 1998 notation. Julie called to obtain Zyban for Mark to stop smoking.....Objection on leading, sustained.
Borman: 9/3/98 Zyban for stop smoking? Gave authorization for 150 mg. Julie initiated that call.
Albee: Zyban known as other name? Yes "Wellbutrin", anti depressant/anti anxiety. Doesn't know generic name.
On October 11, 1998 - Mark Jensen "Nicotrol inhaler" would like to ok with Dr Borman. Authorized 42 of them. Six-week course.
Mark initiated that call.
Later that day - nurse talked with pharmacist. Mark wants nasal spray instead of inhaler. Authorized.
Unclear who talked with pharmacist.
Dr Borman says his staff carries out a lot of notations, but it said Mark wanted a nasal spray instead of inhaler. Dr Borman didn't talk to Mark. Doesn't know who called in.
Nov 11, 1998. Note in margin - *OBTW - Mark did not call. Came from visit on 12/14/98. Under medication part - Robitussen, "off Zyban due to side effects". "No nicotrol spray". Mark told him he didn't call regarding the nicotrol inhaler. Mark stopped the Zyban due to side effects.
Was Mr Jensen prescribed Librium? Yes - he had a long-standing problem with GERD and esophageal spasm, and he used Librium for the spasm on occasional basis. He refilled the prescription on 12/14. Librium also used as anti-anxiety, tranquilizer, alcohol withdrawal and even seizures.
Finished. No cross.
Ratzburg on the stand.
Albee: You presented a videotape of a recorded statement between you and Mr. Jensen, kreckt? Yes.
Only up to page 140, kreckt? Yes.
Questions to remaining portions of the transcript.......
Now on page 143 - line 12. Did you ask Mark Jensen - you rolled her over, ok? She wasn't breathing well on her back, what makes you think she would breathe better with her face half on the pillow?
Judge instructs jury - what you'll hear is statements by Det Ratzburg questioning the accused, but not offered for the truth of what he's asking, but they're being offered because the defense asked if perhaps Aaron Dillard could have gotten his info from them.
Line 17 - I mean throughout the course of this, you just pushed her head into the pillow a bit...
Line 23 - I mean, could there have been something that you rolled her too far, oh my god I didn't mean to do that and then pushed her back....
Page 145, Line 18 - I mean, did you roll her over by accident, didn't realize it, came back and said Oh my god, I didn't mean to do that......
Page 150 - Line 19-23 - Couldn't have stopped her from breathing just by rolling her over, there had to have been more. Couldn't there have been some pressure on that chest area....
Page 151, line 4-6 - She was weak real weak, ok she was having labored breathing. The kids were concerned, you were concerned?
152 - Maybe when you pulled her over this way, maybe you pushed on her chest.....
153, lines 5/6 - Did you touch her chest or her neck are at all, that we were talking about?
157, lines 3-7 - How do you explain there is petechia in the lungs, how would we explain that now?
23-24 - You could have had your hand over here by the neck now?
158, Lines 1-3 - Because this abrasion resembles a fingernail on the side of the neck, ok? You had your hand there, so that would explain it?
159, lines 3-8 - So there's a slight breaking of the skin, ok? Abrasions are the two key words here. You had your hands up by that neck, so it wasn't a tap.
159, line 25 - Yeah, how do we explain the petechia in the lungs then. There has to be some injury to the heck.
161, line 19-20 Still have to explain the nose part - the head pushed into the pillow. How will we explain that's there?
162 line 4-9 = Something had to push it down There's three things that happened here, Head being pushed, the nose, and some type of contact there in the chest. You were the only one there Mark.
211, line 24-25 - And you can se her with the nose, how it's bent, how you pushed her into the pillow, she's too far into the pillow.
213, lines3-5 Right, she moved, she was on her back. I mean I wouldn't have - I moved her on her side, she's on her stomach (That's a statement by mark)
19-23 - And see, her nose is plastered in there, and there's some other ones that look a little like that with her nose bent, like someone pushed her in there. Mark, it almost looks like it's broken.
Jambois objects to what is coming.
Receipt for Joe's Carpet service - November 9th, 1998. For Jensen home. For the hallway, for 4431.
Certified copy of a transcript - Gateway technical college, for Julie Jensen. 1996 Course taken from August - December. Took a course on human body structure and function. Received an A.
Transcript from U of W Parkside - Fall 1977 - courses Julie took "Bio sciences and human development".
Spring of 1978 - Nutrition and General Chemistry
Summer of 1978 - Principles in human physiology and Death and dying.
Albee tells judge that there are things that need to be done outside presence of the jury, but subject to completing those, DEFENSE RESTS!
Jambois has rebuttal evidence, but he wants to do the stuff outside jury presence. Judge sends jury out; with hopes they didn't eat all their goodies at lunch!
Judge is informing Mark Jensen of his constitutional right to testify or not testify, that it is his choice. If he decides not to testify, he will instruct the jury not to conclude anything from it.
Mark Jensen is questioned extensively by the judge about all kinds of stuff. Wow. That's certainly detailed!
Has anybody offered you anything?
Has anybody threatened you?
Have you ever been treated for a mental illness?
Where were you born?
Do you want to testify?
Mark Jensen declines to testify. Judge accepts his decision.
Albee wants to discuss some of the things the prosecution will offer - re: Dave Ellis a P.I. hired regarding the harassment the Jensen’s were subject to. Doesn't think that's rebutting anything. Also, some of Mark's statements are in that. Plus, anything what his suspicions were at that time aren't admissible.
Dave Ellis: Investigator hired by the Jensen’s to look into the harassment. Offered to rebut witnesses who testified for the defense that they doubted Mark was doing the harassment. Will testify that Mark’s behavior at the interview was odd, and that he suspected he was leaving the pictures around. He surveilled the truck for one day on a Friday. He also examined photos at police department locker. He will testify that Julie thought the pictures were of her, but that he felt no one could tell who the woman was or where the pictures were taken. He thought they’d be taken from the internet and copied. He felt that whoever chose them had an array to choose from so there would be no way to tell when and where they were taken and that many of the pictures looked similar to Julie. He spoke to Julie that he suspected her husband. Det. Ellis will compare photo printed by Marty Koch is similar to the one he saw at the Pleasant Prairie P.D.
Jambois believes Det Ellis has useful things to say, particularly because he communicated his suspicions to Julie Jensen about the fact that he felt that Mark was the one leaving the pics and making the calls.
Also, the defense witnesses say the letter Julie wrote was "contrived", as part of the suicide/framing plot. This witness would testify to the part that he had told Julie his beliefs.
Judge: Is he a police officer?
Jambois: Used to be.....
Judge: Don't call him detective, then.
He's not going to be allowed to testify to his impressions about the defendant being suspicious or anxious. He could testify to the photograph or printout to the same quality as the one he saw at the police department. He can testify to the objects he saw. Not really sold on anything else.
Jambois asks if he can't testify to what he had told Julie Jensen about the photos?
Albee says he didn't offer any witnesses and testimony about the harassment. Improper rebuttal!
Jambois - He did! I remember Dr Spiro said he'd considered harassment issue, plus Dr Borman!
Albee - We didn't present anything that wasn't a hypothetical!
Jambois - You objected several times about hypotheticals.......
Jambois said Dr Spiro used the harassing pictures and Julie’s feelings Mark was doing it was sign of her delusions.....
Now Jambois is talking about what Dan Jensen said to Mark. He did have a telephone conversation with Mark in 2000......Mark said Julie didn't get out of bed from Tuesday night.
Judge: That's right in the ballpark of what your experts relied on in their testimony!
Albee: BUT NO! THEY CAN'T! THEY DIDN'T! WE DON'T HAVE THE EXPERTS HERE!
Judge: They were cross examined on whether she could get out of bed, whether she could urinate, whether she was vomiting - they were cross-examined at length about that!
Albee: No judge, they weren't cross examined about Paul Griffin's conversation on tape....
FIREWORKS IN JENSEN! AISLE 10!
Albee is saying he didn't provide any of the tape-recorded transcripts to the experts, so they didn't have any disallowed evidence in their list of things to consider.
Also, he didn't give them evidence of Paul Griffin and they're not available to give credence to that tape recording and be cross-examined on them. They were not asked about anything with Paul Griffin, they were not presented with there was evidence of vomiting. Dr Mainland said there was vomiting.....
Judge: Dr Rumack said there was vomiting too!
Albee: But he relied on Dr Mainland's statement for that.
Judge said that the tape recording cannot come in, but a live witness who witnessed the conversation can testify to what they heard in that conversation. But the fact that you didn't provide that tape recording to your experts doesn't keep a live witness from coming in!
Albee: Well, they didn't bring it up on direct...
Re: Laura Koster's statement came in through the defense because Dr. Spiro said Julie was delusional. Jambois had been precluded from introducing it is his CIC.
Judge warns everyone that they're on Week 7, and begs them not to do anything that would make problems.
Albee whines about his state and federal rights to confrontation of a witness, and he wants to get that on record.
Judge is not going to give advisory rulings, and he will follow the law.
Since Mark's sister's statement came in by the defense, he is allowed to testify that Julie told him what Laura said to her... "You don't know what Mark's capable of...” This is new to the jury.
None of the written reports has what Laura Koster said to Julie about not knowing what Mark was capable of.
It all boils down to how credible they feel Thad Wojt is - if they believe his earlier testimony then they'll believe him now.
Apparently, neither interview contains the quote. The question is, whether the detective wrote it down!
We go onto a third interview. Wojt reads this one as well. It’s not there either.
He testified at the preliminary hearing he also said nothing about the alleged conversation. Wojt doesn’t remember it. He says he said it before, but doesn’t recall his testimony.
Wojt also states he told them, but it’s not in the reports. One interview lasted 2 hours.
Albee asked that he never brought it up in testimony.
Objection! Witnesses aren't supposed to bring things up.
He complained that what was on the paper was not what he said. Albee points out Wojt signed it.
Albee is still trying trip Wojt up on dates and times. Didn't he learn from the first time that it ain't gonna happen?
Somebody messed up when they didn't put it in their written reports!
When did you tell the DA about it? I told them a long time ago. I told them I was upset that the stuff I was saying wasn't on the paper.
They told him that it wasn't his words, so they didn't write them down.
He says what's in that written statement isn't always his exact words, it's not exact what he said.
Now 9 plus years later this is the first time you've said anything about this in any courtroom....OBJECTIONS SUSTAINED!
The DA chose not to ask you......SUSTAINED! Judge sustained objection before it's given.
It's not in any written note anywhere that contains this statement? I just don't remember.
Yet you claim 9 years later to remember these exact words? No, I said it many times before but they just didn't write it down.
Albee goes SNARK on him.
He says he repeated it numbers of times, but they never wrote it down.
He remembers that the conversation took place after 2, 3 o'clock and he talked to Julie that day, and Julie said Laura came that day and said those things to her.
Albee finished. Jambois back.
It was around 3 o’clock that afternoon? Yes. Julie was still outside and mark wasn't home at the time.
When you and Julie had this conversation - where was it? It was in between our yards. How far away was she from you? 3 or 4 feet. Nobody else there, kids not home. Maybe 30 minutes.
If Det Ratzburg had sat down and written down everything you said about Julie Jensen and Mark Jensen - everything about this case.......Objection - argumentative.
Are there still things you can tell us about Julie Jensen? Yes.
Do you remember how many people you have spoken to about the conversation between Julie and Laura? Probably 2, 3 people. One is his wife. Talked with wife on same day the conversation happened. He also told a couple neighbors....Jambois wants to rephrase. Albee says no. Judge says he can keep answering. He's sure he told some neighbors, because they talked about it all.
He also talked to DA, to Ms Gabrielle, Susan Karaskevich? told Ratzburg in police station.
Albee says he never received this statement. Jambois says he's received every one of them!
Did Ratzburg take down every single statement you made when you told him things? No, that's why I get upset. He was mad because Det Ratzburg didn't put down the things he said.
No further questions - Albee on re-cross.
The statements you have written down - you signed them. You didn't make any corrections? No, but I went and told them they left it out.
But you didn't write any letters to Det Ratzburg about this? No.
But you signed it and left it as is? Yes.
Albee asks to approach.
He's stayed very strong and adamant that he said this and they (the detectives) didn't write it down! But he did talk to Mr. Jambois, Ms Gabrielle, another ADA, and police!
Now Judge is saying what happened in the side bar. Albee said that he says Wojt didn't testify to this in the past, and the DA should have asked about it! Judge said there was no way Albee can say that!
Albee is asking this man to testify to something that a lawyer may not ask! According to Judge.
If this were so important there would be some documentation of it, says Albee!
Judge understands, but to try to impeach this witness that he didn't say it on some prior engagement he won't agree to that.
Jambois wants to go into the fact that Albee suppressed it! Judge said, Oh no - please!
Wow - this is a circus! All because Thad Wojt said something nobody wrote down! And now Jambois said Wojt was upset because the DA wouldn't ask him questions about this!
No further questions of Mr. Wojt. Jambois calls Margaret Wojt to the stand.
Jambois: Do you recall a conversation with your hubby about a conversation he had with Julie about a conversation she had with Laura Koster?
Yes. He told me everything the same day, so it would be that night. Objection! Be specific.
Same day it happened. It was maybe week or week and a half before Julie's death.
He said Laura Said that I lived with mark for 18 years and you don't know what Mark is capable of.
Albee: Do you remember those exact words your husband used 9 1/2 years ago? Yes
Did you talk to him today? No
You’ve been sitting out in the hall with him all day? You knew this was what you were going to be questioned about? No I didn't know what he as going to be asked.
She says she didn't talk about this with her husband about what he was testifying about.
Albee is asking if her husband told her what he was going to be testifying to.......she claims absolutely they did not talk about what they would be testifying to.
Ms Gabrielle only asked her if her husband ever told her about the conversation between Laura and Julie, that Thad told her about. She said yes.
She remembers it spot on. But they didn't talk about this specific conversation.
Albee asks if they've been watching the trial - she says yes.
Jambois calls Terese Di Fazio.
Judge again states that these statements by Laura Koster doesn't prove that Mark killed Julie, so please use these for the purpose they're being given, which is to confirm the fears Julie had.
Jambois asks - if she recalls Julie describing the Laura conversation. Yes she does. She had the conversation with Julie on Wed November 25.
Terese had asked if she had told anyone about her concerns about Mark trying to kill her. She said she'd told Laura - not just my SIL, she's my friend - she told Laura what she'd told Therese, that her husband was trying to kill her and that she was afraid for her life. She said Laura was sympathetic and understanding. Laura said, "Be very careful - you don't know what he can do"!
Albee asks on cross about her typed recollections of her conversation with Julie. Only thing she wrote about Laura was "Julie spoke to her SIL about her fears".
In 2004, you met with ADA - ADA wrote up a summary of facts, but told her that some things weren't allowed from the original statement (from letter). She reviewed that memo; she did call on some corrections but doesn't recall exact points.
Didn't send in anything in writing.
Albee says she didn't say anything about "be very careful" then. ADA didn't quote them exactly, they were just summary notes.
Finished. Jambois calls the Private Investigator Dave Ellis. He'll need to be careful with this one.....
Met Jambois when Ellis was a cop. Was a cop for 8 years. Started a P.I. agency..... "ESI Associates".
In 1996 were you retained by the Jensen’s in your capacity as PI? Yes.
cue smoke, and jazzy sax music
It was late April 1996, PD would sometimes call PIs when it was more appropriate......I made an appointment to meet with the Jensen’s at their home. Present were Mark and Julie Jensen. As were two young tots at the house. (Points out Mark Jensen)
The nature of the conversation was relative to trying to determine who was scattering or placing porno picks around their neighborhood as well as Mark's car at his place of employment.
The discussion was this typically occurred on a Thursday or Friday afternoon, and they determined they would conduct a surveillance of his vehicle the following Friday afternoon.
Didn't catch anybody. Reported that result.
Did you try to find out what sort of Photos was left around the Jensen residence? Yes. I learned several photos were at the Pleasant Prairie PD, so I went and looked at them. I saw about a dozen or so. All were similar - all porno - black and white, appeared to be pictures taken off internet, printed and photocopied.
In my opinion, pics appeared to be very generic in nature as far as subject matter. Nothing in the pics could identify persons in pics. Nothing in background could be identified. It was my thought that someone went to great lengths.....OBJECTION! Stricken.
Subject matter - 2 pics particularly. Woman performing oral sex on a man. Not able to see woman's face. Was it a woman who looked similar to Julie? Similar. Couldn't see the woman's face, or the man's.
Jambois brings up a picture - shows P.I. Ellis. Is this similar to the two you looked at? Similar. Is the manner of production/quality is similar to the ones at PPPD? Similar. Black and White, appearance, content, appeared to have been cut down from a larger sheet of copy paper. On copy paper, not photographic paper. All similar.
Did it come from a photo lab, copier, printer? Appears to be a copy of a photograph. Similar to those I saw in 1996 at PPPD.
On the same day he saw the pics, he called Julie and discussed them with her, regarding if it was her in the photo. She believed they were of her.
He told her that he didn't believe it was of her, he believed it was the intent of the author to....OBJECTION Sustained.
After you'd expressed the view to Julie, what was her reply to you? She felt strongly that the person in the pic was her. He said that he disagreed with her and gave her reason why:
Fact that there was no distinguishing id; nothing in the photo in the background she could place herself in that scenario. Eventually they agreed that she felt it was her, and she was aware of his opinion that it wasn't.
Did you tell her who you thought was doing this? OBJECTION! Sustained. Jambois said this wasn't consistent with Judge's earlier ruling. SIDEBAR
Objection sustained. Did you do any further work for the Jensen’s on surveillance? No.
Invoice presented of invoice of Dave Ellis, PI to the Jensen’s.
Albee on cross.
The two photos you remember - you couldn't identify who was in it? Yes. If you couldn't identify who was in it, how could you tell who it was not?
Albee still asking about the photos. Camera angles, what was depicted, etc. You know these weren't the universe of photos that had been left at the Jensen’s or given to the police. Not aware of what they had or didn't have - I only saw the ones at the PD.
How many photos did Julie say had been left? She didn't say. You weren't looking at the pics with Julie, were you? No. So you can't say if the others were photos of Julie or not? Possible.
By the background in the photos you can't say that was nothing to exclude Julie being in the photo, correct?
Mrs. Jensen would be in the best position to be able to identify herself, her body, right? She said the person in the photo looked like her.
Julie believed that the pictures were of her, and it was his opinion that they were more than likely not of her.
His bill for six hours of work was $180 - $30 an hour. Heck of a lot cheaper than 16,000 grand!
Albee done - Jambois back. What were factors that led you to believe the photos weren't her?
Began to form an opinion as to whom I felt was placing the photographs...
What were the other factors? Photos lacked any detail as far as the individual, the background (room in Jensen home or hotel room), he had discussed with Julie if she was in a room where she thought they could be taken, some discussion as to who they Jensen's felt were the person sending them.....co-worker (Perry Terica).
Other factors? Mark's behavior.
Albee back on re-cross. Why did you inquire about background if you thought it wasn't her? I was trying to determine if the person could be Julie, so I asked if she had ever been in that kind of compromising situation and if there was nothing identifiable in the background.
I asked her in general if that could be her due to the subject matter - she said yes.
About back ground - particular bedroom/hotel room. She said the acts took place with him in the Jensen home.
Pat Griffin is Julie Jensen's youngest brother. He was the only sibling living in Kenosha when Julie died.
Plays piano. Married since '95, two kids (4, 7)
Did you hear the defense expert - Dr Spiro - testify about your family? Does anything he said sound like your family? No.
Larry, Julie, Michael, Paul, Pat. Richie died - they had pics of him. He would have been older than Julie.
Richie died when he was 5. You never piled on top of Richie? No.
What was it like growing up in your family? Parents were really supportive of our activities. Brothers involved with music/art. Mother was talented artist, loved music. Dad never performed but appreciated music. Opera and classical fan. From age of 4 Pat knew he was going to be a musician. Started at 5 playing the piano.
Parents encouraged him - one teacher taught him for free and wouldn't take payment! For years and years! His dad would do handy work for her around the house.
Dad was smart - brilliant engineer, designer. Raised on a farm. He ran his dad's farm when dad had heart attack when he was 18. He would go to school and skip 2nd period to take care of the farm.
Worked at AMC all his life, as engineer. Making a decent income. But AMC engineering department moved to Detroit, Michigan. He took a large pay in cut at AMC to work in another division so he wouldn't have to move his large family to Detroit.
Oh! He's the brother who tried to commit suicide! I feel so bad that he had to listen to Albee's description of this. It must be so painful for him to talk about it.
Pat was a boy scout growing up. Went camping every month and at least once a year went for a week long camp. Dad was very active in the scouting.
Heard yesterday about a brother of Julie who was found in the bathtub with his wrists cut - this was pat. He was 16 years old kid and made a really stupid decision.
He'd turned 16 on June 12, the second week in July he played in a musical, "God spell". Fun musical, had religious overtones. Fairly intense. Moving experience. On opening weekend he went to the party and had freedom with keys to the car.
He came home late - around 2:30, dad was upset and met him at front door. Dad was abrupt with him "Where have you been? Do you know what time it is?" Threatened to take his keys away. Over reacted in anger. So he stupidly thought he'd get even with his dad - maybe he'll give me sympathy if I take my own life. I thought I didn't want to experience pain, so he snuck out of the garage door, went to the car.
He was evidently gonna do the car in the garage thing. He took a razor blade and carved a tiny bit into his wrist - he became numb cause it was too light. So finally he cut it enough that blood came out and it began to hurt. It was 3:00/3:30 - he was tired, and he fell asleep.
He woke up and saw the blood in his bed. "Oh no! What will I do now?" He was embarrassed and ashamed. Took dog to vet with friend. Friend told him to get his wrist stitched up. He went and made up a stupid story at the hospital "A rake fell off the roof and hit my wrist". They didn't believe him and called his parents. Small scar - shows everyone.
So no unconscious, boy in a bloody bathtub? No.
Finished high school got a degree in college. After Julie died he bought Julie's car. Had license plate that said "my3ds".
Any history of psychiatric illness in your family? No.
Any depression in your family? No.
Are you depressed? No.
Are brothers depressed? No
Your mother is an alcoholic? Yes. Found out after Julie's wedding.
Looking back he can now see how his mother was an alcoholic while he was growing up. He knew something "was up" with his mom. She was "kinda crabby" sometimes. He knew when she was crabby he kinda stayed away, but when she wasn't it was ok.
Julie is 9 years older than him. She was like a second mother to him. A lot of trips Julie would be holding his hand in the car. Nice to him. He loved hanging around with her.
Saw her in July, after the 4th, of 98. She was taking care of her kids. The day they spent at her house the kids were swimming in the pool. Doesn’t think Mark was there that day. At one time they were planning a barbeque. Next day Mark was there.
She was her usual self. Wasn't jumping for joy but was loving her kids and they were talking about family events. Kinda typical.
No further from Jambois. Albee up.
Julie was 9 years older than you? So she was 26 when you cut your wrists? You'll have to do the math.
Did you talk to Julie about that? No.
Was it well known in the family what happened? I believe so.
When you showed us on the screen your scar - it's cut from one side to the other. Required how many stitches? Looks like 6. He's going by the scar.
Was that portrayed in your family as an attempt at suicide? We didn't talk about it at the dinner table.
Did you talk about it with anyone in your family? Yes - mom and dad and brother Mike.
I assume you're embarrassed about it? Yes. And for quite some time? Yes.
Still today? Yes.
With respect to your mother, you didn't know there was a problem until Julie's wedding? I knew there was a problem, but I didn't know the nature of it until then.
She was crabby? Yes. Moody? Yes Sometimes up mood, sometimes down mood? Yes, but not to great extent. You attribute that to alcohol? Yes Do you know that now - that it was because of alcohol? I know she suffered from alcoholism but I don't attend ALAnon so I don't know the ins and outs of it.
The reason you understood your mom had an alcohol problem was Julie's wedding? No after that.
From the rehearsal dinner? Yes - but I wasn't there. She had a seizure? That's what I’ve been told.
Discussed in your family? It came up, yes.
Mother was hospitalized and missed wedding? Yes Were you at the wedding? Yes
Did you visit your mother in the hospital? Can't recall. How old were you? I'd have to look at calendar, don't recall. Don't remember being at the wedding specifically.
You would have been about 17 at Julie's wedding? yes You have no recollection at all of being there? I confuse all my siblings' weddings. I remember the band playing in it, in a basement ballroom.
Don't remember anything about visiting your mom? No.
Until that time your mother's alcoholism wasn't revealed to you? I didn't know it as alcoholism.
Was it also concealed from your other sibs? Not sure - with Paul being 5 years older than me, they talked about a lot of things I wasn't privy to.
Now Albee wants Pat to speculate that his mom was self-medicating due to depression! Objection is sustained.
He was out of the house afterwards so he wasn't aware that his mother kept up her alcoholism. Mother passed away in 1991. He was in - can't remember where he lived then. He still lived in Boston. He was 25.
About older brother Richie who died - he understood that he had some kind of stomach injury and that's it. That's all he knew growing up. Some story about other kids piling on him. That was floated around the Griffin family? Yes.
Did anybody ever speculate as to any other possibilities? Objection - sustained.
Was the possibility bandied around that your mother had a role in......Objection. Sustained. Albee - 908.03....
Judge: It's actually 18, but you're not there.
I am very angry! Albee has some NERVE! Trying to ask a person who wasn't born to relate GOSSIP! This is about as SMARMY as you can get! Now, it's out there! NASTY!
Distinction between reputation or common gossip.
Jambois gets pissed! "Why not ask the question! Why not just ask 'was it the story in your family that your mother murdered your brother!"
Woo! Objection still sustained.
Was it a common belief in your household that your mother caused the death of your brother? No.
Was it thought of in your family? No.
Reputation in your family was that he died because of kids piling on him? Yes.
Were you aware your sister had ever been treated for depression? No.
Your sister had characterized to Mr. DeFazio that there was a suicide attempt in your family - do you think that was about you? Yes.
Was your actions motivated from revenge against your father? Yes.
You had telephone conversation with Julie in November? Yes. She didn't ask for help from you? No. She talked to you about selling you her car? No. No such conversation.
How often did you talk to your sister? Once every two/three months.
You didn't have as much insight on how she was getting by on a day-to-day basis? No. So if she had asked you for help you would have helped? Yes.
You characterized that in July she was not jumping for joy? She seemed normal.
No further questions - witness is excused. No more witnesses today.
Judge wishes everyone a great Valentines night!
After show party - Jambois intends to call:
License plate of Julie Griffin
Dr Mary Mainland
A few friends/contemporaries of Adult Griffins (Julie's parents)
Jambois said he should be finished with rebuttal by tomorrow morning.
Albee has comments! Who else woulda thunk it!!!
I have not asked for instructions in this trial about things being offered not for truth of the matter asserted RE; statements of Laura Koster in the area of delusions. I object to that instruction to identify Laura Koster's statement.
Judge says the problem is that this has more of what you would complain about as prejudicial impact, because this does not prove the guilt.....
Judge says based on what the attorneys have said, we should be able to finish tomorrow. That would indicate closings on Monday, but this is the Jensen trail!
Have a great evening, readers!