Mark Jensen Murder Trial Day 20

Day 20 – 2/4/08

We're having a problem with a juror! Someone said something to a relative. Judge says there's nothing terrible about that.

Albee is arguing to let the juror go, even if the comment was innocuous, such as the length of the trial.

Judge-people have invested 22 days in the trial. He's done his duty. The statement may be inaccurate.

Judge not going to dismiss the jury willy-nilly.

A poster posted on CNN. Said that she was the sister of one of the jurors. Judge got a hold of her, and now wants to talk to her brother, the juror. (Re: Jean Casarez)

Jean is now talking about the sister of the juror posting on TTV boards - Judge wants to read all the posts and blogs about this.

Judge is reserving his decision until he reads all the blogs himself. Then, he'll decide if he should call the juror in. (Sister posted she thinks Mark is guilty and had tons of questions to ask after the trial). More on this later.

Cross continues~
Albee asks Det. Ratzburg about Julie's date book - some of the entries for certain dates. Did Julie attend all those activities she entered? Det. Ratzburg doesn't know.

Week of Dec 7 - Things about "Little Bears" being the daycare Douglas went to. Det Ratzburg didn't know what "Little Bears" was.

Activities Julie wrote in seemed to be more for her kids, not necessarily hers. Except for the book club scheduled for the 7th.

Going now to the recorded interview in April 1999. Portion in interview (not shown last week) where Mark is crying....

Objection - this is hearsay. Judge sustains, even though Albee of course fights. Goes to his demeanor. Judge still sustains. Judge instructs jury.

Teehee, Albee cries now.

Sidebar. Court is on break, but alas, arguments ensue.

Albee still not giving up on being able to put in Mark's tears in the 4/99 interview, and other things Mark said. Makes Mark look like a less trustworthy person.

Albee is trying to get in some of Mark's self-serving statements without Mark having to get on the stand. He's just dying to get testimony in about weepy Mark.

Jambois comes back strong - Albee is foreclosed from getting in anything outside the stipulated amounts of the interview they had agreed on.

Judge asks if Mark takes the stand will that still be inadmissible? No, said Jambois, drool dripping off his chin in anticipation of Mark on the stand.

Jambois said that what Albee wants to get in about Mark is irrelevant because it's hearsay. Judge agrees.

Jambois strong on not allowing in the portion of the interview where Mark cries because it is hearsay. And it's outside the stipulation of the parts of the interview the attorneys agreed on.

Now Judge says he agreed with Albee's statement, but he's going to sustain the objection.

Judge states that he does not embrace Jambois' theories about it coming up at a later time.

Albee now says he wanted the whole video, but he stipulated to what was shown!

He has a problem with not showing more because he has a problem with Aaron Dillard's testimony, so he wants it in.

Now they're going in to whether or not Aaron Dillard saw that transcript - Albee is going to try and prove he did. Jambois said the only way they'd be able to prove it is if Mark gets on the stand and says he showed it to Aaron Dillard.

Woo - it's a dog fight!

Albee calls Aaron Dillard a liar, and the only thing he has to prove is that Dillard had opportunity. Jambois said the only thing Dillard said he read was a few newspaper articles......

Judge said he's not letting this in. Albee says the only thing he has to prove is Dillard had opportunity to look at that transcript. He was on the same cellblock.

Judge asks Albee what he is going to bring in re: Dillard's statement to prove he had opportunity to read that transcript.

Page 142 - mentions about Mark rolling Julie over, the pillow in her face.

Jambois says Albee will include Mark saying he didn't call EMS because "Julie didn't want me to". Judge asks how this relates to what he's going to prove about Aaron Dillard.

Albee is going to try to get in Mark's self-serving statements in that transcript as much as he can under the guise of trying to prove that Aaron Dillard had opportunity to see the transcript. Judge calls him on it!

Jury back in. Albee still on cross exam of Det Ratzburg.

Albee asks about interview of Joan Colby/Wise in Appleton. Former secretary of Ed Klug.

Objection - hearsay. Judge says it sounds "hearsay-ish" Side bar. Sustained.

Det. Ratzburg gave Ms Colby some advice - she should not talk to defense investigator. Is Det Ratzburg aware that both parties have the right to interview witnesses - yes. But witnesses had said that they had been harassed by defense investigators ENOUGH TO CALL THE POLICE!!!

Albee irate! Yelling at Ratzburg! Objection!

Albee said his investigators have the right to ask questions, right? Ms Colby said they had left a voice mail, not that she had been harassed.

Did Ms Colby feel harassed? Did she express that? No.

By telling her that she shouldn't speak to the def investigators he was interfering with the def' ability to investigate.

He said that he had told her to beware because Appleton police had been called because of harassment.

Albee getting stymied on this - calling for speculation and hearsay.

Is Det. Ratzburg aware of any specific complaints of harassment? Yes - Klugs did.

Now Albee is stuck on getting Det. Ratzburg to say that he deprived the defense of investigation of witnesses. Accuses Det. Ratzburg of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE! Det. Ratzburg says he didn't tell her not to talk to def investigators, he cautioned her. There had been issues about def investigators contacting other witnesses and harassing them. He did not tell her not to talk to them.

Det. Ratzburg says Albee is putting words his mouth.

Now we're back at hearsay because of what happened that was harassment of witnesses.

What did the Klugs say the defense investigator did? He was in their driveway, ringing their doorbell, parked down the street, watched them. Klugs didn't know who he was, they were scared.

Re-direct

Goes to April, 1999 videotaped statement by Mark Jensen.

Det. Ratzburg saw the video taped statement, does he think he was too harsh on Mark Jensen? Objection. Overruled, but Jambois changed the question...

About the videotaped questioning of Mark Jensen about sexual issues... raised the issue of Kelly.

Who's Kelly? Mark: This was all work stuff. You're over my head here.

Mark said: She is my bosses' secretary.
Is this all work related? Doesn't look work related....."Beat on my drums all day"

Det. Ratzburg just was asking and trying to beat down Mark to get him to answer about Who Kelly was. He wanted to know about Kelly because of possible motive.....

Mark lied to Det. Ratzburg over and over and over again. He'd tell a little bit of truth. Det. Ratzburg doesn't feel he was too hard on Mark in this issue.

Jambois reading lines of e-mails between Mark and Kelly, that Det. Ratzburg asked Mark about in his relationship with Kelly.

Is it a common thing for a suspect to weave truths and lies into answers of questions in a police interview? Yes.

Jambois pointing out Mark's lies in the police interview about his relationship with Kelly. Mark is evasive and outright lying about his relationship with Kelly in that interview. Jambois is asking Det. Ratzburg about his questioning of Mark, and if it was proper investigative procedures.

Reading lots of the transcript lines. All lies by Mark about his relationship with Kelly prior to Julie's death.

Mark indicated in December of ‘98 that Julie didn't use the computer that much. Mark said Julie used it for Quicken, and that He used it for work.

Back to the April interview - Det. Ratzburg asked Mark about what he had said in December about Julie's computer usage, that she didn't use it (except for Quicken). But there is a lot of stuff about poisoning information and about Paxil. Mark said he had no idea what that is - NO.

Ratzburg said to Mark - "Am I wrong - you said she never really messed with the computer?" Mark said he had charting programs for work.

When asked about the poisoning info - Mark said, "She used it".

First time Mark disclosed that Julie used the computer (except for Quicken) was after he was confronted about the poisoning info in that April '99 interview.

Now Jambois asks about the photos left around the house - what was on them? They were pictures of a female and a penis. Didn't see the face of the male, but did see the face of the female. And an erect penis.

Some didn't appear to be actual photos - maybe doctored, or a photocopy. Judge needs clarification. Is this a photographic image or drawing? They were images out of a magazine, or off the internet. Originally a true-life representation of something picked up by a camera.

Some were photocopied pictures. Perhaps printed out by a computer printer.

Pics left around the Jensen house appeared to be photos and some appeared to be photocopied or printed material. Items that were not photographs were depictions of penis/female/sex act. These were on both photo paper and regular copy paper.
Items left around Jensen house could have been printed out from a computer printer.

Items 255 and 256, Julie's log. "Mark's computer does not have photo generating capacity", written in Julie's hand.

Jambois trying to get to the possibility of Mark's computer to print out photos...... Ratzburg doesn't have that kind of info.

Less than 10 images found around the Jensen house in ‘97/’98. Det. Ratzburg doesn't remember the quality, but he remembers they were consistent - depicted a female and a man's penis.

Ratzburg's purpose for asking about the photos was to further the investigation into what caused Julie's death. Questioned Mark Jensen thoroughly, trying to get him to tell the truth.

Mark said in the interview that he got them in the mail - sometimes he didn't show Julie because they would upset her.

Mark said he got pictures that had Julie's face in them!

Ok, now Court breaks for lunch. And there is argument going on about the photos being from Mark's work computer. Jambois says he can prove that Mark's computer can print out photos.

There it is again - 2800 penises! Judge asks if they are photos of just penises or of sex acts.

Jambois says he hasn't looked at all of them but Ms Gabriel has.....because she had to, of course, for the trial's sake.

5350 Sexual images. Including ejaculation and oral intercourse. Penises with rulers next to them.
There are also women who are preparing to having oral sex.

(Sounds like Markie did a little cut and paste on the pictures!)

Mr. Albee is stammering more than usual. He's very stressed.

Albee tries to but in, but gets a smack down by the judge. LET HIM FINISH!

Jambois is tying Mark's obsession with penises and fellatio with the pics left around the Jensen house. He's trying to get those 2800 penis pics entered into evidence......

Jambois says these are absolutely admissible because Mark despised Julie and wanted to make her miserable, and that is absolutely germane to the case against him.

Albee says no, no, no.

Judge has looked briefly at the photos. "Penis" is the center of all the pictures, one way or another. Nobody here seems to know what a "thumbnail" is!

Albee says the photos don't provide a motive.

Judge feels they could because they were used for harassment.

Albee says it could not be used for identity of harassment. These are 2000-2002, not earlier. They have no contemporaneous police reports about the original pictures. This is nothing but a smear campaign. Mr. Jensen is not unique in his use of pornography.

Mr. Cook says these aren't ALL the pictures. Judge would like to know if there are any pictures of females. Cook said that he hasn't looked at all the photos.

Judge says he doesn't think even homosexuals would have such a collection of pictures.

Judge: The fact that the pictures are from 2002 makes them inadmissible.

Jambois quotes from Kosman's testimony about the nature of the pictures. There was a huge quantity of these photos. One of Julie's "talking points" to police was that Mark's computer didn't have graphic capabilities. She obviously talked to Mark and is reporting what he told her. There are many porno sites starting July 16, 1998. In 1999, Mark destroyed his work computer.

Judge: Points out to Albee that this won't make Mark look so bad since he's already said that millions and millions of people go to these sites.

Albee says he didn't do enough voir dire of the jury because he didn't think this would come in due to judge's ruling.

Judge doesn't think the jury will be "pushed over the edge" by more info. He rules against the 2002 pix coming in.

Here’s the story on the problem witness:
Evidently, the Judge received an e-mail from the Moderator of TruTv's board that had copies of the posts in question. It went something like this.....

Poster - I wish this trial would hurry up and be over so I can get my life back!

Sister of Juror - My brother thinks that too, and he's on the jury.
Post..
Post..
Poster - You should delete your post, or PM CW to have it deleted, it's not an appropriate thing to say if your brother is on the jury!

Some other poster - Yeah, and I'm sending this to Mr. Albee (which they obviously did)

Judge Schroeder took back his earlier disparaging remarks about posters, and said that the poster was responsible and conscientious to tell that sister poster to remove her post!

Jury called back.

Albee asks if Ratzburg knew about "things" on the computer 12/3/98 prior to Julie's death. He says "yes," and that's why he seized the computer immediately.

Albee is asking about Julie's use of the computer in 12/98. Julie's use of the computer for Quicken is not in any of his reports. He may have information in the April recorded statement. Written statement 12/6/98 summarization doesn't have anything about computer usage.

Albee: Officer Kosman saw more of the photos? Yes
Did he try to track down if they were really photos? No.

(Just heard: Prosecution is going to do a rebuttal case. (Jean Casarez) They may call a psychiatric expert.)

Jambois displays all Jensen's computer history. He reads some sites, which shows mixture of topics, normal and x-rated. (p.149)
(p.148) There are work sites mixed with x-rated sites.
(p. 147) More adult sites and work-related sites

And so on, and so on.

The Judge summarizes by saying the decedent had partial use of the computer. She also mentioned in her letter that Mark was an avid surfer of the internet.
He wants to know when the sites were accessed.

Jambois states the times and indicates non-work hours.

Albee says all the dates stated are in July. These don't have poison sites.

Judge: Prosecution says Julie is not using the computer, defense says she is computer literate.

The Judge says the jury could decide, based on 2002 work sites, that it is more likely Mark did the same site at home, and THEREFORE, he is the origin of the harassing photographs.

Judge decides that the 1998 searches are admissible as to who was using the computer and the source of other pictures.

2002 pictures ARE ADMISSABLE as proof that it is likely the defendant used the home computer because of the similarities of topics.

Albee says that they aren't "that similar."

Judge will give a proper precautionary instruction.
(Atty's will each draw one up)

Albee doesn't think any instruction will function, but he will write something tonight.

Albee wants to help pick the pictures! Jambois doesn't want to show them to the jury. Cook will only give general information about the content of the files, but Mr. Albee can feel free to ask how many of each!

Jambois also wants Cook to go through the history of the home computer.

On the stand, Martin Koch who works for the State Crime Lab. At one point, he was a computer evidence analyst. He has a background in chemistry and is currently assigned to analyzing drug cases. He has had extensive training since the mid '90's.

Brad Hallard did the original work. Mr. Koch reviewed it and came to his conclusion. Able objects to evidence as heresy and 6th Amendment violation. The Judge asks Koch how he relies on the information. Koch says its SOP. Judge overrules objection.

Koch goes on to explain how the process they use to collect the data.

Albee
Main objection is overruled. The continuing objection will remain as long as this topic is being discussed.

Continues his objection.

Discussion of Hallard's turning on computer 12/17/98.
193 files had date changed.
Other files were created.
Some data could have been overwritten.
It wouldn't alter data not overwritten.

If the data was recovered, it wasn't altered.

1998 write block technology did not exist. They used DOS boot disk. Some write block technology was used in ENCASE program.

Shadow 2 program developed in 2002 was revolutionary. Write blocked and the user could use the computer as a normal user.

The Jensen computer is in the courtroom and will be hooked up!

The contents of the hard drive will not be disturbed.

Koch examined the computer with Shadow 2.

(We are in for a great deal of technical testimony here!)

Mr. Koch is giving a great deal of information as to how cookies work, how index.dat files are created, what a 3rd party cookie is.

Last written date on computer 12/17/98 when computer was last turned on.

Koch was able to find that the history was regularly deleted.

Double deleting of History files might happen because the user didn't remember if it was deleted and deleted it again.

It would seem Mark didn't want Julie to know about the files!

So in late November '98, just a few minutes after midnight, someone went into Internet Explorer for about 20 minutes, deleted their history and got out of IE. Then went back in a few minutes later for less than a minute and then got out again.

Talking about files created on November 29, 1998, and deleted afterwards. The files weren't deleted because of the 20-day auto file dump, but were intentionally deleted through someone clearing the history.

Mercifully we are done for the day!

So folks, are you shaking your head? Can you believe some of the stuff we are hearing?

ritanita and Intrepid took the helm today. Many thanks Intrepid and ritanita!

Sprocket and I took the Bobby Cutts trial. Watch for the entry very soon.