Watch Live: Antifreeze Murder Retrial — WI v. Mark Jensen — Day 13

I'll rise for the jury we'll go back on a record then on Mark D Jensen 2002 cf314 it is January 30th 2023 Monday let's have the appearances please good morning on the state of Wisconsin appears by special prosecutor Robert jamboy's Deputy district attorney Carolyn McNeil and public service special prosecutor Beverly Jam boys attorneys Bridget Crosby Jeremy Perry and Mackenzie Runner appear on behalf of Mr Mark Jensen who appears in court good morning judge good morning it's nice to see all the jurors back this morning thank you for coming on time seeing that it's already week four of the trial everybody is still here with that we're going to continue with the uh defense's case who's the next witness for the defense our next witness will be Dr Sarah West but before we call her to the stand I do have a couple of motions specifically I move to admit into evidence exhibit 97 which is Julie Jensen's UW Oshkosh transcript exhibits 102 and 103 which are the photos of the closets that were shown to the jury last Friday and exhibit 120 which is Laura coster's resignation letter any objection from the state all right those will be received thank you and at this time then we will call Dr Sarah West to the stand you want to raise your right hand remain standing you solemnly swear the testimony is meant to be the truth hold truth nothing but truths will help you God I do thank you try to get as close as you can have to the microphone spell your first and last name for the reporter it's Sarah s-a-r-a-west w-e-s-t thank you go ahead Dr Les Floyd I am a psychiatrist more specifically a forensic psychiatrist I currently work full-time doing clinical psychiatric work seeing and treating patients with mental health disorders then on top of that I also work as a forensic psychiatrist forensics and Psychiatry means the intersection of Psychiatry and the law anything that has to do with the law and mental health falls under that purview and where are you currently employed I do my clinical practice at a small Community Mental Health Center in Akron Ohio called Community Support Services I also have a forensic Private Practice in which I provide uh testimony and information to attorneys who work in civil and criminal matters are you affiliated with any Universities I am I am a clinical associate professor at Case Western University School of Medicine in Cleveland Ohio now as far as forensic psych Psychiatry goes does Case Western have any special is there anything special about Case Western I should ask Case Western prior to his retirement was the home of Dr Phil Resnick who was probably one of the Nations if not the world's Premier forensic psychiatrist he has testified in cases such as uh Jeffrey Dahmer's case Ted kaczynski's case and I had the opportunity to train with him there between 2008 and 2009. and do you currently teach there at all I do so after finishing my fellowship during those years I have continued on as a professor educating uh fellows in forensic psychiatry that came behind me now you indicated that you currently have patients that you're working with actively do you know how many patients you currently have yes I happen to pull that data just the other day and I see 248 clinical patients on my caseload they often have severe mental illness and I see them quite frequently a good chunk of them at least once a month and when you're working with a patient what is your role my role as a psychiatrist I am a medical doctor I went to medical school is to prescribe medications mainly also as a psychiatrist I coordinate services that are provided by other folks at the agency that could be case managers psychologists or nurses and as part of your job do you diagnose mental illnesses absolutely I've spent a number of years in training to be able to do that in order to become a board-certified forensic psychiatrist I attended four years of undergraduate education at the University of Virginia went on for four years of medical school at the University of Virginia came to Case Western to complete my residency four years and then proceeded on to the fellowship which is one year of sub-specialty training and the very specific area of Psychiatry and the law and are you currently board certified I am to be board certified one must have gone through all those steps sit for a test at the time I did this there was also an oral exam in Psychiatry once one has become a board-certified psychiatrist only then can one sit for the forensic boards which is a written test so I am board certified in both the area of General Psychiatry and the sub-specialty of forensic psychiatry now in addition to your residency for General Psychiatry was there any additional training that you had to do in order to be able to sit for the board certification of forensic psychiatry yes that would be a forensic Fellowship where I spent one year in very close contact with Dr Resnick along with my two co-fellows for 12 months and we during that time saw private cases with Dr Resnick we traveled with Dr Resnick to testify we also saw clinical forensic patients so it's very comprehensive year of training and how long have you been board certified in general Psychiatry to start out with I was board certified in general psychiatry in 2009 and subsequently in forensic psychiatry in 2011. now I think you indicated what forensic psychiatry is already what is it that makes forensic psychiatry different than any other profession in the medic in the medical field so in forensic psychiatry unlike when I'm seeing my clinical patients I am after the truth I am not my patient's Advocate I am rather objective looking at all aspects of a case and not uh suede or my opinion is not suede by a patient or their particular report as a matter of fact when I see people on a forensic basis we don't call them patients because we're not actually offering them treatment we call them evaluees and when I evaluate someone I strive for objectivity and once I have formed an opinion I may advocate for that opinion but only if I've rendered it objectively and are you paid in your work as a psychiatrist or specifically a forensic psychiatrist I am and are you getting paid to be here for this case I oh yeah now in this case what exactly was the question that you were asked to answer for us I was asked a very specific question which is very relevant to my clinical work and that is to determine Miss Jensen's suicide risk on the date of December 3rd 1998. and have you been asked to do uh this suicide risk assessment for any other type of cases or any other work that you've done I do it every day I would be not practicing Psychiatry if I didn't assess risk in every patient that I see so this is something that I do on a daily basis and have you ever been hired to evaluate suicide risk I I again when I work clinically every time I see a patient I want to ensure that they are not a danger to themselves or other people if that is the case then I would seek a higher level of care for them usually in patient hospitalization so this is a skill set that I practice daily and have you ever been retained by any insurance companies to look at suicide risks I have not been retained by them but that's a very common uh if we were to do this type of assessment on a forensic basis that is probably the most common application of what we refer to as a psychological autopsy and that is retrospectively looking at someone's suicide risk at the time of death the reason that that might be important to insurance companies is oftentimes they have Clauses in their policy to suggest that they won't pay out if someone has intentionally caused their own death so that is a more common application of the psychological autopsy that I conducted in this case here and are you here to tell us if Julie Jensen committed suicide absolutely not I don't know that information so what you're here to talk about is suicide risk correct correct now in your clinical practice I assume that you actually talk to your patients to get information from them I do yes so the primary source of information when I'm practicing clinically of course is a patient interview and since we can't do a patient interview with Ms Julie Jensen as she is deceased are you still able to come to an opinion as to her suicide risk yes and I use collateral information which is information obtained from other sources that might reflect her mental status at the time of her death this is something I do commonly and another type of criminal evaluation that I do much more frequently which is a Not Guilty by reason of insanity assessment in that case I'm looking at someone's mental status at the exact moment that they committed an act for which they've been charged criminally so the process is very familiar to me and in this case did you review any materials to assist you in coming to your opinions I did I had the opportunity to review a testimony from the previous trial the transcript I also had the opportunity to speak to people who had testified to do a personal interview of course this is much more retrospective as I did so in 2017 after reviewing their transcript from 10 years prior and perhaps if I had my report just so I don't leave anything out May I reference that of course and in fact why don't I start out by showing you what's been marked as exhibit 121. do you recognize what exhibit 121 is I do what that is my curriculum vitae or resume that uh lists all my education and Publications as well so you have Publications I do I have a number of Publications I enjoy writing and researching and have published quite extensively in multiple areas of forensic psychiatry I have also had the opportunity to present at meetings National meetings as well as internationally even I had the chance to speak in New Zealand on school shootings so I've covered a variety of information in my Publications and presentations on a wide array of topics both civil and criminal that are related to forensics foreign Vitae there exhibit 121 is that a fair and accurate representation of your qualifications as a psychiatrist in a forensic psychiatrist it is uh but to update my academic appointment I have been promoted from an assistant professor as is noted here to a clinical associate professor and as a professor do you assist students in obtaining their uh fellowships and the like I do I have the opportunity to directly supervise forensic psychiatric fellows in the same way that Dr Resnick supervised me when I was a fellow and I would move exhibit 121 into evidence received thank you exhibit 122. do you recognize this document yes this is the written report I generated on July 31st 2017 in reference to this case and does your report indicate what you reviewed in determining your suicide risk for Miss Jensen it's us yes so in addition to the things that I previously mentioned including the trial transcript and my ability to speak uh with individuals who had testified I also had access to records from Dr Borman who I believe you've heard from as well as Mr DeFazio both of whom provided medical or mental health care to miss Jensen and the medical records that you reviewed from Dr Borman how far back did those go those went back to I believe um 19 1980 no I'm sorry 1994. I think were the medical records from Dr Borman whereas the medical records from Mr DeFazio were dated 1991. and you said that you reviewed transcripts of testimony do you recall whose testimony you reviewed yes uh specifically I was interested in the testimony of those who had spoken to miss Jensen just prior to her death that involved her neighbors the voids um as well as Miss Coster her sister-in-law and best friend uh and Dr Borman I also reviewed information from her brother Mr Griffin and Mr DeFazio who treated her and also missed DeFazio who was her son's teacher with whom she had had several interactions prior to her death now I understand that you spoke with some people on either on the telephone or in person uh you did speak with a Laura Coster is that right that's correct yes and I understand at some point you did speak with Mr Jensen in this case I did I had the opportunity to spend some time with Mr Jensen which was helpful to me because he provided a timeline that being said I did not rely on Mr Jensen as a source of information given that he has a vested interest in the outcome of this case I used the information he provided as a framework for which to check collateral sources and verify information so when determining someone's risk for suicide what are the kind of things that you are interested in finding out to break down suicide risk we'll talk first about static risk factors static risk factors are things that we know put people at risk for suicide but cannot be changed the things that I tend to clinically focus on more readily are Dynamic risk factors Dynamic risk factors are those things that can be altered in order to decrease someone's risk for suicide now as I'm sure you're aware you heard the judge say we're in week four of this trial the jury here has heard a lot of evidence in this case do you believe that you need to hear every single witness and every single bit of testimony in a homicide case in order to assess suicide risk for Ms Jensen I do not again I was asked a very specific question that relates only to miss Jensen's mental status at the time of her death so there is a lot of information that you all have received that I necessarily don't necessarily need to know or weigh in my calculation of her suicide risk foreign you're asked to make all of your opinions to a reasonable degree of medical certainty is that right that's correct and what is a reasonable degree of medical certainty need so as you sit here today making a decision in a criminal case you are asked to do so beyond a reasonable doubt that means because it's a criminal case in someone's Liberty is uh up for grabs that you would make that decision with a great deal of assurance I am asked to offer opinions with reasonable medical certainty in that I am just I have to tolerate a bit more uncertainty especially in Psychiatry because we don't necessarily know everything that's going on in someone's mind so when I'm asked to testify to a degree of reasonable medical certainty that just means that it is more likely than not than what I S that what I say is the case in my opinion now I'd like to start out with your report talking about Mental Health diagnoses is a mental health diagnosis part of a risk assessment for suicide yes and in particular the diagnosis that probably places one at greatest risk for suicide is major depressive disorder and common parlance depression one of the criteria for that is actually Suicidal Thoughts so when we're talking about diagnosing a mental illness is there like a piece of literature or a book or something that you have to refer to yes so in Psychiatry we use something called the diagnostic and statistical manual that lays out criteria for the major mental illnesses it has been widely accepted it is in its fifth edition at this point and I carry my beat up copy with me everywhere as you can tell we got tape on it and everything page has fallen out so this is something that I use every day in diagnostic assessments and this is the go-to source it's published by the American Psychiatric association and as I said its most recent Edition was published in 2013 with updated criteria now for major depressive disorder since we're already talking about that what are the things that you have to look for in determining if someone suffers from major depressive disorder so the first criteria not surprisingly of major depression is low mood if someone's complaining that they're feeling depressed that of course puts you on notice that major depression major depressive disorder might be a possible diagnosis and in this case did you find any evidence of that I did as a matter of fact just two days prior to her death Miss Jensen spoke to Dr Borman her primary care provider and he described her as looking miserable and depressed and is there a time amount of time that these type of symptoms have to go on in order for us to make a diagnosis yes so in the in the DSM which is a very concrete book it suggests symptoms of major depressive disorder must occur for at least two weeks or greater in order to qualify for the diagnosis given that Miss Jensen spoke with Dr Borman in September of 1998 about depression we can infer that the depression lasted for a period greater than two weeks far in excess of two weeks actually foreign and what other criteria does the date what what's another criteria that the DSM lays out for major depressive disorder so in training we learn a mnemonic device that's called Sig e caps and that helps us recall all nine symptoms of major depressive disorder those symptoms are problems with sleep problems with interest and activities problems with excessive guilt decreased energy concentration being impaired appetite changes psychomotor retardation or agitation that's to say someone feels that their physical movements are either sped up or slowed down and then finally suicidality in can you talk to us about the S sure so s is for sleep and one would look at both people who sleep too much and aren't sleeping at all according to Dr borman's notes Miss Jensen was not sleeping well in the days prior to her death to the point where he prescribes a medication indicated for sleep and then the I what is the I again I stands for interest interest in activities that one used to enjoy but may not derive pleasure from anymore now I did not find detailed information or collateral sources to support this in Miss Jensen's case that's not to say she didn't experience it but without having the opportunity to speak to her directly I can't confirm this and what is the G again G stands for Guilt uh excessive guilt we all feel guilty of course about a variety of things but uh this would be in excess of what's expected I found evidence of this in Miss Jensen's statements to a variety of people about an extramarital affair that she had had multiple years prior to 1998 indicating that she was experiencing guilt about this affair then we have the E for energy right yes e stands for decreased energy or fatigue and Miss Jensen uh I'm sorry Dr Borman reported in his notes from December 1st 1998 that Miss Jensen appeared fatigued and now on to the Caps of Siggy Caps c C is for concentration and though again I didn't find any specific evidence that could be confirmed with collateral sources that Miss Jensen experienced thus it's not to say that she didn't and the a is for appetite and I will say that there is objective concrete evidence that Miss Jensen experience decreased appetite namely in the fact that her weight changed uh from uh I'm sorry she lost 8.5 pounds between September and December that was 6.9 percent of her total body weight uh suggesting that she had decreased appetite and was not consuming food as readily and then we have the p P is for psychomotor agitation and that is feeling restless or unable to settle Dr Borman actually describes Miss Jensen on December 1st of 1998 as very upset distraught and almost frantic suggesting that she had evidence of psychomotor agitation and then s for suicidality so that that's a challenging one because that's of course what we're looking at we're looking at suicide risk that's the question um I would offer to you that she did experience suicidal ideation uh which is consistent with the major depressive disorder that I have evidence to diagnose her with so of the nine criteria that we've gone through here how many did you find I confirmed six of the nine criteria five are necessary to make a diagnosis again I would suggest that suicidality was present and then the two other criteria while I didn't have objective collateral information about this that's again not to say that she didn't experience these symptoms so that six made and it may be seven because of suicidality yes far in excess of what's required to diagnose major depressive disorder so when you have said that you didn't have enough evidence to say that that she suggested this certain Criterion what do you mean by that again if I were sitting with a patient I would ask them specifically and potentially ask their loved ones if they had witnessed these events because this case has occurred uh 30 years prior to 20 years prior to when I had the opportunity to review the information and the primary source of information is no longer available I did not have concrete evidence that other people were able to provide to say that these criteria existed now when you indicated that you believe there may be suicidal ideation what is suicidal ideation that is a wish to end one's own life and in this case I understand that uh you know strike that Dr West you said that there may be suicidal ideation are you aware that Ms Jensen told people that she was not suicidal yes and while that has been documented I will say as a clinically practicing psychiatrist I don't take that at face value I would be foolish too of course people who are intense upon killing themselves are not going to share with medical providers that they intend to do so that that would very likely lead to them going to the hospital and being put in a place where they're not capable of killing themselves so for that reason people are not always forthright about their thoughts to harm themselves are there any other reasons that people might not be forthright other than the risk of hospitalization yes of course suicide can be shameful there's still a great deal we've come a long way since 1998 but there is still a great deal of stigma attached to mental health issues and feeling like you want to hurt yourself and I think that Miss Jensen actually experienced this rather acutely she had told people throughout the years that her mother was ill and she was very concerns about being labeled quote unquote crazy like her mother she did not want to lose her children over the um possibility she did not want to lose her children which may have occurred in her mind again this is her perception uh that she would be hospitalized and labeled as crazy so we've gone through the criteria for major depressive disorder and do you have an opinion held to a reasonable degree of medical certainty on what Ms Jensen's diagnosis is yes it is my opinion with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that at the time of her death on December 3rd 1998 she was diagnosed with major depressive disorder recurrent because there is evidence to suggest that she had had previous depressive episodes now history of depression or diagnosis is that one of those static factors that you talked about yes any historical information is static because we can't change history so her previous episodes and history of mental health issues do represent a static risk factor what other static risk factors did you consider in this case I also considered her family history I just talked a little bit about her mom's own history of mental health her brother also confirmed that he himself made a suicide attempt at the age of 17. are there any other static factors that you had to consider in this case I also considered the idea that historically Miss Jensen was not necessarily forthright with treatment providers for example when she was seeing Mr DeFazio in 1991 she chose not to disclose the information that at that time she was having an affair she was engaged in therapy you would think that that would be a very important piece of information for her therapist to know and assist her in processing and I'd like to turn now to talking about some Dynamic risk factors and can you explain again what the difference between static and dynamic is sure so Dynamic risk factors are important to assess because those are things that are able to be changed the first and most obvious Dynamic risk factor in my estimation is her current symptomatology she was in the midst of a major depressive episode and that is amenable to treatment so again one would Target a dynamic risk factor for treatment in an effort to help someone feel better so the actual diagnosis of major depressive disorder plays into suicide risk absolutely again one of the criteria for major depressive disorder is suicidality what other things that was Ms Jensen experiencing at that time based on your review that would be a dynamic Factor so let me take a moment to explain what depression feels like it's a very common scenario we talk about it in everyday parlance I'm so depressed major depression is serious it leads to death and it that is because people feel hopeless and helpless and don't know how to get out of this Chasm that they feel that they're trapped in so while we may see them from up above and realize there's an end to their feeling bad they don't necessarily see that depression is a very difficult disease to live with and it's important to recognize that our perception of depression from the outside is not what somebody's experiencing internally so in reviewing these Dynamic risk factors from Miss Jensen's perspective it's important to put ourselves in her shoes and in your estimation were there any feelings of loss being experienced by Miss Jensen why don't you just rephrase it Miss Jenner Dr West and coming to your conclusion you study these Dynamic risk factors is an experience of loss something that would be a risk factor yes so that's a pretty serious risk factor and at the time uh when Miss Jensen's death occurred I believe that she experienced again this is from her perspective what she felt to be multiple losses and this may not again be readily apparent to people outside of her but this was her personal experience first of all she spoke about her youngest growing up and going off to daycare and not having a baby at home anymore that was an acute loss for her she also spoke of not having uh much of a support system and this is indicated by the idea that she turned to people that um she felt or rather from the outside looked like they were not very close to her as a matter of fact it does seem that to the outside Observer she had a good support system she was married she had a best friend who was also her sister-in-law those are not the people that she confided in with very important and personal information she shared this with a casual neighbor as well as a teacher that she'd only known a few months that's me suggests that she did not feel like she had anyone she could turn to for support well you earlier said something about the label of crazy affecting her how did that affect her I do think that she was particularly sensitive to this nobody wants to be labeled crazy but because of her own personal history with her mother this really hit her in a very different way I think she was very concerned about losing her children over the idea that she would be labeled crazy and unable to care for them now did Miss Jensen appear to have any misperceptions about her situation so as we just talked about in regard to the losses as well as um her feelings that she uh was losing her children and losing her um her marriage I also feel like she was misperceiving other portions of reality she was described as being odd on a number of occasions by her sister-in-law who knew her quite well and she expressed concern about different things that didn't seem to add up and this was historical as well for example she she reported a multiple years prior this incident that involved both her sister-in-law best friend as well as her husband when she was frantic about feces being smeared in the bathroom when the sister-in-law and husband her husband came home this was not at all the case so there's some historical evidence as well as contemporary evidence to December 1st that she had some difficulties with perceiving reality around her now additionally you're aware that Ms Jensen made some statements that she was in fear of her husband how did that play into your analysis I certainly took that into account she did report that to her neighbors but again given that her perception was distorted in terms of her support and her losses I had concern that perhaps she wasn't perceiving this correctly as well and what would make you think that that would be based on some facts that I think are important to note um while she stated that she was fearful of her husband she was a woman of means she had access to the family's finances she was a very bright woman and was well aware of the resources available to her and she chose not to pursue any of these resources there are a couple of very specific examples of that namely the neighbor Mr Voigt offered her both money and a place to stay after she shared with him that she was fearful he did she did not take him up on that and the teacher Miss DeFazio offered to help connect her with a woman shelter where she could go to be out of danger related to her husband and again she chose not to pursue this and I believe there was one other person that also offered her an out is that correct um she oh yes her sister-in-law also suggested that she could uh remove herself from the situation and had the means to do so and she did not again do that upon the advice of her best friend sister-in-law Curry did hear evidence previously that Ms Jensen appeared flat at times when talking about issues what does that mean to you as a psychiatrist when I see somebody who is flat or cannot express emotion I'm concerns about two things the first would be depression to the extent where they can't feel anything the second would be a more serious not more serious a different serious diagnosis um psychosis it's actually one of the things that can precipitate a flat affect or lack of emotional expression is there anything about isolation in this case that struck you in making your risk assessment I do think that Miss Jensen set up a window for herself in which she would be capable of ending her life and by that I can give you some very specific examples she shared with her best friend and sister-in-law preemptively even prior to seeing her medical provider that she would be started on medication that she would experience side effects to this medication and therefore not to worry if she didn't come with her son to karate practice she on that would be on December 2nd on December 2nd she also called her neighbors and told them if they didn't see her outside they were not to worry because she was okay and then she also wrote a note to the teacher Miss DeFazio on that day that she would not be in because she was not well so she had almost created a space for herself in which people who would be concerned about her not presenting to a variety of activities had been given notice as to where she was is that something that you see in people who are suicidal yes for example a hunter who tells his wife that he's going away for the weekend to hunt he's created a window in which he would be alone naturally and he has a weapon that would be used for what appear to be benign purposes and instead of course he's he's created a space for himself to end his life now this jury did hear evidence and you've alluded to this that on December 1st Julie Jensen was reaching out to her uh doctor Dr Borman about depression why would someone get help a few days before taking their own life it's been my experience clinically that people who do develop thoughts of killing themselves are ambivalence about it and by ambivalence I mean that they have both very strong feelings about wanting to live and very strong feelings about wanting to die and so when they're feeling strongly that they want to live that would be an opportunity to reach out for help but they may have second thoughts about that so there's a lot of back and forth and people who are experiencing thoughts of harming themselves now I believe we've had conversations about hesitation marks and things along those lines what what are hesitation marks so hesitation marks would be physical signs that I might look for in somebody who is thinking about ending their life by cutting themselves and engages in practice and that is um could be manifested in a variety of ways and other people who had thought of other means to harm themselves for example Russian roulette with a gun or making a noose but not hanging oneself there's some rehearsal that goes into especially due to ambivalence one's practice in killing themselves and was there anything in this case that might be considered a hesitation or a practice I believe that Miss Jensen was unwell at a time when her husband was away and the source of that is unclear but you know it that could be potentially related to an attempt or a trial run at harming herself so with this ambivalence that you've spoken about are there times when that leads to someone making a dis that it that I'm trying to figure out how to say this right how does that affect a person's actions in the days or weeks leading up to a suicide I think that ambivalence causes a lot of conflicting information people may reach out from help for help and then Retreat people may see the doctor but then not take the medications that are prescribed I think you get a lot of pieces of conflicting information so in your estimation as a forensic psychiatrist in this matter do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to Julie Jensen's suicide risk I do and what is that opinion it is my opinion with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Miss Jensen on December 3rd 1998 was at high risk for suicide based on the factors we discussed an additional factor that I would like to add in that I did consider was Ms coster's report on the last time that she saw Miss Jensen that Miss Jensen was unusually emotive and shared with her how much she appreciated Miss coster's support and loved her and Ms Coster qualified this as being almost like a goodbye now we've already talked about statements Julie Jensen made indicating that she is not suicidal do those statements again does that change your opinion at all no not at all can an educated person commit suicide yes as we know anyone can commit suicide it's always a tragic event and a terrible loss but it affects everyone and do devoted mothers commit suicide yes people with children commit suicide people with parents commit suicide people with brothers and sisters commit suicide do people you would describe as kind and loving commit suicide yes amazing people commit suicide every day it's a national problem and since this time there has been a national hotline that's been instituted to assist people with suicidal thoughts no further questions uh who's doing the cross go ahead Mr jambos so doctor let's talk about City caps that's how you pronounce it right City caps yes because I pronounce the sage caps the other day and that was um that was wrong so the expert did he was talking about so sticky cap starts with sleep correct yes and you indicated that Julie because Julie was manifesting sleep problems that's that's the first uh first the the F's and c cap stands for Sleep problems correct yes were you aware of the fact that Julie had seen Dr Borman on December 1st correct yes and on December 1st Dr Borman has no notes at all that reflect any kind of a sleep problem are you aware of that yes and you are aware that Dr Borman has expressed a familiarity that he knows what city caps is and he does kind of a thumbnail sketch of that in his 15-minute interview with his patients were you aware of that yes and uh he indicated that if there'd been sleep problems he would have noted that in his uh notes and he did not note anything about sleep problems on December 1st 1998. so are you aware of that that he indicated that if there were sleep problems he would have noted it yes okay oh so the the only issue about sleep problems didn't come from Julie Jensen did it that's correct it came from Mark Jensen yes Mark Jensen and you know Mark Jensen in addition to her being husband is also a murder suspect in this case you're aware of that correct he was not at the time well actually he was his his wife Julie Jensen suspected that Mark was trying to murder her you were aware of that weren't you yes but he was not a murder suspect on December 1st 1998. well his wife suspected that he was trying to kill her right yes and she now expressed that to Dr Barman did she she did not but she did express it to her friend and next door neighbor to avoid correct correct and she expressed that thought to her uh son's third grade teacher Teresa Fazio correct correct and she expressed that thought to her best friend who happened to be Mark Jensen's Sister Laura Coster isn't that true yes and do you recall do you know Julie Jensen then later recounted that conversation that she had with Laura Custer were you aware of that in what way are you aware that Julie Jensen told her next door neighbor Todd Coster and she also told her friend or her teacher uh Teresa Fazio that um when Julie had told Laurie that she thought Mark was trying to kill her objection hearsay spend actually this goes to this witness's perception of Julie Jensen being take a break in Oaks I'm sorry what we're going to take but let the jury go off all right the jury is outside of the courtroom are you objecting Miss Renner to what Julie Jensen said to Mr Mark Jensen's sister no your honor so this is actually I believe what Mr jamboy's is trying to bring into this cross-examination is that Julie Jensen told the voice or Miss DeFazio that she had a conversation with Laura and Laura said blah blah blah um about or not blah blah blah but said that Ms Coster was basically agreeing why don't I just why don't I make the offer proof um what what uh Ted Voit testified to and what Teresa Fazio will testify to is that when Julie told her about her conversation with Laura Coster who was her best friend but was also Mark Jensen's brother our sister um she told him Laura Coster told Julie Jensen I lived with them for 18 years you have no idea what he's capable of now Laura Caster has denied making that statement but there are two independent Witnesses who indicated that Julie Jensen did recount that to Laura Coster or did recount that that's what Laura Coster said to her and the question is whether or not that reflects that maybe Julie was not um she was not delusional she was not um detached from reality about her concerns about her perception that her husband was trying to kill her defense count this witness indicated her perception was I forgot her perception was just what was the term you said just it was distorted her perception was distorted I couldn't read my own handwriting her perception was distorted um so if her perception was influenced by those around her then that's not that it wouldn't reflect to me that her perception was distorted she had good reason to believe that Mark Jensen was trying to kill her because her own his own sister had told her I lived with him for 18 years you have no idea what he's capable of now Laura Koster is denying that but Laura Coster lied under oath the other day she's a biased witness we don't have the jury in front of us I know I know but she she's a biased witness your honor all right I'll give you one more response if you please your honor this is multiple levels of hearsay deep here and Ms Coster denies making any such statement we don't have MS Jensen here to say that yes Laura said that we have multiple layers of hearsay here and I don't believe that it's being offered just for Miss Jensen's perception but I believe it's being offered for the truth of the matter asserted why don't you do it as a hypothetical question okay I will do that but I would say this your honor um Mark Jensen is forfeited his right to challenge any hearsay uh they have no right to make any hearsay objections to anything that Julie Jensen said because he forfeited his right to do that that's what the Wisconsin Supreme Court said and that's what the Wisconsin court of appeals said and that's the law of the case they have no hearsay objection to anything that Julie Jensen said all right we'll bring back the jury and we'll do it as a hypothetical question girlfriend we're back on a record on Mark Jensen the appearances are the same the jury's back in a courtroom thank you for your patience ladies and gentlemen uh you can ask your question Mr jamboise thank you so Dr Ward I'm going to start over again I'm sorry uh Dr West um you recounted in your testimonies some conversations that Julie Jensen had with Laura Coster correct yes and one of those conversations was when Julie Jensen showed Laura Caster a photograph of a Post-It note that she'd found in Mark Jensen's day planner is that correct yes and when Julie Jensen was showing that Post-It note to Laura Coster um that's when Laura Coster had according to what you said Laura Costa offered to provide her with assistance if she needed to go somewhere correct yes now um are you aware that Julie Jensen had also discussed that conversation she had with Laura Costa with two other people were you aware of that no she discussed that Converse that you weren't aware that she discussed her conversation with Laura Costa she discussed that with Ted Voigt and she also discussed it with Teresa Fazio were you aware of that I don't recall that specifically no no you'd indicated that you thought Julie one of the reasons that you thought that Julie was suffering from major depressive disorders because her perception of reality was distorted correct yes and one of the reasons that you thought of perceptional reality was distorted is because she thought her husband may be trying to kill her correct yes were you aware that when Julie Jensen described this conversation that she had with Laura Coster to Ted Voigt again objection your honor this overall go ahead were you aware that at the time that Julie Jensen had this conversation to just later described this conversation that she'd have Laura Costa when she described it to Ted Voigt and to Teresa Fazio that Julie Jensen described Laura coster's reaction to seeing that note and having this conversation were you aware of that no okay well hypothetically speaking if Julie Jensen told Ted Voigt and told theres DeFazio that when she showed this Post-It note to Laura Coster and expressed her concerns to Laura Coster Laura Costa replied I lived with him for 18 years you have no idea what he's capable of if hypothetically that's what Laura Coster said to Julie Jensen would that not indicate that perhaps her perception of reality was not distorted that in fact she had reason to believe that her husband was trying to kill her I'm not sure how to interpret that statement in terms of not knowing what he's capable of that seems relatively non-specific so Julie Jensen presents Laura Coster who is the sister of Mark Jensen with in this information and her suspicions that her husband Laura Caster's brother may be trying to kill her and Laura Caster's response I lived with him for 18 years you have no idea what he's capable of you don't know what interests to draw from that no um and you've got a medical degree and a pH a medical degree in your forensic psychiatrist and you have no idea what inference you could possibly draw from that do you think the fact that Julie Jensen might possibly have drawn the inference that gee maybe my husband is trying to kill me you think that means her perception of reality was distorted I'm sorry can you repeat the question do you think the the that if Julie Jensen drew the infant said Gee maybe my husband really is trying to kill me after what Laura Coster said to you do you think that's an unreasonable inference for her to draw I don't know what inference she Drew from that because it seems like a vague statement I lived with him for 18 years you have no idea what he's capable of that seems like a vague statement yes um now Laura Coster talked to you years and years after this after the death of Julie Jensen correct yes it was many years later was it in 2010 2012 do you remember what it was 2017 2017. so in 2017 uh she was giving you all this information about Julie that would reflect that possibly Julie was depressed or had a major depressive disorder correct no we only spoke for five minutes she confirmed that she provided what she provided in testimony at the time of the trial okay so um and you what you said when you were looking at this case among the criteria one of the things you looked at was a psychiatric case study written by herzl Spiro on May 26 2004 is that correct yes did you attach much weight to that study or that report I did not but you did review it I looked at it yes and you said you interviewed Mark Jensen in this case I did but you see I didn't see that as a source of information here on your letter to Ms vishni that's correct so how much time do you spend talking to Mark Jensen five hours and you left that off your thing here uh so maybe we should add that five hour interview with Mark Jensen how much significance did you attach to that information as I explained earlier I used it as a framework to confirm information with other sources I did not use him as a direct source of information given his vested interest in this case so when did you ask him about whether or not he had emotionally and psychologically tortured his wife in the Years preceding her death I did not were you aware that the jury in this case assert evidence that Mark Johnson had launched a um a years-long campaign of harassment and uh emotional torture and psychological gaslighting of Julie Jensen that lasted from 1992 through 1998. were you aware of that yes but you didn't ask Mark Jensen about that no are you of the impression that that was somebody else that did that that it wasn't Mark Jensen that did that I don't know well would that affect uh your Julie's perception of reality if she thought if she had reason to suspect that her husband was one that was doing that would that would would she then have further reason to suspect maybe her husband was trying to kill her repeat the question well if in fact at the time that Julie Jensen was upset and distraught about the circumstances of her marriage and also was concerned that her husband was trying to kill her with the fact that she had reason to believe that for the preceding not seven years he had been subjecting her to a campaign of uh abuse harassment and um seeking to demean her and humiliate her would that if she had reason to believe that would her perception of reality be distorted because she suspected her husband was trying to kill her I don't think that's been verified as a fact oh um but if it was hypothetically hypothetically let's say the jury here to your right my left let's say they've heard evidence that would pretty clearly indicate that Mark Jensen was the person doing that leaving these making these hang up phone calls leaving these pornographic photos around the house and basically rubbing Julie's nose in them if the jury had reason to believe that Mark Jensen was the person that was doing that might that lend further Credence to Julia Jensen's perception of reality that her husband might be possibly trying to kill her if he was the one responsible for those things it may impact her mental status yes but also reflect that her perception of reality was not distorted that in fact she had a pretty darn good perception of reality if she thought her husband had a motive to kill her if he'd not forgiven her for an affair that she had years and years earlier um could you repeat the question if in fact Julie Jensen believed that Mark Jensen never forgave her for the affair that she'd had years and years earlier and if in fact Mark Jensen manifested his hatred for his wife by doing all these hang up phone calls this emotional torture leaving photos around the house for her to find and that or telling him she got them telling her that he got them at work if in fact he did that that would lend Credence to Julie Jensen's perception of reality at the time that her husband was trying to kill her wouldn't it I actually heard two hypothetical scenarios there okay which one are you referring well either one of them would either one of those cause you to believe that Julie Jensen actually an accurate perception of reality when she suspected that her husband might be trying to kill her if either one of those scenarios was correct yes yes I would say that that would lend some Credence to the idea that she had reason to be fearful of her husband now in the city cap thing um you emphasize guilt you said that Ms Jensen was feeling guilt about a an affair she had years earlier correct yes but Julie Jensen never indicated that she was feeling guilty about it are you aware that what she actually told Dr Borman is that her husband had never forgiven her for it would that indicate that she was feeling guilt or would that indicate that that her husband had never forgiven her for it I think it does indicate guilt um what about are you with a Dave nearing testified in this matter and he testified that he knew Mark Jensen very very well and during the whole time that he knew Mark Jensen Mark Jensen never forgave Julie Jensen for that one um that one weekend Affair that she'd had years and years and years earlier were you aware of that I think that's his perception while his perception based upon his Communications with Mark Jensen well in your five-hour interview with Mark Jensen did you ask him is it true that you never forgave your wife for having an affair one weekend Affair um seven years before she's died I did not and if he told you that's true I never forgave her I hated her because she had that Affair seven years that one weekend Affair seven years earlier I never forgave her for it I hated her for it uh that wouldn't it would that influence your perception of whether or not Julie Jensen was suffering from major depressive disorder or that she was just scared because she thought her husband might be trying to kill her objection assumes facts not on evidence overall go ahead no that would not affect your uh your perception of whether Julie Jensen was um her perception reality was distorted no you asked about major depressive disorder well I also but one of the reasons that you think she's suffering from major depressive disorder is because you felt that her perception of reality was distorted didn't you say that doctor I think that's part of the process and the diagnosis so if in fact her perception of reality was not distorted then that would undermine your diagnosis wouldn't it no so even if her perceptionality was not the least bit distorted then your your diagnosis Remains the Same yes and even though she didn't have any didn't completely sleep disorder your diagnosis Remains the Same yes so whose perception reality is that issue here yours are Julie Jensen's because it seems that you say these things were important that they're part of your diagnosis and then when they're refuted that has no effect on your diagnosis at all isn't that true we're going to rephrase it go ahead Mr Jim phrase it I'm trying to get your perception reality here doctor you indicated that in your honor argumentative and the tone here is argumentative take one one step at a time Mr Jim so doctor you testified earlier on direct examination that one of the reasons you believe that Julie Jensen suffered from major depressive disorder is because her perception was distorted correct no oh you didn't say that I got the notes wrong her perception was distorted you didn't say that no I said she met criteria four major depressive disorder and because of major depressive disorder her perceptions were distorted oh but now you've learned that her perception in this respect at least was not distorted correct I have not learned that you don't believe that Julie just had any reason to believe that her husband was actually trying to kill her I don't I believe her perception about that was distorted what was it was distorted by her major depressive disorder yes and the evidence that her perception was distorted was exactly what what about Julie Jensen's perception was distorted that she believed she reported to others that her husband was trying to harm her but her actions didn't match the belief that she shared if she truly believed that he was trying to hurt her and she had all her faculties about her I believe she would have sought help as a woman of means who had access to such uh such ways of avoiding her husband and avoiding harm to herself so in your experience women who are victims of domestic violence always leave as soon as they have the ability to do so no so in point of fact many many many women who are in abusive domestic relationships remain with them because they they want to make that they want to make it work so they take the risk of additional abuse don't they at the hands of their abusers are we talking about Miss Jensen because I don't believe there's evidence to suggest she was in a relationship involving domestic violence well what about so you don't think that a years-long campaign of Terror and humiliation directed against her by her husband you don't think that's a sign of an abusive relationship I don't have evidence that that occurred okay well you know that there were years and years and years of hang-up phone calls directed at Julie Jensen correct I do and you are aware that there were years and years of obscene pornographic penis photos being left around her house and being left at Mr Jensen's place of business correct yes and you are aware that Mark Jensen attribute told Julie that it was Perry tarika that was doing that correct uh I was aware that it is unknown who the perpetrator was you are aware that Julie Jensen repeatedly called the police about this correct yes and you were aware that Julie was very obviously upset about this wasn't she yes and in fact Mark Jensen indicated that when he'd raised this issue with her it would be it would be very upsetting to Julie correct I could see where that would be the case yes well that's what he said when he was interviewed by detective ratzberg he said that it was very upsetting to her correct I don't know that to be true but I assume so and he also told that he also told Paul rasburg that sometimes he get you know angry as he put it pissed and he'd then show these photos to Julie were you aware of that not specifically no okay well Sue hypothetically that Mark Jensen told detective ratsburg yeah sometimes he get pissed off and he'd bring out these photos and throw and show them to Julie um so hypothetically assuming that's true that would reflect that Mark Jensen was using these photos as a means by which to upset and humiliate his wife correct no I wouldn't characterize it like that were you aware that um law the law Pleasant Prairie Police Department investigated this matter these matters thoroughly and con and they both the officers that looked at this case and including a private investigator that looked at this case they all told Julie there was Mark Jensen was doing this were you aware of that no well hype hypothetically let's assume for a moment that when the police investigated this matter all the police officers who investigated and the private investigator who investigated all told her that it's not Paul Perry tarika that's doing this it's it's Mark Jensen that's doing this assuming that's the case would you still think that her perception of reality was distorted by the fact that she suspected her husband may be trying to harm her again to clarify I don't know that the perpetrator was ever identified but hypothetically speaking if that were the case then yes I would assume that that would be something that she could uh interpret to mean that her husband was upset or angry with her and she had reason to believe that right she had reason to believe on in the in the weeks and months preceding her death she had reason to believe the following things number one she had recently believed that her husband was having an affair didn't she yes and you are aware that her husband was having an affair correct yes and you are aware that her husband had made plans to go off on a cruise somewhere with his lover Kelly Labonte or not that time Kelly griemann um that he was trying to do that sometime in 1999 you were aware of that right yes and um the the his lover Kelly Freeman divorced her husband correct yes and Julie Jensen just conveniently disappeared I mean just died it wasn't that convenient for Mark Jensen he could have he could have Kelly Green argument he's asking a question go ahead ask it was it very convenient for Mark Johnson that his lover divorced her husband and his wife just suddenly died so he didn't have to worry about taking care of his wife so he'd go on this cruise with with Kelly agreement that was very convenient wasn't it no I don't think the loss of a spouse is typically described as convenient I think there are a number of ways to terminate a marriage that don't end in the death of a spouse sure and if Mark Jensen was planning on going off with his girlfriend Kelly griemann then you'd think he might be looking into ways to accomplish that objective like maybe he'd be looking up divorce lawyers right he'd be looking for a divorce looking at divorce lawyers right I think the time frame is important to consider here it was 1998 I don't know that people looked things up on the Internet quite as readily as they do these days oh so you mean to tell me that in your hours and hours of looking at this case and interviewing Mark Jensen you you never asked him about all the internet research he did in this case I did not ask him about all the internet research did you ask about any of the internet research he did I don't recall specifically did you ask him about looking up poisons on the internet did you ask about that no you are aware that there was an extensive internet search on Mark Jensen's computer for botulism ethylene glycol and a variety of other poisonous substances are you aware of that my understanding was that it was a family computer oh so you're now you're saying it wasn't so you are aware of these searches then you're telling us yes okay so you are aware that people are doing internet searches on the Jensen home computer correct yes but none of those searches pertain to divorce lawyers did they not to my knowledge no and none of them pertain to say oh um child custody issues did they not to my knowledge so the whoever was using the Jensen family computer they weren't looking for a divorce lawyer they weren't looking for they weren't looking up things about uh support requirements they were just looking up botulism pressing garlic which by the way apparently caused botulism uh pipe bombs Mercury fulminate and a wide variety of other things they were looking up things like that on the internet you're aware of that yes so you are aware that people can look things up on the internet and do internet searches correct back in 1998 yes and Mark and you are aware that Mark Jensen did not spend any time looking up divorce lawyers in fact nobody looked up divorce lawyers on the Jensen home computer in 1998 did they I don't know that Mark Jensen didn't look up divorce lawyers well hypothetically speaking then assume for a moment that a computer analyst examined the hard drive of March of the Jensen family home computer and found absolutely no evidence of any searches for divorce lawyers would that cause you to infer that perhaps nobody looked up divorced lawyers on the internet on the Jensen home computer yes on that particular computer and on that particular computer there were all these emails between Mark Jensen and Kelly Labonte were um Mark Jensen was clearly having an affair with Kelly Labonte Kelly griemann correct you were aware of that right yes and during this one particular Exchange in mid-october of 1998 when Kelly Greenman is talking about well you know we have these issues and Mark Jensen replied well you know the details are just noise in the bigger picture correct that's what he said you remember that I don't well Kelly Greenman was talking about her issue she was talking about her husband and she was someone divorcing him when she asked specifically asked mark what he was going to do about his issues he said he replied details are just noise in the bigger picture of things um you weren't aware of that he said that no do you know what a narcissist is yes tell us tell the jury what a narcissist is uh in layman's terms or diagnostic terms well the terms that us Mortals won't understand that's what the jury and I can understand you so narcissist is common parlance for uh something in the DSM called narcissistic personality disorder those are typically people who uh feel that they are more important than others they enjoy interacting with people that they consider of their statue or greater they tend to be um uh arrogant condescending uh and and enjoy status and only associate people with people who they consider to have equal or greater status I heard a psychiatrist on TV once said that to a narcissist the narcissist is a son and the rest of us are all planets would that does that sound like a pretty app description that's a pretty good analogy yes so when Mark Jensen's talking about his wife and his two sons and he refers them as just detailed as noise in the greater picture of things does that sound like maybe a narcissistic response on Mark Johnson I didn't assess Mark Jensen's personality or any personality disorders that he might have yeah I know you were just focusing on Julie Jensen um you indicated I'm direct that it's important to put ourselves in the shoes of Julie Jensen yes do you think that that's what you did in this case yes so you think that because she didn't take uh up uh the offer of Laura Coster that she could go somewhere or she didn't take up the offer of Teresa Fazio to go to Women's and Children's Horizons and she didn't take up the offer of Ted white to go off somewhere that that reflected that well what what should that reflect in yours in your eyes putting yourself in Julie Jensen's shoes what did that mean to you I think that's evidence of her distorted perception of reality um what if she well you are aware that Julie Jensen told Ted Voigt that she wasn't sure if her husband was actually trying to kill her or actually leaving these things around the house for her to find so that she would think he was trying to kill her and then she would do something stupid and then you take the kids away from her you are aware that that's the conversation that Julie Jensen had with Ted Voight right I know that she was fearful of losing her children because her husband would make her do something that would make her look crazy and then she'd lose her children right I'm sorry can you repeat the question well Julie Jensen was talking to Ted void and she told Ted Voigt but her husband was doing that he's trying to get her to drink things and she wouldn't drink things or eat things because she thought he was trying to poison her you remember that correct yes then she also but I'm not sure is he trying to kill me or is just trying to make me crazy do something crazy so that I will call the police and then I'll let be the one that looks crazy because they'll get rid of all the evidence did did you indic did you understand do you remember that she said that to Ted White yes I recall her expressing concern about the potential of being harmed and some confusion about what was happening at home now you say she should have taken advantage of these offers you know she did call the police right she you know she called the police she did and the police came out and they they she gave them the film that she'd taken uh that I mean back then it was 35 millimeter camera so she gave them the rolls of 35 millimeter millimeter film you're aware of that right yes I'm also aware that she didn't show them any physical evidence you don't think that photographs are physical evidence they were at the house she did not show them the things that she had taken photographs of yeah all she did was hand him the film correct correct and then the police developed the film correct I assume so and she they gave her the photographs I mean she showed the one of the photographs that they uh that they um that they finished they they then they gave back to her she showed that to Laura Coster didn't she uh yes I will assume so she they she showed Laura Costa the photograph of the Post-it note that was on Mark Jensen's day planner correct yes and there's no question that Mark Jensen wrote that Post-It note is there in your mind I no I assume that he did and when the police recovered the day planner uh on December 3rd the Post-it note was gone you're aware of that no well hypothetically why don't you accept the proposition that then the Post-it note was gone when the police recovered his day planner on December 3rd 1998 so that would indicate that somebody got rid of the Post-it note right yes so the evidence that was left out made possibly for her to see she saw it and then he got rid of it somebody got rid of it either mark Jensen got rid of it or Julie Jensen got rid of it correct it was no longer there yes so maybe Julie Jensen might have had putting yourself in her shoes maybe she might have had a reason to think that her husband was trying to make her look crazy so that she'd report him to the police and then the police would come in they'd look at the day planner and say Julie there's no Post-It note here we don't know what you're talking about um maybe Julie had a good reason to believe that Mark Johnson was doing things to make her either look crazy or be crazy correct I suppose in a hypothetical scenario yes that is possible and hypothetically I mean you've heard you you've heard of the movie Gaslight right I mean if you're a forensic psychiatrist you must have seen the movie Gaslight I have not really I highly recommend it to you but let's assume hypothetically The Gaslight was about a husband who wanted to drive his wife crazy so he was doing things around the house to make her think things were happening that were not actually happening he was doing them um that's called gaslighting right I'm familiar with that term yes yes and so if for seven years Mark Jensen was gaslighting Julie Jensen trying to make her believe that Perry tarika was making all these hang up phone calls and leaving these penis photos around the house um if Julie had come to suspect that was the case then she would have a further reason to believe that Mark Jensen might be trying to make her crazy or make her look crazy right if there is enough evidence to suggest that Mr Jensen was doing those things yes I think gaslighting is a particular form of challenging someone's mental status so if in fact that was happening then once again to get back to Julie Jensen's alleged distorted perception of reality her perception that regard wouldn't be distorted would it she'd actually have good reason to believe that her husband might be trying to make her look crazy wouldn't she could you repeat the question if in fact Mark Jensen had engaged in a years-long campaign of harassment and demeaning of Julie Jensen Costa tried to make her believe that it was Perry tarika that was doing that if in fact he'd done that and then also she'd been told that by the police that was Mark Johnson was doing it then on December 3rd 1998 December 2nd 1998 and December 1st 1998 the last days of her life Julie Jackson would have pretty good reason to believe that her husband might be trying to make her look crazy or might be trying to kill her right so I'm hearing multiple hypotheticals well let's start with one hypothetically let's assume that Julie Jensen had reason to believe that Mark Jensen was the one who'd been gaslighting for the preceding seven years do you accept that Julie there was information that that Julie could reasonably infer that Mark Jensen was the one that was doing that do you accept that proposition I don't know who did it I know but if Julie Jensen had been told by police officers and a private investigator that it wasn't Perry tarika that it was her husband then she would have reason to suspect that Mark Jensen was the person that was doing it correct yes I think she had reason to suspect and so she'd also have reason to suspect that either he might be trying to kill her or he might be trying to make it look like he's doing that so that he could induce her to take some drastic step that then he could use against her and take her children away she might have reason to suspect that right I've based on what based on the fact that she'd found a Post-It note on his day planner with this list of things on it that well did you see that list of things I mean it included aspirin and nicotrol and Librium and razor blades and bag hands um a variety of just notes that didn't make a lot of sense to the police at the time um so if she saw that note and she photographed it and then later the note was gone it was missing might she have reason to believe that Mark Jensen was just trying to set her up I think that would be a logical leap that I would not make I foreign are you aware that Mark Jensen had specifically told Julie that if she ever divorced him he'd take the kids were you aware of that not specifically but that seems like a comment that's pretty prevalent in divorce scenarios so and you are aware of that according to everybody according to everybody you saw Julie whether it's Paul DeFazio or Dr Borman or Teresa Fazio or all of the neighbors everybody said that you that Julie's boys were everything to her right yes so taking away her boys would be the threat of taking away your boys would be terrified to Julie wouldn't it yes but for people with good ego strength divorce happens and people co-parent so I don't think that that is while a threat I don't think it is tantamount to something that is out of the ordinary in terms of couples who get divorced for persons you think Julie had do you have any reason to believe that Julie had good egos egos strength at the time that um Mark Jensen was uh engaging these this pattern of behavior against her I think that she suffered significantly with symptoms of depression well I know it's and it seems like it's kind of a circular reasoning here to me and correct me if I'm wrong um you diagnose depressive major depressive disorder because her perception of reality was distorted and yet there's pretty clear evidence that her perceptuality was not distorted that she saw what was going on around her and she was concerned and terrified by it again I will re-characterize the diagnosis of major depression based on the criteria Sig ecaps that we discussed I think one of the byproducts of her major depressive disorder was difficulty perceiving reality so we'll go back to Ziggy caps again sleep um the only person who talked about Julie having any sleep problems with Mark Jensen isn't that true yes he was attempting to get a medication to alleviate her difficulty with sleep oh or he was getting medication to gazer to sleep so she'd sleep through the symptoms of his poisoning of her that's another option right I suppose that would be an option yeah but you didn't Express that option you expressed the option that he was concerned about her well-being again I offer opinions with reasonable medical certainty which is more likely than not more likely than not it is my opinion that he called for Sleep medications and a woman who had been to see the doctor the day before and was diagnosed as being depressed but the day before Dr Borman had not made any notes whatever of any sleep problems correct yes and um do you suppose that when Dr Borman gave that prescription to Mark Jensen he said now as soon as you get home give her a dose of Ambien and then tonight give her another dose of Ambien then first thing in the morning give her another dose of Ambien do you suppose that's the way that Dr Borman suggested that Mark Jensen should handle this Ambien I don't know well you've prescribed Ambien don't you typically not you don't prescribe Ambien no I don't really no why not it's a controlled substance and you don't like giving people Ambien I tend not to prescribe it because I think they're more appropriate options for sleep so and it's a controlled substance and it can have un uh toward consequences correct it is psychoactive that's the reason that it's a controlled substance but if you were to prescribe it to a well first of all would you give a prescription to a husband who was coming in on behalf of his wife or would you expect to talk to the wife first I think we practice a bit differently now I would ensure that I had a release of information prior to communicating with any family member who was calling directly about a patient and if a patient and if a family member was calling about for example a husband came in to see the doctor about his wife would would you prescribe uh Ambien to your patient the wife just based upon the representations that the husband made I wouldn't prescribe Ambien at all based on my own personal practice what would you prescribe any prescribed medication at all to give any prescribed medication at all for a patient just based on what the husband said without first talking to the patient if that individual was their Guardian I would yes because they would be the one to perfect mind consent if the man was the guardian well is Mark was Mark Johnson Julie Jensen's Guardian on December 2nd 1998. not to my knowledge so Julie was not in need of a guardian on December 2nd 1998 was she so I'll guess as I'll just ask this hypothetical question one more time if a a man came into your practice the day after you just seen his wife and asked for some prescribed medication for her would you prescribe that medication for her by just based on the man's representation without first talking to the wife in 2023 I would not I was not practicing in 1998. but you're happy to diagnose her based upon Mr Jensen's representations to you no so um you base your diagnosis on not just on what Mark Jensen said or even not on what Mark chenson said at all correct I based my diagnosis on other sources such as uh Ted Voigt his yes the information that he provided did way into my opinion about her suicide risk I don't believe I specifically used information from Ted Voight regarding diagnostic criteria well what information did you rely upon for Diagnostic criteria namely Dr borman's information as he is he is the medical provider that saw her most proximal to the time of her death so Dr Borman is principally the reason that you've come to this conclusion that Julie suffered from major depressive disorder yes and yet you didn't even properly or accurately consider Dr borman's testimony did you because on the sleep thing you indicated that was came from Dr Berman it didn't come or Julie Jensen it didn't come from either one of them it came from Mark Jensen and only Mark Jensen isn't that true no where else did it come from Dr Borman Dr borman's notes indicate Dr Borman indicated that Julie Jensen had said that she suffered from a sleep disorder Dr Borman indicated in his notes that she had a sleep disorder for which he prescribed medications no he did not say that he did he indicated actually that's absolutely inconsistent about Dr Roman just testified to in this courtroom what he said in this courtroom was that he did not he did not make note of any sleep problems at all with Julie Jensen in December 1st we saw her I'm not talking about December 1st you're talking about December 2nd yes he indicated that she had sleep problems for which he prescribed a medication but that information came exclusively from Mark Jensen correct yes but he documented it in his note suggesting that he accepted and believed it so because Dr Borman wrote down in his notes that Julie Jensen had a sleep problem that's something you can rely upon even though all of the information came from the accused murderer in this case I assume that Dr Borman used the information that Mr Jensen provided in combination with his interview from her the day prior in which he thought he was she was depressed and as trouble with sleeping is one of the symptoms of depression it made sense to him that she would have a sleep disorder to the point where he actually prescribed a medication to treat that sleeping disorder doctor you just made all that up didn't you you just made all that stuff up Dr Borman didn't testify objection argument sustained ask it a different way well you know doctor West Dr Borman testified in this courtroom the jury heard him testify he never said anything about Julie having any sleep problems on December 1st now will you acknowledge that there's nothing in Dr borman's notes reflecting that Julie Jensen told him anything about any sleep problems on December 1st yeah yes okay so then on December 2nd the only information that Dr Borman had about sleep problems came from Mark Jensen you will acknowledge that correct no well what other information did Dr Borman have at the time that Mark Jensen came in and compli and indicated that Julie was having trouble sleeping what other information did Mark did Dr Roman have that Julie Jensen was having trouble sleeping besides what Mark Jensen told him Dr Borman had seen her the day prior he had felt that she was depressed sleep being an issue in depression would have been consistent with Mr Jensen's report that she wasn't sleeping so I would offer to you that he relied on his medical knowledge and skill set in order to combine the information from his evaluation of her on the first and a piece of information that Mark Jensen gave him on the second to offer a prescription medication to treat a symptom that would have been consistent with major depressive disorder um now doctor you indicated that defense counsel asked you on Direct uh how much that she asked you if you're getting paid and you said yes how much have you been paid so far and how much you intending to Bill uh for the rest of your participation in this case I believe the initial bill from 2017 was approximately ten thousand dollars which included travel time spent with Mr Jensen extensive record review review of transcripts and then regarding this matter I have not submitted a bill yet how much you charging per hour four hundred dollars an hour and do you charge a flat rate for having to come here no so you didn't charge them for traveling to and from um well I'm talking about the 400 hours let's start the minute you get on the witness standard to start with the minutes you got the hotel room when did you start when how many hours are you going to Bill them for for today so far for today so far yes uh uh I suppose I started at 8 30. and how about yesterday you're not billing him anything for yesterday that's a double negative I'm sorry could you rephrase the question I said you're not charged anything for yesterday I don't think that's a double negative is it you didn't charge them anything for yesterday I didn't say you didn't charge them nothing for you say that would be a double negative I asked you you didn't charge them anything for yesterday that's not a double negative but did you charge them anything for yesterday are you planning to charge a meeting for yesterday yes how much you charging them for yesterday I haven't calculated the hours yet well when did you start and when did you finish I can do the calculation for you uh I would assume an hour and a half for travel and two hours for preparation for today so three and a half hours yesterday and then two hours about approximately two hours for today is that a question yes yes that's a question yes foreign that there was suicidality was present here correct yes and uh Julie Jensen told a number of different people she would never commit suicide correct because of her boys my apologies let me rephrase that I indicated that she was at high risk for suicide but the last s in City caps is suicidality suicidality correct yes and I believe that I made the caveat that that is something that the that's Up For Debate that's the question that we're looking at here so um Julie Jensen did tell a number of different people that she would never commit suicide correct yes I believe that to be true but nonetheless you thought she's at high risk for suicide yes but if she said told people that she was considering suicide um you'd also consider at risk for suicide yes so if she said she's not suicidal or she says she is suicidal either way she's suicidal yes given the other risk factors so really there's nothing Julie could have said that would have caused you to come to any other diagnosis other than major depressive disorder in this case that she could have said uh yes I imagine there are a number of things she could have said that would lead her to not appear depressed if she were not depressed well you know psychiatrists and other people I mean use this term depressed I mean what about just being really really sad can people be really sad because of the situation that they find themselves in yes so for example if a person just got a diagnosis for terminal cancer you'd expect them to be very sad and distraught correct yes that doesn't mean they've been depressed it just means they've got terrible news and they're upset about it correct and if somebody that you love or care about has died then you expect them to be depressed you'd expect to be very sad about that correct potentially I think everyone Grieves in different ways and isn't that one of the things that the DSM-5 says is that when you're looking before you come to describe that as major depressive disorder you're supposed to look at the things that could cause the person to naturally be sad I think those are important to take into account well that's what the DSM-5 says isn't it I don't know what part of the DSM-5 you're referring to it's a large book well it shouldn't surprise you to learn I was talking about the pro the part that pertains to the major depressive disorder um so on page 161 note responses to a significant loss EG bereavement Financial ruin losses from a natural disaster a serious medical issue or disability or for that matter your marriage falling apart may include the feelings of intense sadness rumination about the loss insomnia poor appetite and weight loss so the DSM-5 also indicates to you that when you're before making a diagnosis of major depressive disorder you should look at what's actually going along going on in a patient's life isn't that true yes I think all those factors are important to take into account so let's consider the factors that were going on in Julie Jensen's life in um say from September 21st 1998 through December 1st 1998 the first time she saw Dr Warman well the first time we're talking about here September 21st 98 and the second time she when she saw him September 21st 98 let's talk about things that are going on in Julie Johnson's life um she had reason to suspect that her husband was having an affair correct yes and in fact her husband was having an affair correct yes and she had reason to believe that um if she divorced him she divorced her husband he would take the kids correct yes I believe that was one of her concerns and she was a stay-at-home mom so she didn't have any independent source of income correct that is correct she was not working at the time and she had reason to believe that her husband had subjected her to a years-long campaign of emotional distress and gaslighting behaviors correct I don't necessarily agree with that characterization well um you don't agree that on December on September 21st 1998 irrationally a rational person in Julie Jensen's shoes you don't agree that she'd have a reason to believe that her husband may have been the person that was causing all these hang up phone calls and these abusive emails no I don't believe that that has been determined who caused those okay let's um assume hypothetically that in her long long long long long long long list of harassing behaviors Julie Jensen had noted on April 13 1998 email she'd received an email as part of this pattern of abuse we assume that hypothetically will you please okay and then assume hypothetically that we recovered that email and it was from Turtle to Julie Jensen can you assume that hypothetically yes and then assume hypothetically that attached that email from Turtle to Julie Jensen was a whole bunch of penis photos erect penis photos a whole bunch of offensive pornographic penis photos can you assume that hypothetically no I don't necessarily know those were harassing or offensive I don't know how she interpreted that email well let's say this if we show them to the jury and we did in fact show them to the jury and everybody would concede that they're abusive and offensive and pornographic photos um that that wouldn't influence your your judgment at this point no I don't know that everyone conceded their abusive and pornographic photos I think sometimes people who are married to one another exchange images between them I don't think that that's terribly unusual behavior I do not know how Miss Jensen personally interpreted that well she did list it in the harassing Behavior so wouldn't that suggest that she viewed it as harassing Behavior perhaps perhaps okay so she's got a long list she's got pages and pages and pages and pages of harassing behavior that she's kept in this journal will you accept that as a hypothetical proposition was it titled harassing Behavior well she was told by a police officer you should keep a record of all this harassing Behavior so then she started keeping the record so now can you infer that yes this is harassing behavior that Julie Jensen was keeping track of it's my understanding they were unusual occurrences and circumstances that she kept track of and one of those occurrences was an email on April 13 1998 and she put it on her list this list of harassing behaviors So you you're even now you can't you can't even accept the proposition that Julie Jensen viewed this for this email with all these penis photos on it she she viewed that as harassing Behavior you can't even accept that now I think it was an unusual circumstance again I don't know how she responded to it emotionally we're going to take our morning break folks good time to stop all right burn recess 10 minutes right back on a record on Mark Jensen 2002 cf314 the appearances are the same the doctor is still in Earl she's on the stand you can continue with your cross Mr jamboy's the jury's back thank you honor Dr West I'm going to show you something that's been marked as States exhibit 34. have you ever seen that before no and the first thing that's in there is a bunch of letters from Ameritech about harassing phone calls and trap tapping traces and things of that sort correct there are some letters from Wisconsin ballot appears and what are they what are they pertain to uh I believe it looks like it refers to a trace on the phone now uh would you go to the first page of the actual um the sexual book and then go down to the uh about two-thirds of the way down there's a designation headed four two 4296 you see that where there's a reference to Dr detective Mickelson there are a number of items dated for 296. and I do see a reference to police detective Paula Mickelson could you please read that out loud to the jury uh 4 2 96 am called Kenosha police detective Paula Mickelson 656-7328 and she suggested the following one talked to a detective at Pleasant Prairie Police not uniformed patrolman Mark hunter or Paul ratsberg 694-73532 keep a journal of everything that happens we are accountable so that's where I want you to stop so right there detective Mickelson apparently was advising Julie Jensen to keep a record of everything correct yes now would you please turn to uh page 46 of that journal okay and what's the first entry on the top of page 46 1 1998 new tactics live on Internet calls to Marx ofc office asking if he's watching it and when to tune in now please go down to 413.98 and what does it indicate there for 413.98 email so Julie Jensen's indicating in this do you now acknowledge that she was keeping a list of harassment that was being directed against her at the upon the instruction of detective uh Paula Mickelson from the Kenosha Police Department I don't see the word harassment in here okay I guess what we'll do is pull up this um can you you've got on your screen there pull up the first an idea put it put it in page one um page 33 please and that's entitled the top of that it's in box letters it says partial review of pass correct yes go to page 34 and then what's listed on all these Pages 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 what's listed on each and every one of those pages is a series of actions that are that apparently were directed against Julie Jensen isn't that true uh no I don't believe there's any indication that they were directed specifically against her well she's the one that was making the notes correct yes and she recorded hang up phone calls correct yes but I understand that to be a home phone yes a home phone yes and she was recording um penis photos or photos being left around the house correct or at Mark's place of business correct uh I understand she did that and I have not seen a specific reference to that but I do believe that to be true and um then when you go to page 36 I'm sorry page 40 it was a page 46. page 46 at the top she indicates a new tactic correct yes and then on at April 13th 98 she indicates email correct yes now from all of this you can't surmise that Julie Johnson was the victim the subject of a pattern of harassment and humiliation directed against her uh no I don't see any reference to humiliation okay now I'm going to actually show you the email that Julie Jensen received on April 13th 19 1998. so could you put it up on the screen please this has already been received into evidence this is an email that was shown to Julie Jensen on April 13 1998 according to her own notes and can you read what it says maybe that's better here's a few for Jay of me soft also a shot I took without her knowing it of a married girl in the office I'm currently doing at a nearby hotel and that is from whom uh Turtle to whom Mark Jensen and the subject me soft no I'm going to show you and the jury I'm going to show you these four the photos that were attached to this email so these are the photos that were apparently um attached well that they were attached to this email that you just seen from Turtle to Mark Jensen you can take the photos down now so that those are pornographic photos they depict naked men it appears and it appears as though it came from Turtle to Mark Jensen correct that is what it said so you could see why Julie Jensen would think that these are harassing emails being sent to Mark Jensen for him to show to her right I don't know what she thought they were there's no indication of that and I'm going to show you another email that appears to be from Turtle to Mark Jensen so direct your attention to the screen can you see what that says can you blow it up this is both the same email yes the same email but now can you see who Turtle actually is rum turtle and Jensen at exactpc.com so M Jensen at execpc.com do you have any professional opinion as to who that may be uh no I don't have a professional opinion on who that you have any opinion any idea any inference any possible way considering that we're here in the trial state of Wisconsin versus Mark Jensen now maybe can you think who gee who can M Jensen at execpc.com who could that possibly be I don't know I can't you wouldn't surmise it might be Mark Jensen might be Michael Jensen I don't know Matthew Jensen but you couldn't exclude the possibility that since Mark Jensen's email address is M Jensen at execpc.com might you surmise that that is Mark Jensen again I don't know well if I if I showed you an email from Mark Jensen to Kelly Labonte that is from M Jensen at execpc Mike that give you further indication of who M Jensen at exact PC might be perhaps but I'm not a computer expert so I don't understand how emails are generated or how emails are cloned so I can't speak to that also show the email and see if what inferences you can draw from that so again directing your attention to the screen so it's from Mark Jensen mail to M Jensen execpc.com and then sent and then it was Tula um Labonte Labonte k at stifle Nicholas so does that maybe cause you to possibly consider the idea that exec that M Jensen at execpc.com is actually the one and only Mark Jensen again I don't know okay no further nothing further on this we're done with the cross no further questions here all right any redirect just one just all right we heard that one question I have two questions all right now we got two is there Dr West is there any information you reviewed that suggested that Julie Jensen believed her husband was the cause of the photos and hang up calls and emails no and based on everything you've been asked do you have an opinion as to Julie Jensen's risk for suicide I do and based on all the information available that I reviewed my opinion remains unchanged that at the time of her death Miss Jensen was at high risk for suicide no further questions anything on that Mr Jim boys so you are aware that Julie Jensen had been told by two different police officers and a private investigator that Mark jensel was on leaving these photos around the house and doing the hang-up calls you are aware of that correct I don't have any indication of that oh well assuming hypothetically that Julie Jensen had been told by both Ron Cosman and Paul ratzberg and a private investigative Dave Ellis that it was Mark Jensen that was doing this tour not Terry Perry tarika which he then in your estimation have a reasonable basis for believing that Mark Jensen was on was engaging in this harassing Behavior I don't see any evidence of that even today you don't see any evidence of that mine no further questions all right your excuse thank you we'll move exhibits 121 and 122 in evidence they will be received who's our next witness David Jensen and I want to see if he's in the hallway go ahead thank you foreign truth nothing but a truth shall help you God all right try to get as close as you can to the microphone try to speak loudly first of all spell your first and last name for the reporter uh David Jensen spell your first and last name David j-e-n-s-e-n all right who's doing the direct go ahead Miss Krause and David I'm going to ask you ask you to the microphone so that the jurors can hear you okay sorry David can you tell us who your parents are uh Mark Jensen and Julie Jensen and how old were you when Julie Jensen passed away I was eight years old I want to take you to December 3rd 1998. okay um at some point did you arrive to your house from school December 3rd was that what day of the week the day your mom passed away that Thursday sorry um yes we uh came home directly from school um I was picked up and after coming home directly from school where did you go uh we came inside and uh Doug and I went to the living room and when you say we who was with you uh my dad it was my dad uh my brother Douglas and I and after you and Douglas went into the living room um do you know where your dad went he told us to wait in the living room um while he went down the hallway to the the bedroom uh to check on our uh to check on her mom at some point did your dad come back down that hallway yeah um I yes I don't remember how long exactly it was um but he came out crying not a not terribly long after he went down so after he was in your parents bedroom he came back down that hallway yes and what did you see um he was sobbing and went to told us to stay there told me to put on a movie for Doug um went to the telephone um and uh then returned down the hallway we just stayed in the living room we're gonna come back to that day but I want to hear a little bit about what you've been doing since you were eight years old okay um did you graduate high school uh yes from Bradford and that was in Kenosha uh yes what year did you graduate high school 2008 um after high school did you go to college uh UW Parkside I graduated in 2012. and what did you graduate with for a degree a Bachelor of Science in biology after graduating from UW Parkside did you continue your education yes I worked for a year as a lab technician and then enrolled as a graduate student at the Medical College of Wisconsin that one year you worked as a lab technician where was that uh that was also at the Medical College of Wisconsin so after that year you enrolled as a graduate student yes and that was also at the Medical College of Wisconsin yes and what were you working towards I was working on my PhD um your PhD in what uh physiology and biomedical science what does physiology and biomedical science mean um so I I was in particular working on vascular dysfunction and hypertension and diabetes with a focus on translational research from bringing uh basic research to the clinic at some point did you get your doctorate yes I the graduator defended my thesis in 2020. when you say defended your thesis that means like you had to give your thesis to a group of individuals and then defend the premise yes so I wrote uh all my original research was written up into like a 300 page monstrosity um and then I go in front of the entire department give a big presentation and then my committee decides whether um I've my contribution has been enough to Warrant the degree and so yeah graduated was it enough to Warrant your degree yes and when did you get that uh that was in uh 2020. um after getting your degree did you then go um and start working um I did my I defended my thesis it was the initial week of covet lockdown it was the my mind was the first virtual defense at my institution um so uh due to hiring freezes and stuff I worked as a postdoctoral fellow at the medical college for a couple years and I'm now employed by a company called Ashfield as a medical writer and what does a medical writer do uh so I we're hired by pharmaceutical companies I write manuscripts um Congress presentations and educational materials based on the results of clinical trials and you've been doing that since 2022. uh yeah 2022 January I started there fold and ask you um if you remember time that you spent with your mom um any time in particular or just any specific things you remember doing with your mom um prior to her passing yeah um so we spent a lot of time at this little plastic table just off the kitchen with our arts and crafts table um we during the summer we were um absolute fish we were in the pool just when you say we who was in the pool constantly oh Doug and I um Doug with his little floaties and um uh Drake was over our cousin Drake was over uh often in the Summers as well so he and I were closer in age so we would be sewing a ton was your mom in the pool with you if you remember um I don't particularly remember her being in the pool with us um just kind of you know watching us from the deck absolutely um and you said your younger brother was in the pool occasionally as he was able what other things are things to remember doing with your mom um I mean she also uh volunteered at my school so whenever we had a field trip she also came along so um uh always saw her there too um did your family do anything as a family yeah um I mean we would all we would all four of us would would play in the pool on the weekends and we frequently went fishing as well uh on Lake Michigan or occasionally Lake Geneva now I want to talk to you about some of the activities you do with your dad prior to your mom passing um do you remember specific things that you did with your dad um frequent fishing trips um sometimes all four of us sometimes it's the two of us uh just just uh him and me um a lot of just roughhousing and wrestling on the carpet um and um yeah when you mention fishing trips I'm sometimes just you and your dad sometimes all four do you remember where you went yeah we would do um an annual trip down to um Big Cedar Lodge in Missouri it was just a Fishing Resort on a chain of lakes and um more often uh late Michigan we would go just outside the harbor um uh by the lighthouse and the Breakwater and go perch fishing there be an avid fisherman did you guys have your own poles yes yeah and did you ever make your own polls um my yes my uh yeah my dad would buy like the blank the blanks and then do the wrapping and building um so I'd help him with that out in the garage uh we had one that we built for uh myself that I was particularly fond of um ask you if you recognize these pictures uh sorry I'm sorry I'm frogging my throat um yes I do recognize these These are the this is the base of the rod that we built for um that we built for me how do you know it's the base of the rod that you built for you in 123 uh okay 123 oh is that what exhibit you have in front of you David 123. uh it's painted uh Dave and dad on it um and also I can I was very adamant so six-year-old David was very adamant about including Power Ranger stickers um which I can also see in the picture and is there a picture of the handle of that fishing rod just just of uh just of the of the base of the rod and then um did you and your dad make anyone else a fishing pole yes we um we also made one um uh for my mom on exhibit 125 can you tell the date uh it's marked May of 1996. um I think you said six-year-old David wanted Power Rangers yeah I was quite young at the time but I remember picking out the stickers and trying to figure out which ones would actually fit on the rod and I'm not doing that out in the garage yes correct um yeah it's uh it's marked uh Dave and Dad as well now I was just asking you if you had made a fishing pole for anyone else and what was your answer uh we also made one uh specifically for my mom 128 and ask you if you know what that is a picture of uh this looks like one of the rods that we built um they all most of them had the the cork handle did yours have a Corky no mine had a metal and foam handle and what was so special about that handle to you the metal and foam handle uh I picked it because it looked like a lightsaber all right um and so exhibit 128 you recognize that as a fishing pole consistent with what you had made in the past yes I'm gonna show you what's been marked is it at 126. are you able to tell from exhibit 126 on who that fishing pole was made for or is that just another picture of the poll uh no this uh this one is marked um my 3DS uh which is uh what my mom called us collectively um Dad David and Douglas okay I'm gonna show you what's been marked as exhibit 127 foreign is this a close-up of the kind of the base of the pole yes and what is what does it say on there uh it's the my 3DS and then uh Christmas 98. and uh yes the the same poll just a little bit more in Focus but uh yeah yes my 3DS and then Christmas 98. foreign yes foreign yes and on this picture you can see the my 3DS at the top yes and then it says Christmas 98. yes and that's consistent with exhibit 129 that I showed you yes David why does it say Christmas 98 if you remember oh we were making it as a Christmas gift and how do you do you remember when you made this fishing pole um not exactly um it would have been sometime in the winter months the garage was uh heated but it still was uh you know chilly enough to need a jacket and do you remember it being chilly enough that you needed a jacket yes and who did you make this fishing pole with for Christmas uh my dad and I did Douglas help uh I don't recall him helping he was very young at the time did as much as I could as a kid I think I was there more just to provide excitement [Music] did your family have a home computer I yes we had one in the den and do you remember when you got that home computer I'm not asking the specific date or time just like generally do you remember getting it yes um we when we got it we also bought a table to be the desk for it which I took upon myself to try to assemble and like my parents unpacked the box and I came and found me like doing the bolts and I liked putting things together so just thought it was a big Lego set essentially um and did you ever use that computer yes um there was a painting program that I was particularly fond of um that I remember playing with it on do you remember anyone else using the home computer uh intermittently in the evening um we'd occasionally hang out in the in the den um my mom my parents taught me to play chess in there and I'd occasionally see my dad or and my mom using a uh on occasion but nothing in particular stands out about it um do you specifically remember seeing your dad on the computer uh yes um and do you specifically remember seeing your mom on the computer and yeah yes and you said when was that that you would typically see them in the evening in the evenings is when I remember seeing them on it can you tell us what they were doing on the computer I I couldn't tell you specifics at the time at any time did your childhood do you remember your mom um being upset or exhibiting any unusual behavior um I mean upset a few times um but I mean well uh I mean once I went to the neighbor it was asked to go out and play and went to the neighbors next across the street in this neighbor's next door and um parents couldn't find me so they were understandably upset um absolutely but um that there is one instance where I she did get upset that um I didn't it stuck it's it stuck with me because I didn't understand why she was upset or what we'd done wrong um what was that it um once One Summer um we were watching my cousin Drake um during the day that summer and uh uh we I don't recall what we were exactly how we exactly got onto this but we um we were playing with Hot Wheels tracks and taking them apart and sticking them in the waistbands of her pants and um I remember her just screaming at us in the bathroom um and uh washing our mouth that was so open putting us in a Timeout I just I didn't understand why we'd you know what what what we've done wrong to Warrant that reaction it'd be fair though that wasn't like a typical memory of yours that you're always getting yelled at or grounded oh no no this is just one instance that you remember yes and I think you said you remembered it because it just kind of stands out at you because you didn't understand why you got in trouble yeah yes um is there any other time that you remember your mom being upset and maybe you didn't understand why um mm-hmm that was that was the big one that stood out to me that you remember yeah do you ever remember a time um where Drake would have like rubbed feces on the wall I'm objecting to Leading so stained do you have a pretty leading question do you have any memory of you and Drake spreading anything on the wall I'm objecting again this is still leading we'll allow that one uh no I I don't remember ever spreading things on the wall I want to talk to you a little bit about just like day-to-day things in your household who did the cooking uh my mom did most of the cooking and how do you remember that I just occasionally uh um see vague memories of her cooking um I remember my like my dad would uh Grill I'd help him with that sometimes um but um yeah my mom did most of the cooking and they were I in one instance when she cut herself with a kitchen knife just stood up to me so um but yeah she was the primary cook I think I think um you had an uncle who lived not too far away I think Paul Griffin uh uh yes um he was also in Kenosha so not down too far away do you remember spending time with him um not very not not very often um I remember we would okay there was one birthday party that we went to during the summer months um over there um but we would um they had a a a they had two adopted kids and Kim was my cousin Kim was close in age enough to me um that just you know wanted to get together and play with her more um but didn't really get the opportunity um we try to see them at Christmas but um we didn't actually get together all that often um what was it specifically about Christmas that you remember well we would eventually we would call them drive by Christmases because we would try to get together and nothing would materialize and eventually we just drive by their house and leave their presents on the front porch um David I want to take you back to December of 1998. and I want to specifically talk to you about December 2nd which would have been the Wednesday before your mom passed away okay do you remember how your mom was feeling that day uh she wasn't feeling well she was in bed um so and do you remember um I mean you say she's not feeling well why did you think she wasn't feeling well um I I don't remember any specific like symptoms on that day or anything like it was just she was in bed which was unusual and Mom and Dad told us she was sick so remember if your mom gave you a note to give to Teresa Fazio uh no I don't remember if she gave me a note do you remember if you um called Eric Shore that day to ask to go to his house no I don't remember that do you remember talking or going to his house after school um not on that not not any specific date but I do remember hanging out with him um we'd play The Sims and poke around on the piano um yeah he was like my best friend growing up so I I was uh we were we hung out frequently you hung out frequently but what you're saying is you don't specifically remember that day uh yes yes I don't remember any those are just Collective like memories with him um I don't remember uh that specific day when you got home on that specific day do you remember seeing your mom uh yes some she was uh in bed then um we uh I wanted to make her mac and cheese since that's what I got when I wasn't feeling well um so I remember bringing her that and some water um but you said you wanted to make her mac and cheese um do you remember helping make the mac and cheese uh not specifically making it I remember that I had I had to be the one to proudly carry the bowl into the bedroom but um and not specifically making it and I think you um said that you also took her some water oh yes um when you were in the bedroom or when you took this into the bedroom with your mom do you remember talking to her uh I mean nothing no no particular conversation but I mean she was up and you know interacting with us and um do you remember talking but not specifically what was said uh uh I mean I couldn't quote but just generally like oh thank you for the food and um telling her we loved her um and her you know responding to that um do you remember your mom volunteering in the classroom on Wednesdays with Miss DeFazio the uh yes I remember I mean I remember seeing her in the classroom but um most of my specific memories are whenever there'd be a field trip they'll stand out a little bit more you remember your mom coming on field trips yeah um do you remember any conversation with Miss DeFazio about your mom on December 2nd no I don't remember talking to her about about my mom I want to go back then to that or go up forward a day to that December Third Day the day your ma passed away um did you see your mom that morning yes we went to go say goodbye to her before we left for school and where was she she was in bed and was she still sick uh yes her breathing was raspy that morning um but she still you know gave us a hug told us she loved us um and you know before we left um you just said that her breathing was raspy was that different than what you had seen or heard on the night before December 2nd yes I don't remember her having the same the same breathing on on the day the day prior and so on December 3rd um you talk to your mom yes we before we left for school um the only the only specific like exchange that I remember in in detail is just you know I love you and then her responding I love you too was she moving uh I mean she didn't get out of bed but she was I mean she turned to look at us she gave us a hug um so she was you know you know moving around at least that much um that morning did you catch the school bus um I usually took the bus it would I don't I don't recall that I don't remember specifically that morning it was just kind of part of my routine so it doesn't doesn't really stand out prior to leaving the house did you have any conversation with your dad about how your mom was doing yes um we we talked about how we were going to come straight home after after school he was going to pick us pick me up uh we'll pick both of us up and if she wasn't feeling better we're going to take her straight to the straight to the doctor and that was prior to leaving for school yes day when in school do you remember having any specific conversation with Eric Shore about your mom I I don't remember I I'm sure I would have spoken to him but I don't remember any specific conversation do you remember specifically what you said to him about the conversation you had with your dad I I don't remember exactly what I would have said to him yes um and what you just said was that your dad said that he was going to pick you and your brother up and then go home yeah is that what happened uh yes we yeah we got home um and yeah we wanted to go see her obviously but he uh we told us to wait in the living room to so so he could go check if she was asleep um or you know didn't want to two kids just jumping on her um and did you stay in the living room then yes we did and I think you Douglas and I did and at some point your dad came back out of the bedroom yes and it was at that point that you saw him crying yes after your dad came down the hallway um what did he say to you uh he told he told us to stay to stay on the couch and asked me to put on a movie for Doug and did you do that yes where did your dad go uh he went to uh towards the kitchen uh where the I heard him talking on the telephone foreign was finished on the talk talking on the telephone where did he go then uh he went back to the bedroom at some point um did police officers show up at your house yes um police officers um there's an ambulance outside too uh there was one um one officer in particular that kind of hung out with Doug and I and showed us her baton and just kind of keeping us entertained and distracted um when you were in with the officer who kept you distracted do you know where your dad was um we were in the living room and the foyer but um I don't remember him I don't remember him being there with us I think he was still down in the bedroom but I don't we didn't we never went down to the bedroom so I can at some point did you leave your home yes we um went and spent the night at uh um my Aunt Laura Laura's house did you see your dad the next day yeah yes he he came and saw us uh the the next morning and what did he tell you at that point um or whatever whatever you remember from that point yeah um he uh he he sat us down on his lap um and told us she passed um I'd kind of already knew at that point um and I don't remember What specifically he said to me it kind of I was kind of just numb and he may have just may as well have been talking to the wall I was kind of just in a daze um did anyone else talk to you that day yeah yes I remember my aunt and my grandparents both sitting down with us individually too but I it was kind of the same reaction I was kind of just numb right I spent the entire time feeling guilty that I wasn't crying button did you go to your mom's visitation yes uh we uh my dad Doug and I had um we arrived first at the the funeral home before anybody else was there um and we had a a private time with with her so you and your dad and Doug um spent time alone with your mom without anyone else yes David when you saw your dad I'm coming down that hallway sobbing or crying had you ever seen him that way before that was the first time I'd seen him cry foreign I'm going to show you madam clerk what number are we on for exhibits what's the next number yes so what would that number be um so these will be um States exhibit 130 foreign and if we could just have the computer switched over to this one um so David do you recognize who's in that picture yes that's uh myself my mom and uh Douglas and then in this picture do you recognize who's in it yes that's also my mom uh with me and then Doug in the uh the back seat and then the third one do you recognize what this is uh yeah the my 3DS uh dad David and Doug uh are custom license plate so you knew that was your mom's license plate yeah and I can remember that red car that it was attached to as well um I do yes and um did she often take pictures with you and and Douglas uh yeah we we we took pictures frequently um and uh you know not just from the license plate but you know that you and Douglas you were everything to your mother right yes now after your mom's death you grew up with your dad right yes um and you lived with him in the same household until you were about 17 right uh in the same household so we we moved um a few times so I mean that yes until you were at least 17. uh yes um and during that time after your mom's death um your dad started dating Kelly Labonte um at some point I don't remember exactly one um and you don't know when he actually started dating her right no but you know that Kelly Labonte started um coming to your house right um the the only the only time I specifically remember her in um yeah there's only one time I specifically remember her at the the house on Lakeshore Drive the Pleasant Prairie house yes um and do you remember her being at your birthday party that January 1999. um no I I don't remember but I don't remember much about that party and then um the months after you don't remember much about Kelly Labonte being at your house I'm no I don't but then you moved to a house in Kenosha yes on the North side um I remember her being there okay and that's where Kelly Labonte moved into the home yes and I've been calling her Kelly Labonte but she was Kelly Jensen to you right yes and um yes eventually starting you know calling her mom um she married your father correct yes sorry um and so she changes changes her last name so she's Kelly Jensen yes um and so basically as soon as you moved into that house in Kenosha until the time you were at least 17 you were living with your dad and with Kelly Jensen yes and Douglas of course too yes um now Douglas he's five years younger than you correct yes okay so you were born in January of 1990 and he was born in March of 95. um now after your mother died were you able to talk about her with people in your family um yes I'm I mean I remember talking with my grandparents about her um reminiscing but oh and you've talked about some memories um can you tell us what is your best memory with your mother best memory um Eagle Tower up in Door County um we went we had family uh uh extended family in Door County in Sister Bay so we would vacate a vacation up there pretty frequently um to go cross-country skiing in the winter or um biking in the the fall um and you know at Peninsula State Park there's an old fire watch tower um and just climbing that with her and looking out over the bay I loved it up there with him and so your mom was really active yes you saw the picture with the bike she would bike with you yes now I'm gonna ask you some questions about this very difficult time period um when your mom passed away but before we get to that I want to ask you about the computer do you remember like the time of year when you got that computer that ended up in the den of your house I I don't remember exactly when yes on the computer I I don't so your mom actually wasn't very good with computers at all right I I couldn't say one way or the other so do you remember joking with your teacher Ms DeFazio about how your mom really didn't know anything about computers I I don't remember that and you had some interesting computers right uh yes I I liked playing on it so it was something that you would play on yes um and so did you joke with Ms DeFazio that you had to show your mom what to do on the computer because you actually knew more than her uh no I I don't remember that and did you say anything to Ms DeFazio about trying to teach her mom how to do things on the computer hmm no no I don't remember that okay and so you know for a lot of these questions um you might not remember and then for some questions you might not know um so if you don't remember just say I don't remember and then if you don't know say I don't know okay okay and I'm just I'm just saying you that so I don't have to ask it after every single one okay okay so I don't have to say well do you not remember or you don't know okay okay all right so I want to talk to you about the morning of December 2nd so that would have been the day before your mother died so that morning your mom was supposed to go to Ms defazio's class right um yeah I guess it was a Wednesday then yes um now you say Amber giving Ms DeFazio a no I don't your mom was sick that morning right yes and um Ms DeFazio asked you about your mom being sick right I I don't know I don't remember and you told Ms DeFazio that your mom was coughing really bad right um well I I don't remember her coughing until the next day but um but I don't remember I don't know about that conversation with uh Miss DeFazio okay so you're not saying it didn't happen you're saying you don't remember correct I have no recollection of it now that day also you ended up going to your friend Eric Shore's house after school on that Wednesday um I don't I don't remember specifically on that day okay so again it's not I don't it's not it didn't happen as I don't remember correct um and so if Ms DeFazio says she got a note and in that note it also said you were going to Eric's house after school you just don't remember that yeah I I cracked I have no recollection of it now you told your friend Eric Shore that your mom is really sick too right I don't remember the con the specific conversation with him but I'm sure I would have talked to him about it and in fact when you told your friend this you demonstrated to him how your mom was breathing do you remember doing that I I don't remember doing that that is like deep and raspy breaths do you remember demonstrating that for your friend Eric Shore I I remember witnessing her her the breathing on her but I don't I don't remember demonstrating it um now again a lot of these questions you're not going to remember um and actually you've never testified before in this case at all no this is my first time so um 2008 I did not know your friend Eric Shore he's actually testified now three times in connection with this case okay I knew he had testified I didn't know how many times including years ago when when these events would have been closer in time um I was aware he testified during the original uh so like in 2007 8 yeah I was aware that he testified then so for you it's tougher because um you didn't testify in those times I have no access I don't didn't even don't have any written record or anything of it now um in terms of that day December 2nd um again you you don't remember this but you had that note to go to Eric Shore's house and then after that that was a Wednesday um do you remember having karate on Wednesdays uh yes I remember having the karate class now do you actually have any memory of going to karate the day before your mom died uh not not of that week no that but you just don't know if you went or not I I don't remember no but you do remember coming home and um trying to help your mom by giving her mac and cheese and your mom was in bed in the morning right that morning of December 2nd uh yes um and that's that wasn't usual for your mom right yeah yes usually she'd be up and helping us get ready for school right so her here still being in bed was unusual um and then when you came home that night your mom was still in bed right uh yes and do you remember trying to be um extra quiet that night so your mom could rest uh I don't remember that specifically but it would make sense and so I think you told us that what you remember about that night is just kind of hanging out with her in the bedroom uh I remember bringing the food to her I don't remember if we spent an extended period of time like watching TV or something in there um I don't remember that um do you have any idea during this time period what your bedtime was oh um I I remember it being 8 30 at one point because I would get upset during the summer summer because it would still be light outside um and I didn't want to go to bed when I there was sunlight so I could play um uh I I don't remember what it specifically was like during the school year for this particular particular time frame so do you think you would have been asleep on a school night around 9 9 30 10. um yeah I I that sounds reasonable but I I can't remember specifically fair to say whenever you went happening after that in your house uh no um so now I want to take you to the morning of December 3rd that morning um when you woke up that morning and you saw your mom um she was still in bed right yes and that morning when she was in bed she was breathing really badly yes it was labored uh and raspy and in fact that morning you were really worried about your mom weren't you yes um it was clear that she wasn't getting better you didn't want to go to school I didn't want to school I don't remember if I specifically didn't want to go to school I just remember being worried about her and you wanted your dad to take your mom to the to the hospital right we yeah so we we talked about um I'll yeah just you know when you're sick you can you rest and if you're not getting better then we go see the doctor so we were the discussion was that if yeah she wasn't feeling better when we got home we'd take her to the hospital okay so [Music] um in the months after your mom died a detective ended up talking to you at the police station do you remember that yes okay and um when you talk to the detective about it you told the detective that you asked your dad that morning if your mom needed to go to the hospital I I don't remember any of like the specific questions I remember getting picked up from school and going to the police station and like the interrogation room um which was full of Burger King bags but um I don't remember any of the specific discussions um while I was there um so I I couldn't say Okay um so again you're not saying you didn't say this you're just saying you don't remember correct yeah I don't I don't remember any specific discussion or questions during uh when I was when I was there okay so you don't remember saying that asking your dad if your mother needed to go to the hospital I don't and you don't remember your dad saying no I don't and you do remember though that your dad promised you that when you got home on the third if your mom wasn't better that you would take her to the hospital or he would yes we were going to come straight home from school and check on her foreign now the morning of December 3rd you never saw your mother get out of bed right no I no I didn't and in fact that morning um your mom couldn't even speak right uh no I I remember um telling her she I remember her telling us she loved us um so I think she was able to speak um didn't you tell your father or remind your father in April of 1999 that your mom couldn't talk that morning I I don't remember that I mean you were so worried about her you wanted her to go to the doctor right yes I said no I don't remember that I I I I don't remember a specific no it was just we were going to take her home or take her after school if she wasn't feeling better now did you tell your friend um Eric Shore that you wanted your mom to go to the hospital I I don't I don't remember this specific conversation with him that day um so I I don't remember um did you tell Eric Shore that even though you wanted your dip your mom to go to the hospital your dad said no I I don't remember foreign now the afternoon of December 3rd um do you remember on Thursdays in that school year that you had a French Club oh um yes I do I haven't thought about that in a very long time yes I do um yes I remember I was I was part of that um and you would agree you weren't at home for an hour or anything like that before the police and the ambulance got there right uh I'm I'm sorry I'm I'm sorry can you repeat the question so when you got home on December 3rd it was pretty quick that the police and the ambulance got there right uh yeah I couldn't give you an exact time but yes I don't remember me I think it was it was it wasn't that long pretty shortly after we got home so if we know that the police and the ambulance got there around 4 30 that afternoon then you wouldn't have been home since like 3 30 or anything like that right uh no I don't I don't think so um because actually when when you got home that day you wanted to run your mom right yes you want to go check on her because if she wasn't better she was going to go to the hospital yeah but your dad wouldn't let you run to your mom right uh no he told us to wait in the living room so he could check on her I don't remember that okay do you remember ever saying that to your teacher Ms DeFazio once you got back to school I I don't so when you left for school on December 3rd that morning you were afraid for your mom right I was worried about her and you thought she should go to the hospital uh yes just that was kind of my young young David's framing understanding of it was you know when you're sick you rest until until you get better if you don't get better you go to the doctor mm-hmm now I have a few other questions about afterwards and then growing up in your dad's household your dad was pretty good with computers right uh I I'd say so I mean um yeah yes he was a proficient with them um and would he tend to be more of a night owl on the computer uh yeah I I got that from him too a bit of a night owl and your dad actually built a computer right oh uh I don't remember that you don't recall that I don't no but you recall him being very good with computers uh yeah I remember him using them frequently um when he started this construction business he designed his own logo and did all that by himself on the on the computer so yeah foreign now do you remember a time period after your mom's death when you you no longer saw her side of the family uh I mean we didn't see them frequently beforehand um but we it really fell off um after she passed um we tried for a couple you know a few Christmases after to try to get together with them but um I didn't see them very often and before that you'd see him for birthday parties the one the one birthday party I remember kind of stands out because it was an outlier um we did I don't remember seeing them very often um you remember your cousin Kim yes and she was around your age a little bit younger um do you have um like any keepsakes from your mom um I have a lot of a lot of the photographs um those are those are the main the main thing that I'll go through occasionally that's all the questions I have thank you all right uh are we going to have any redirect not from us thank you Mr Jensen thank you your excuse thank you thank you when we uh come back after lunch uh does the defense have another witness I think I think but maybe not all right enjoy can I move in the exhibits all right move them in 123 124 125 126 127 129 I don't see a 128. foreign yes I see it now thank you madam clerk you want to move in anything uh Mr McNeil um yeah so the photos I showed will be on 1 30 and so I would move that in okay um you folks come back at 1 30 don't talk about the case we're going to be here at 1 50 okay well that might cause a problem uh 115 folks sorry I just took 15 minutes away from me all right uh the jury's outside of the courtroom I take it Miss Crosby we're gonna ask Mr Johnson if he wishes to testify that's correct judge we've had the conversation but we just want to have the final conversation so the court can have the colloquy so we're ready to do a colloquy when we come back after lunch that's our hope we just need a few minutes with him and we're trying to figure out how we can get that okay thank you foreign foreign foreign thank you uh now Mark Jensen 2002 cf314 the appearances are the same the jury is not in the courtroom prior to taking our lunch break there was the issue was brought up or whether the defendant was going to testify or not I'll ask attorney Krause uh this is the appropriate time in the trial for that decision to be made correct correct okay and is the defendant ready to answer the questions I'm going to ask him yes all right Mr Jensen I'm going to ask you some questions can you hear me yes I can all right first of all do you understand that you have a constitutional right to testify I do and do you understand that you have a constitutional right not to testify I do also and do you understand that the decision whether to testify is for you to make has anyone made any threats or promises to you to influence your decision not in any matter have you discussed your decision whether or not to testify with your lawyer or your three lawyers all right have you made a decision I have and what is your decision um and what not to testify you're not going to testify correct all right and then miss Krause heavy-headed sufficient opportunity to thoroughly discuss this case in a decision whether to testify with the defendant I have are you satisfied the defendant is making this decision not only intelligently and voluntarily I am you want to add anything for the record no judge thank you all right the record should reflect we did indicate the defendant his right to testify his right not to testify he's discussed his decision with his attorneys he's made his decision on his own and he has indicated to the court that he wishes not to testify based upon that I'm going to make a finding that the defendant is normally voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to testify without the jury being in the courtroom and the record should reflect it with that uh then miss Krause is the defense going to rest we are judge all right we'll bring the jury out we'll put that on record and then one more other housekeeping matter is the state ready to do their rebuttal once we do that okay all right let's bring the gerio I'll rise for the jury we're back on a record on Mark Jensen 2002 cf314 the jury is back in the courtroom the appearances are all the same I'll ask Miss Krause is the defense have any further Witnesses judge the defense does not have any further Witnesses we rest all right the defense now has rested and with that uh ladies and gentlemen the jury the state has an opportunity to call any rebuttal Witnesses they wish with that uh do you have a witness available Miss McNeil um yes we do judge and the call Jill palera and so let me try to find her number it would be number 60. number 60 Jill polaro all right if you could remain standing raise your right hand I'll sure it's for you and you saw me swear the testimony it is meant to be the truth hole truth nothing but the truth shall be God I think you can get as close as you can do the microphone spell your first and last name for the reporter Jill palera j-i-l-l-p-u-l-e-r-a thank you go ahead Miss McNeil Ms palera were you married to Paul Griffin yes I was and is that Julie Jensen's brother yes it is um now currently are you divorced from him yes I am and remarried yes um and when about did you separate from Paul Griffin 2010 now uh before that time period And I want you to think about essentially the 1990s um during that time period did you know Julie Jensen yes I did and did you live near her yes we did um about how far away did you live from Julie Jensen a mile or two and um can you describe for us what your relationship with Julie Jensen was Julie and I were close um we spent a lot of time together I babysat the kids she was my daughter's godmother um and were you god mother to any of her children I I am to David yes and Julie was in my wedding as well um now during this time period um that you knew Julie Jensen um did you come to know Mark Jensen yes I did um and did you know them um for about the duration of their marriage um they were married when I came into the family and you remember about what year you would have started to get to know Julie um probably around 1980 586 now when you came to know Julie Jensen and Mark Jensen did you make any observations about their relationship um in the beginning of their when I first met them their relationship seemed fine but as time went on with the kids things became strained um and and how would you describe um first let's talk about David because he's the oldest child right yes how would you describe uh how things were in the Jensen marriage when David was a baby when David was a baby he was born with he was very colicky when he was born and so Paul and I would go down there in the evenings to help Julie out with the baby she did you know the cooking and preparing of meals and David would be real fussy at that time and so we would go down and help her with the baby um and did you see Mark assisting with David no Mark didn't have a lot of interaction with David when he was a little baby um and was that a source of stress to Julie yes it was um and did you see anything else in terms of the interaction of Mark and Julie Jensen um after David's birth um Mark was very demanding of Julie's time when the baby was fussy or needed attention Mark also seemed to need attention at that point um and did you make any other observations apart from uh their baby about how Mark interacted with Julie um Mark was very demanding of Julie's time he could be very condescending to her when she would speak um and Julie became a stay-at-home mother right yes she did not too long after David was born right right um and did Mark have an opinion of stay-at-home mothers yes he did he did not respect stay-at-home moms I know he told Julie you can either be a mom or you can work yes and was um these observations that you made about these interactions between Mark and Julie um was that pretty consistent up until 1998 yes um now would you frequently talk to Julie on the phone yes we had a lot of conversations especially revolving around our kids um and do you have a daughter named Kim yes I do and was Kim friendly with David yes Kim and David are only two years apart in age and because of their close age did that cause you and Julie to be together a lot yes especially when the kids were younger um now what about um holidays or birthdays would you ever spend those uh with the Jensen family before Julie died the birthdays we always shared the kids birthdays together we were either at the Jensen house or they were at our house for kids birthdays holidays were mostly um Julie and Mark were at the Jensens and Paul and I were at my family's home so like on Christmas itself you might not see the Jensens no not on but we would always get together for the holidays at a different time and would you exchange with the children involved yes now I want you to think back to around the time period of Thanksgiving of 1998 um during that time period um did Julie uh speak to it all yes she called me the day after Thanksgiving and getting prepared for Christmas shopping um so was she asking you about um things for your children yeah she wanted to know you know what they wanted for Christmas the sizes they were in those kinds of things um now obviously um you didn't celebrate Christmas with Julie that year um but had she gotten your children presents she had yes now when you had this conversation with Julie um did she say anything about her uh marriage she did she was complaining to me about Mark at that during that conversation that he had been staying out a lot um going out a lot of business trips not coming home some heavy drinking and she knew he was having an affair she told me that she was didn't want to ruin the holidays but after the holidays she planned on leaving mark so it was your impression based on that conversation that she was going to divorce him yes that was her plan yes it was after the holidays yes now was there a prior time um sometime after Douglas was born um when Julie had a contemplated divorce and told you about it yes and what in particular did Julie tell you in terms of her contemplating divorce in that time period um I know she was just unhappy again with the marriage of the way things were going but she was afraid to leave mark because he said she wouldn't see the kids um and and that time period would have been shortly after Douglas was born or I don't recall when it was exactly but it wasn't the 1998. no but she had previously expressed that Mark had said she wouldn't be able to see the kids after divorce yes um now you knew Julie for years right yes um was she someone who was a drinker no never would she ever be drunk during the day no um and at some point did you learn that Julie had had a miscarriage um yes sometime in between David and Doug but I don't remember exactly when it was so it would have been at least some point after David was born and before Douglas was born yes um as far as you're aware she had one miscarriage that's all I knew about yes so um I would like to talk to you about the time period um after Julie had died in that time period um was David's birthday coming up yes David's birthday was at the end of January and um was there a party for David yes Mark had a party for David did your family attend yes it was Paul and myself and my two children and um at that party did you meet Kelly Labonte yes we did and based on your observations um at that time end of January did she seem familiar with the home yes she did now did you and Paul try to stay in touch with uh with David and Douglas after Julie's death yes we did um and were you able to do that um it was sporadic Paul would be in contact with Mark and would want to you know if we had Christmas presents or something for the kids and we would go see the kids then um did you feel welcome at the Jensen home traction relevance this is go ahead and answer Amy mark would let us in he would let us in the door and you know we would be able to speak with the kids and everything but it was uncomfortable because Kelly was there um and did Paul at least make an effort to stay in touch he did yes and you did too yes at least until 2010. is that a yes pardon is that is that a yes yes okay foreign you said that you and Paul at the time when you were married lived about one to two miles from the Jensens yes and that was from what year to what year um well we were married in 1986 and purchased a house right after that and Mark and Julie were living in an apartment they built their home and we built a home again a mile or two apart so from 1986 until Mark moved to the north side so 1999. so you lived one to two miles from the Jensens from the time you built your house to the time that Mark moved to the north side correct and during that time you said that you did have contact with Mark and Julie Jensen yes and you had contact with the boys yes you went to birthday parties yes and that would be one for David in January and one for Douglas in May March in March thank you and then they would come to your house for your children's birthday party correct you also testified that for holidays um you didn't spend the holiday together correct although you would get together at a later date yes did you go on family vacations together um no we didn't vacation but I I did a lot of babysitting for Mark and Julie when they needed someone to watch the kids so when they went on family vacations to Door County with other families you weren't a family that they went with no now you were testifying a little bit about Mark's perception of women that stay home yes um and you are aware that Mr Jensen's mom was a stay-at-home mom yes you talked a little bit about Julie contemplating divorce yes and that was prior to 1998. yes and you were aware that she had an affair in 1990 1991 yes and that was with a man by the name of Perry tarika yes and were you aware of that Affair before you received the letter in the mail address to you no so at some point you became aware of that Affair yes and was that after you got the letter in the mail with your name of it care of Julie Jensen yes Julie's name on it care of you correct I don't remember um that's the first time you found out about that Affair yes Julie hadn't told you about it prior to that no you testified a little bit about helping Julie when um David was born and had um was kind of fussy head colic is that what you said um and that Mr Jensen wasn't as helpful correct were you with Miss Jensen and Mr tarika when they had play dates with their children together no were you there um on the weekend at all when Mr tarika spent the entire weekend at her house no were you aware that David was in the bedroom next to um them that weekend nope you weren't aware of the length of that Affair no she didn't confide in you about that no did she tell you that in 1991 she filed for divorce um I I don't remember and she actually asked for full custody of her child I don't remember do you remember talking to her about that no do you remember hearing anything about a divorce in 1991 I remember that she had talked about divorce I don't remember what year it was you also testified that Mr Miss Jensen talked to um sometime around Thanksgiving of 1998. it was the day after Thanksgiving thank you so that Friday yes and she talked to you about the state of her marriage correct and she was unhappy yes she told you she was thinking of getting a divorce yes after the holidays she didn't tell you that she thought Mr Jensen was going to harm her in any way no she didn't say that she was afraid of him no but she told you that she was planning on getting a divorce yes did she tell you about a conversation her and Mr Jensen had in October in which they had decided that the marriage wasn't working and they were going to go their separate ways no they were just waiting for the right time no you were asked a few questions about the contact you had with David and Douglas after Miss Jensen passed away um there were times that you contacted Mark Jensen to see the boys yes and he allowed that to happen yes you went to the house yes you were able to have conversations with the boys yes you were able to give them presents if that was the plan yes there was never a time he said no you can't see the boys um I don't recall that nothing further thank you ma'am attorney redirect um just to clarify when that letter from Perry tarika arrived um and Julie found out about it she was pretty embarrassed about that right yes she was um so she didn't want that to happen no um and you were asked about Julie during that conversation the day after Thanksgiving about Julie being unhappy um did you think she was depressed no and um did you ever see Julie showing any signs of mental instability no um that she was in some way um not seeing reality correctly no and she talked to you frequently on the phone yes even if she didn't see you in person yes thank you any uh Rick Ross on that no judge all right thank you your excuse me next rebuttal witness um the state calls Therese DeFazio means standing elsewhere again you saw me swear the testimonies had to be the truthful truth nothing but a truth shall be God thank you get as close as you can to the microphone and spell your first and last name for the reporter Therese t h e r e s e DeFazio capital d e capital f a z i o thank you go ahead Miss McNeil and Ms DeFazio you can adjust microphone so it's in front of you good okay so Ms depazio we know you as David's third grade teacher right yes all right so I want you to think back during this time when David was in your class in third grade was there ever a time that David said anything to you about his mom in the computer treasure item jacked this is hearsay and she's already testified to this this is David's statements that he could not recall and so this is rebuttal it just has to be outside the presence of the jury let's go take a break folks all right the jury is outside of the courtroom I remembered David Jensen's testimony he basically said I couldn't remember so he didn't deny it so where are we going with this then well I think it's a briated for the teacher who recalls the statement to testify to it then because David did not recall it what do you want to say I would just say he he didn't deny saying it they didn't try to refresh his recollection with any document and there's a case about I don't remember but in that particular case the court had doubts about the witness's memory and thought the witness was saying I don't remember just not to testify and the court the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that where a witness denies recollection of a prior statement and where the trial judge has reasoned to doubt the good faith of such denial he may in his discretion declare such testimony inconsistent and permit the prior statements and Mission into evidence so what does that mean I think the court would have to make a determination that David Jensen said he didn't remember in order to get out of answering well judge day saw his mother on the computer and I think this would contradict that because he was pretty much laughing with Ms DeFazio about his mother could not use the computer and that's a different question but it's the same topic so her answer would address that issue as well did he say he didn't remember that either well he describes something contrary to what Ms DeFazio would say well the question that he didn't remember I'm not going to allow you to ask this question on rebuttal if it's a contradiction you can get into it well I think this computer does contradict what David said about saying we'll let you get into that one so just to be clear what's so she can ask if David told Mr Fazio whether his mom used the computer because that was the question to him is whether his mom used the computer and we already have testimony from others that she's the computer specifically regards to Quicken so is it what statement is it that the that they're allowed to get into I guess they can ask a question that the witness answered regarding the computer they basically saying that this witness will contradict his answer that this witness will contradict David saying he saw his mom on the computer correct Miss McNeil well what I believe she's going to say is David blurting out that his mom doesn't even know anything about computers that he's teaching her about computers and she doesn't know and what was his answer to that well his recollection of his mom and computers was I saw my mom on the computer I don't know what she was doing I saw her on there and so we'll let we'll go on to this limited area and that's it because there sounds like a contradiction um well I also have questions for this witness about what David said regarding um his mother's condition are they contradictory answers well David said he couldn't remember I'm not going to let you go in the areas where you didn't remember um so then I have for this witness I'm going to ask her about um what Julie told her about Laura Koster which would be um a direct contradiction of Laura coster's testimony we'll let you get into whatever contradictions we have I'll let you get into it okay all right bring the jury back for the jury please be seated all right degrees back in the courtroom on a record then on Mark Jensen the appearances are the same the witness is still under oath go ahead Miss McNeil um so do you recall David saying anything to you about his mom and computers yes I do and go ahead what was that it was that open house I was looking for someone when she volunteered to help me I asked her if she knew anything about a computer so that if I asked for help in computer lab she could help and so my question is do you remember David sings saying anything about his mom yes he he said uh no he kind of laughed and said no she doesn't know much about computers I've been teaching her and um and then he um another time in the classroom when we're talking about computers he's he was saying yeah my mom doesn't know anything and we started talking having a conversation in the classroom about how many of your parents probably don't know how to use computers because back in that time period computers coming in the home was very rare it was just starting to come into homes so David blurted that out about his mom and that started your class discussion right we had a whole class discussion about parents and their children teaching the parents um now after David had returned to school after his mother's death did he say anything about um what had happened when he went home on December 3rd the day of his mom's death objection hearsay well once again I think he gave a contrary account it's overrule go ahead so what if anything did David say in terms of what happened when he got home the evening of his mother's death I object is to hear say this is what we specifically just talked about when the jury was out of the room she said it's contradiction so I'm going to let her do it because of that I don't know well I disagree back in the Jury Room folks sorry yeah jury is outside the courtroom I might not have been clear but I think I told the attorneys if there's a contradiction I'm going to allow it for impeachment and now you're telling me Miss Crosby this question and answer was not a contradiction I don't know because what we talked about was I thought what the Court ruled is if it was asked of David Jensen and he said I don't know the court wasn't going to allow cross-examination on that so I guess I don't know is specifically because he did say I don't know to some of the things about when he got home or what he told Miss DeFazio what what answers are you saying that he has a contradiction answer to so David gave an account of coming home his dad telling him and his brother to stay in the living room and um not go to the Mom's room what David had told Ms DeFazio was that when they got home um David wanted to see his mother but the defendant told him to take Douglas and the dog for a walk so it is contradictory to what David said occurred okay I don't have any issue with that I thought we were getting into the other stuff so unfortunately judge I just didn't know because when we talked about it during the break when the jury was out that wasn't discussed let's do this so we don't have to keep bringing a jury back go over what areas you think you're going to get into so we haven't understanding of whether we need to discuss it without the jury here so judge I'm just asking about that what David told his teacher had happened when he got home and then about the conversation that Julie had had with Ms DeFazio about Laura Coster all fine all right we all on the same page thank you Jeff wonderful bring the jury back all right the jury's back thank you for your patience this afternoon folks uh with that you can ask your questions Miss McNeil um so Mr Fazio I was just asking you once David had returned to school did he say anything about what had happened the um late afternoon when he returned home on the day of his mother's death what did he say his dad had told him or had occurred when he got home it was after four o'clock because he had been at a French class at school and it was dark he went to the door like he was going in and his dad stopped him and said you take the dog and Dougie and go for a walk I don't and he wouldn't let them go in to see his mother he wanted to go and see his mom um and by that time in the evening it would have been dark oh yes it after four it's in November it's dark and on Lakeshore Drive there are no street lights at that time anyway and only hot lights would be the lights of the yard lights of the residents out there um now I want to ask you about one more conversation um so you had told us in detail about the conversation you had with Julie Jensen on November 25th of 1998. um during that conversation um obviously you heard some disturbing things did you ask Ms Jensen whether she had told anybody else her concerns yes she I asked her if she told anyone else and she said she had told a police officer at Pleasant Prairie that a friend she knew just sorry goes on responsive and hearsay overruled go ahead and from the motion and lemonade judge overall go ahead so I'll just ask you very directly did she talk to you about telling her sister-in-law Laura Coster yes she did she told me she told Laura everything she had told me that day um and that included her concerns that the defendant was going to kill her yes it included that and she told me that uh her sister-in-law is a friend actually she's more than a sister-in-law she's my friend and she said she warned her to be careful that he you don't know what he can do um Mr Fazio you had this conversation in your classroom about computers yes and it was during that time David said I've been teaching her yes you don't know what David was teaching his mother he said he taught her how to turn on the computer she didn't know where the button was and how to and how to uh open programs did he tell you that he had seen his mom on the computer no he did not did you know that Miss um Jensen did the home checkbook on the computer no um did you know that David enjoyed doing a painting program on the computer I'm not sure if I remember that but he might have the conversation that you had with Miss Jensen on November 25th that was about a conversation she had with Miss Coster was the thing you just testified about you weren't present during that conversation no it was also part of your conversations with Julie Jensen that she told you her husband was controlling yes that he wouldn't let her get a job right that he wouldn't let Douglas be put in daycare right this was around the same time as those conversations into an extra daycare he was already in daycare in the morning all day school the afternoon was going to be a um special needs uh partnership we had at the school and so remember that from your direct testing through her interrupting the witness let the witness answer go ahead Miss DeFazio um I thought she had finished I'm sorry Mr Fazio I'm sorry it's a peer helper program and at if he turned three and he was just about to turn three he could then apply doesn't necessarily mean you get in but you apply for the program to be a mentor for children who have special needs so a regular normal child with children who have unusual learning styles and I remember you testifying about that a couple of weeks ago and it was your understanding that Mark would not allow Julie to sign Douglas up for that that's right and the conversation about Miss Koster was around the same time as those conversations November 25th and I'm trying to think that was all the same date yes I think it was thank you ma'am no further questions anything else from the state no yeah all right thank you you're excused it's rebuttal witness uh these State calls Paul ratzberg all right you could remain standing with 10 rasper get some we swear the testimony is made to be the truthful truth nothing but the truth shall be God yes I do thank you get as close as you can to the microphone spell your first and last name again for the reporter first name Paul p-a-u-l last name spelling r-a-t-z b-u-r-g go ahead Miss McNeil um just a few specific questions for you um shortly after Julie Jensen's death did you receive a phone call from a person who identified herself as Laura Coster yes I did and um what did this person say in the phone call she was concerned she identified herself as Laura Coster and said something to the effect I think my brother killed my best friend and uh this was a short conversation I take it very short yes um but it's after that um did you attempt to uh have a much more thorough and long conversation with Ms Coster yes were you able ever able to do so I was not able to uh hook up with her um and she eventually declined to speak with you correct um I have an exhibit to show you I've showed you what's been marked as State's exhibit 131 um you recall testifying about the Jensen home computer and seizing the Jensen home computer correct yes um and so how does exhibit 131 how does that relate to the Jensen home computer this is a Dell receipt for the Jensen home computer I can remember comparing the serial numbers on it and it stated 7-2 of 1998. um So based on that receipt um that would indicate that the Jensens received that computer um sometime in July of 1998. correct and that receipt is that something that you got from the residents the Jensen residents yes um so I would just move 131 into evidence any objection all right 131 comes in and um just to clarify the timing of some things uh you had had the detailed conversation with Mark Jensen on April 21st of 1999 yes and it was that same day that you talked to David Jensen it is and do you recall when uh Mark Jensen was talking to you him making references to things that David had said yes and he knew that you were talking to David as well he gave me permission to speak with David all right I have nothing further thank you uh any cross just a couple of things nothing at this time just a couple of things oh I'm sorry yeah the opposite of what you thought I said good morning or hopes right yeah the uh the conversation that you testified just now about with Laura Coster yes did you review your police reports prior to coming here today yes and is there a report of that conversation with Laura Coster in my report in your summary correct yes okay there's uh are you able to say which date Laura Coster contacted you I could not no it's not in there right it is not okay um did you uh ask her questions I did not so she called you and made this statement and you asked no follow-up questions oh yes follow-ups but uh the voice on the phone was emotional she was crying and she uh so to speak hung up on me and then I made efforts in trying to recontact her several times you remember it as her reaching out to you absolutely she called the police department the main line and then she asked for me or at least she inquired who was handling the uh Julie Jensen death and then the call was transferred to me and I happened to be in my office and I picked up the phone and then we had that brief conversation and we don't know when that was it was in December of 1998. but your report doesn't your report doesn't say when that was right no it does not and do you have separate notes of that conversation no um do you have notes of what precisely you asked her no or her responses to any questions you may have asked I didn't ask any questions of her or you didn't ask any questions of her yes but she disconnected with me shortly after she made that statement she seemed to be rather emotional and then I made efforts in trying to recontact uh Laura Costa and they were unsuccessful you had made a um a call where the costers scheduled a time to meet with you correct that is correct and then you got a call from Miss coster's husband asking to postpone that correct correct that would have been in December of 1999. um now your report doesn't indicate this but you never contacted the costers to reschedule correct I did in fact there's if you look further in my report there's a conversation in O2 that I had with Mr Coster without hearing from here that I and asked if I could meet with them and that I've been trying to get in touch with them oh I see so because the the conversation you're talking about is 1999 or 1998 I'm sorry just and it can get confusing the phone call that she made to me or at least identified herself as that was in December of 1998. and and on I don't want to cut you off okay um and then in uh December of 1999 we had a scheduled appointment I believe it was 12 11 of 99 and then Todd Coster called me and canceled it and then in O2 I met them out in front of the courthouse here and I talked to Todd and I asked him again if we can I'd like to talk to Laura well I'm I'm really glad you clarified this so the the phone call that um is referenced but doesn't have a specific date that was December of 1998 you believe it was December of 98 yes and then you scheduled a follow-up meeting with them more than a year later yes that would be correct yes in 99. in December of 1999 exactly yes that's the meeting that got put on hold correct well the Todd Coster called me and he canceled the meeting did he say in December of 1999 that they wanted to get through the holidays he could have said that but I don't recall that specifically and then the next attempt you made to reach out to them was in 2002 no I made several uh attempts to recontact them between 1999 and 2002 they were here for a hearing as well as I was in this courthouse and I saw him and so to speak I kind of cornered them and said hey I still want to talk to your wife Laura Coster uh we need to I'd like to find out what information she has on this case and he said he'd get back to me so your first attempt at scheduling a meeting with them was more than a year after Julie Jensen had passed away no uh I stopped by their house after I received that phone call I was extremely concerned obviously she had some important information so I made numerous stop by the house I left my card in their door and also made any phone attempts I tried to I contacted stopped by the house three four times after that phone call and attempted to contact them to interview Laura Coster and what you're finally able to schedule with them was over a year later correct yes the um the computer receipt that you just talked about yes sir your awareness from investigation and review of records that this was their second home computer I'm not sure what you mean by the second home computer this wasn't the Jensen's first family home computer that I don't know you don't remember that I don't remember any talk about a computer previous to the one I seized on December 3rd 1998. nothing else any redirect no yeah honor all right thank you I do not wish to violate a rule but we do have a video all right how long is the video 23 minutes all right I think we can do that one and which exhibitor which video is this um have to have this marked all right let's mark it exhibit 132 and this is um Ted Voigt thank you and Mr boy they have new Curry Ford or a different one the last time that you were here so could you please State your first name and spell it and then State and spell your last name it's Ted's boy t-a-d-e-u-s-z w o j t and um Mr Voigt you've already talked in the past about a number of conversations that occurred between you and Julie Jensen I want to direct your attention to one particular conversation do you recall any conversation that occurred between you and Julie Jensen in the weeks preceding her death where Julie Jensen was describing to you a conversation that she had had with the defendant's Sister Laura Coster yes tell us what you can remember about the conversation that occurred between you and Julie Jensen where she was describing this conversation between her and Laura Costa first of all can you tell me when did this conversation occur between you and Julie Jensen I would say it happened around week week and a half at least a week and I have to for jewelry die and it was after like effect from Chicago from work to around three o'clock to something tell us tell the jury what you can remember about that conversation in so far as it relates to Julie's description of a conversation she'd had with Laura Costa told me that she did Mark's sister she's so smart sister today she was over she told my sister what was going on and she told me what Mark's sister said that she lived with him for 18 years and you don't know what he's capable of it was thank you I have no further questions Mr White I I take it you took no notes of this conversation nope you uh met with Detective rasper for a couple hours on December 4th 1998 the day after Julie Johnson's death right yes I did he interviewed you regarding your knowledge of facts in this case yes he asked you about conversations you've had with Julie Jensen correct yes he did he asked you to tell him whatever he whatever you thought were important details in this case correct actually we were telling him yes he and he was nursing hotel right and you were trying to give him the important details in this case right yes you did not tell them about any such conversation regarding Laura costume right at that time I don't remember you've seen that you've seen that report from that conversation correct and like I stated before two years objection no no you could answer the question have you seen the report my report yes it did you've seen the the typewritten report of detective ratsberg containing the statements you made on December 4th 1998 true I don't think there was a typewriter report it was a handwritten report are you telling me that you've never been shown is the prosecutor ready to answer for you I mean it's looking looking he's looking over in this direction and just pulling the directions is December 4th 1998 did you ever read that police report regarding your first interview with Detective rasford probably too and it's not in there is it I at that moment I cannot recall all right and then you did a handwrick there's a handwritten statement one year later December 4th 1999 correct was no actually that's what I referred to the handwritten statement was done in 1998 as at that time I was a first statement wrote you talked to detective rasper the day after Julie Jensen's death yes and you told him many things you thought were important correct yes you did not tell them anything about this conversation the Flora cost you true I can remember things that is you have no money in saying any such thing about Laura Caster true are you talking about December 4th December 4th 1998 right yes you did not say anything about it right I I told you I don't remember and then you've seen the handwritten statement you wrote right all right detective raspberry ham wrote out a statement yes you know let me finish for the for the court report after you after he interviewed you on December 4th 1999 he hand wrote us 1998. handwritten statement and happened in 1998. and I did a report that they just walk on it faith is warmed under the year and the report is wrong let me show you 23 27. and handwritten report yes is your signature there yes the date is December 4th 1999 that's what the day is designed but it happened to the because uh he showed up and Friday in my house we asked Mr Redman to show up my kids are in school and December 1999 decided he was invited my husband what was the last part he wasn't right he was privy when he was in my bro Mr White let me show you that's exhibit 328. it's a report of detective Paul raspberry indicating that on December 4th 1998 he spoke with you and your wife Greg yes correct have you read his summary of that conversation have you ever seen this document I probably did I just don't go over those documents I'm just saying well I know I'm still not sure I understand Mr White have you read this document at some point and do you have these documents were they provided to you provided to me so you do have on you have all your past statements right I do have some of them and this says nothing about any conversation with Laura Coster correct and is that right I really don't know I will have to read it you've read it before right I I read a lot of things before have you have you seen any statement that you've ever done at any time in this case in which you talk about lower custard hey buddy old one I know I said it the father I told the court about it I told people Mr police and this side Mr Boyle yes is it in here I told you is it in here take a look go ahead I'm reading them so unless you recall whether it's in there or not read the statements please foreign foreign the detective raspberry write anything in that report and it's about his conversation with you in which you mentioned Laura coaster under on December 4th 1998. could you please take a look at the handwritten statement that's dated December 4th 1999 and tell me if there's anything else here in there foreign and then in uh July 2002 defendants exhibit 329 there's another statement of yours that bears your signature on July 22nd 2002 correct yes is there anything in this statement regarding Laura coaster foreign [Applause] foreign hearing correct yes yes at the preliminary hearing Mr Boyd he didn't say anything about Laura coaster and about this alleged conversation did you I really don't remember would you like to review your pulmonary hearing testimony oh no just trying to find out if you've ever mentioned this before they did mention this before have you ever testified about it I really don't remember it's not any report that you've ever seen is it and like I said before that the first time Mr raspberry show up in my house we were talking for a couple of a good two hours and what he put in the report that's what he told was you know at that point he wanted he's not in any report right I know he didn't put it it's not in any report at any time correct I really don't know and that's not what you call me I'm not sure I'll have to take it and stuff foreign [Music] hearing you testified in in July as well right July 2007 yes when's the first time you told the D.A about this it's before it was after this trial began right oh no I told him a long time ago I told many other things and that's what one of the things saying it's not on the pain it's not what I was saying to the police or made this money actually it wasn't my voice it was Mr Boyd he wrote you wrote the first paper in 1999 right me yeah well Mr Bradford wrote it out for you right and then you had another chance in July 2002 right yes it's not on your paper then either section those two you want the transcripts they're talking about his statement that was typewritten and that he signed exhibit 329 and he just acknowledged does not contain any such statement about Laura coaster uh you understand do you recall the question I really and again the same statement it's not the Microsoft Word it's not everything and you took no notes yourself at any time right no I didn't can you identify any written note anywhere Mr Boyd mine with a note anybody's written no I just if I before the last thing and I told you before those notes this testimony which you get in the front of you actually like Mr raspberry okay the last time we're going to everything was put very short version because that's what we were upset about Mr Boyd yes could you please answer my question if you're are you aware of any written note anywhere that contains this information objection this question's been asked and asked several times can you answer can you answer the questions [Music] yeah I just don't remember but and yet you claim nine years later to remember these exact words no well I said it like I said before and just people don't put it down I said it many times before and I said many other things and I not see on that piece of paper either put Mr Boyd you claim to remember the exact words nine years later even though you have no note that you ever took I'm documenting those words because I repeated many times those things would happen and just nobody ever thought that it was important enough to put down is it is that what you're testing is most important to sample that people wasn't yes and you remember that this conversation took place at exactly three o'clock you know what I said actually I came back from Chicago from Warwick and I usually used to leave Chicago but one on flying into traffic and I got home around after two o'clock three o'clock and I remember talking to Julie that day because she told me that Laura was there Mark's sister the conversation and she said exactly what the Lord I told her didn't you say that this was at three o'clock listen I thought you said this is at three o'clock around three o'clock that's all I have right well let's go through that conversation that you said it was around three o'clock in the afternoon yes it was around drug life because Julia was still outside and uh Mike wasn't home at the time and I usually that's what I get I used to get home because I was I leave Chicago one o'clock because otherwise I will get stuck at the traffic for two hours and um so this conversation occurred between you and Julie Jensen where did the conversation take place was it in her yard or in your yard or do you remember no it was it was just between it you know just in the Border I would say so how far away was she standing from you as she was having this conversation with you would you say I would say three feet to four feet and um were the children home at that point or don't you remember no I don't remember was there anybody else present when you had this conversation with Julie how about how long would you say you were talking with Julie that day I would say we'd be probably talk about I'll say 20 minutes to half hours well even today as you're sitting here have you been asked questions about every single thing that you can tell us about Julie Jensen no there are still things you could tell us about Julie Jensen yes as you're sitting here today do you remember how many people you've spoken to about this particular conversation that you had with Julie Jensen where she mentioned her conversation with Laura Coster hearsay see it again okay could I ask the reporter to read it back I want to make sure that it's right back exactly the way I said it as you're sitting here today do you remember how many people you have spoken to about this particular conversation that you had with Julie Jensen where she mentioned her conversation with Laura Coster world that means you can answer the question sir I'll probably set at least two three people one of them will be my way and when did you first do you remember talking when you first remember talking to your wife about this conversation that occurred between you and Laura Coster are you ready because I was our daily based you know we've talked about what was going on who else can you remember talking to about this case I'm sure there's some neighbors uh like I'm sorry I I got that question answering the question would you like to hear the rest of it I couldn't hear a thing because that was fun I misspoke so I want to restate the question answering the question and you can't stop them in the middle of the question foreign was who else can you remember talking to about this case and then he started answering I'm sure there's some neighbors like um you can finish the answer well I'm sure I told somebody it was like across the street The Neighbors because we we did talk about things what happened after Julie then no and you know I said the case and that question what I meant to ask you was how who are who are the other people you've spoken to about this particular conversation that occurred between you and Julie Jensen where she mentioned her conversation with Laura caster I can remember who we also talked to about that particular conversation beside your wife I actually not not real well did you ever talk to me about it yes I really did and you were talking to miss Gabrielle about it yes did you ever remember Susan karascavich assistant Deputy district attorney Susan Karis and I'm I'm sure I'm I said that I think someone in the police station that bothered took me to police station and asked us to appear we said about this that that's what happened um now in the course of the conversations or interviews that you had with Detective rantsburg was it his practice to take down every single thing you told him well when you say practice you're talking about during the interview yes now the objections over that means you can answer the question sir well did you have to write down everything you said no he didn't that's why I used to get upset that he wouldn't write down everything what I was talking even one of the time I asked him just take me back to my shop because I was upset but I said the last time I didn't see any statement or did they forgot about it thank you for the questions good question these statements that I showed you that that were prepared yes you signed them right yes it did you didn't make any additions to those statements right I didn't go to police next day to talk to them again I didn't is that correct Mr Voight you didn't make any additions to those statements right I made the statement I did made the additional statement to those statements you didn't you didn't after these statements were produced you didn't write Mr rasberger note or say well let me add this you just signed it and left it as is right yes so uh that's the end of state's exhibit 132 and the state would move that into evidence all right it will be received 132 is accepted all right I think it's a good time to take a break uh again folks don't talk about the case we'll take a 10 minute break thank you all right all right before we go on our break um how many more uh rebuttal Witnesses do we have today one all right it'll be a live Witness all right and before we go further does the defense have any rebuttal they wish to do we just need to chat briefly right I think it's called Surrey bottle but the statute says rebuttal from both sides but talk about it thank you foreign thank you foreign foreign we are back on the record on Mark Jensen 2002 cf314 prudences are the same for the record of juries back in a courtroom and who is the next rebuttal witness from the state Dr Mary Maine Lindsey Runner right doctor can you come up here and I'll sweary in again you saw me swear the testimony is meant to be the truthful truth nothing but the truth shall be God thank you again get as close as you can to the microphone by your first and last name for the reporter Mary Mainland [Music] m-a-r-y-m-a-i-n-l-a-n-d thank you go ahead Mr chambus thank you thank you good afternoon Dr Mainland thank you for coming back all the way from Florida we appreciate that and um I'm going to start by talking to you about the distinction between um bruises on Julie Jensen's rib cage and lividity um did you see any evidence of lividity and on the left side of Julie Jensen's brid rib cage at uh when you looked at the autopsy photos yes and but did you also see evidence of hemorrhaging yes and I just showed you another photograph that we had correct yes and is that photograph more clearly delineate between the hemorrhaging and the lividity yes would it assist you in explaining this to the jury if we put that up on the screen yes and you're on this will be exhibit 133. I'll direct your attention to the screen and Madam clerk could you ensure that the um the TV is that my computer's connected the TV please thank you now can you see that adequately from where you're seated yes and is this a better photograph a better picture of the injuries to Julie Jensen's rib cage yes now I'm going to show you this I'm pointing out this kind of darker area here and here and here and here and and here and can you tell me what those um somewhat darker areas what those reflect um lividity so in your opinion that appears to be lividity on the left side of Julie Jensen's rib cage yes now what about this dark spot right here this dark dark spot right here and this dark spot right there can you tell us what those three marks are um they appear to be hemorrhage and the Hemorrhage is quite significantly different from the lividity isn't it um this in this photo yes and for sort of the person had the best view of these injuries was Dr chambliss isn't that true yes because Dr Shameless wasn't looking at a photograph he was looking at the actual injuries yes and Dr shamlis's um diagnosis or his determination of these injuries how did he describe this injury here and this and this how did he describe those um may I refer to as autopsy report you may foreign page three um it says upon reflecting the skin and underlying soft tissues there's a small amount of hemorrhage involving the soft tissues and muscles attached to the left second third four sorry second third and fourth ribs so this is the second rib right here looking at the yes and this is the hemorrhaging he's referring to yes I believe so and this can speculation with the I believe so and what is he referring to why don't you just rephrase it do you have an opinion um in looking at this photo as to what it is that Dr chambles is likely referring to when he's referring to hemorrhaging on the second third and fourth rib yes and what is this right here that's how much and that's on the second rib correct yes and what's this right here Hemorrhage and that's in the third group correct yes and what's this right right here or let's see right here Hemorrhage and that's on the fourth rib correct correct thank you doctor now I'm going to change topics here um we'd also heard from a medical toxicologist in this case who said that she couldn't draw any inferences at all um about the cause or manner about the manner of death just based upon the amount of ethylene glycol that was in the decedon's blood at the time of blood and stomach at the time of um her death um are you able to draw any inferences based upon that small amount of information if you um you would need to take into consideration the rest of the um you know the rest of the history um Julie Jensen's progress from the time she had her first dose until the time that um she was deceased well one of the things that you know is that Julie Jensen received no medical intervention from the time of her first dose to the time that she died correct correct now have you examined or have you seen the case studies of persons who died from ethylene glycol suicide and did you familiarize yourself with their blood alcohol are there blood ethanol glycine content at the time of their death with respect to these suicides judge um I do have an objection to this it's a topic that we discussed during Dr mainland's previous testimony is that the same area that we're going into yes I made a ruling you did that go out folks I'm sorry I got to do this side of the Quorum and I I remember I didn't allow that testimony and so yes which is why we didn't use it in our case in Chief however at that time you said the reason for was that the defense did not have an opportunity to have their experts to talk a pine on it or talk about it and so at that time I'd indicated well then the state may reserve the right to use that in rebuttal and I had not heard that we were not going to be allowed to use it in rebuttal Mr Perry I don't remember the latter part of that you know I'm starting to remember I think I did say after we had you an opportunity to ordeer her that if your experts testified and we came back with a rebuttal witness I was going to allow it in I have a I have an additional objection to it all right what's the new objection based on the vordering of Dr Mainland on this that this is a this is largely um based on inadmissible hearsay this is not something that was that's been published this is her own compilation and as she explained in court the last time she had um she had her own handwritten notes summarizing other reports that she relied on without the ability to provide those reports to defense or in court wouldn't you think that would go to the weight of her testimony well I think it goes to um just basic Discovery in terms of the underlying data that she relied on to come up with this so she relied on reports that she obtained through her own employment is what she explained and then she went on to explain that she doesn't have those reports and so she relied on things and then came up with her list but was unable to provide what she relied upon to the parties in this case and so that's that's the reason for um for that objection in terms of basically the foundation for this is is inadmissible hearsay that she has that we don't have an ability to cross on because we haven't been provided well you honor first of all um this witness should be allowed to testify about this and that you are right it does go to weight and they can cross-examine her about the information that she looked at in coming to these conclusions but what she'll justify to is that she examined known ethylene glycol suicides and she examined what the blood test result with a blood ethylene glycol test results were in cases where there'd be no medical Intervention which is exactly what we have here and um she was she'll be able to testify that the amount of ethylene glycol in the blood at death of ethylene glycol suicides where there was no medical intervention is somewhere between 40 and 200 times higher than it was in this case I'll give you one more shot if you want to save it I really don't have anything else to add it's the um this is her summary of underlying data that we have not been provided with and have there's no ability for us to review it um and so it's a um you know her her list and as she explained uh the bulk of it she had um she had none of the underlying reports to provide us well I know we did the four deer in the defense and an opportunity to get into the Syria so they were aware of that and I remember mentioning that it would have been helpful for the defenses experts to have that information so I didn't allow it in the state's case in Chief and the defense obviously was aware of this after that because we have the exhibit what number is it for the record was it marked a defense count or my able co-counsel says she thinks it's exhibit 90. all right exhibit 90 so it was marked and then the defense had an opportunity before their witness their expert Witnesses testified to have that information and that was my concern at that time now there's an except uh yeah objection as to the what data she used uh and I think it goes to the way Mr Perry you are free to ask her that question uh and then obviously that goes to the weight of what she's trying to tell a jury so I'm going to allow it in rebuttal so bring back the jury foreign we're back on the record on Mark Jensen 2002 cf314 the occurrences are all the same uh we're on a rebuttal witness Dr Malin thank you for your patience ladies and gentlemen you could ask your question Mr Jam boys thank you so Dr mainland in the course of your um evaluation of this case uh did you happen to examine other ethylene glycol death cases that you became aware of yes and did you notice any pattern in terms of the distinction between ethylene glycol suicides and ethylene glycol homicides yes what was that that you noticed in suicides typically the amount of ethylene glycol in the decedent system is higher and when we talk about higher is it what do you mean by that tell us what tell us what your findings were when you look at ethylene glycol suicides what the average ethylene glycol blood alkaline glycol ratio was all right I was able to find um 15 cases um locally and um in Florida and of these 15 suicides the average amount was 2072 milligrams per liter of ethylene glycol so that would be and that's about 40 times higher than it was in this case yes and the range was what I mean what was the highest amount that you found in anything that I call suicide the highest was over nine thousand that was a 9746 yes okay and um now some of these people that had died from methane glycol uh poisoning as a consequence of suicide some of them had received medical attention correct yes and the people that received medical attention how did their blood alcohol love or the blood ethanol ethylene glycol level compared to those who had not received at uh medical treatment well there are two on the list where um that everything like I was not detected post-mortem I believe speculation I'm sorry those two cases were cases that had received medical assistance and had survived for quite a while in the hospital no um there's been discussion about metabolic rate but isn't the first question that we need to address we're looking at the amount of ethylene glycol in the stomach is the absorption rate correct correct so tell the jury what the difference is between the absorption rate and the metabolic rate that you know before you um Can metabolize or break down a drug or a poison or anything um it needs to be absorbed into the system so um the first step you know in in ethylene glycol metabolism in the breakdown of this compound is that it has to be absorbed so it's it's absorbed in the stomach and in the small intestine and it's absorbed directly into the blood now how long after an initial dose of 30 milliliters of ethylene glycol after initial dose of 30 milliliters ethylene glycol how long would you expect that to take to be fully absorbed into the system again there's a range within the literature the literature says rapidly and completely um an hour is a figure that I've seen um quite a bit and that's really um since you're talking to a bunch of people who aren't medical doctors or forensic Pathologists um ethylene glycol is absorbed much like any other alcohol isn't it isn't it absorbing the system much the same way yes and so most of us the Lesser tea toddlers have consumed say in my case we'll say two glasses of wine so after I've absorbed two glasses of wine one hour after I finished the last glass of wine you would expect both glasses of wine to be fully absorbed into my system correct now we're talking about if you if you were on an empty stomach at the time um so if I had an empty stomach after two an hour after I finished my last glass of two glasses of wine how much uh wine would you expect to find in my stomach little to none so uh certainly 24 hours after I've absorbed a glass of consumed a glass of wine you would expect to find no ethylene glycol in my system correct so say 24 hours after Julie Jensen absorbed or consumed her first assuming she had a dose of ethylene glycol in the evening hours of of uh December 1st 1998 you would expect that by December 3rd 1998 that ethylene glycol would be fully gone from her stomach correct yes if it were um unless that were a massive dose in which case she probably would have died earlier on in the course now if she was manifesting symptoms nothing glycol poisoning in the early morning hours of December 1st and then on December 3rd in the afternoon at the time of death she still at ethnic glycol in her stomach would that be reflective of a second dose of ethylene glycol yes now we also heard from a medical toxicologist that said that you just can't draw any inferences at all from the amount of ethyl glycol that's in one's stomach at the time of death you can't join inferences at all about how much ethylene glycol they've had to consume is that true again you have to take into consideration the history the the medical course of the person so looking at the course that we have here Julie Jensen received no medical treatment for for any ethylene glycol poisoning is that true yes and she was manifesting signs methane glycol poisoning at say two or three o'clock in the morning correct yes and then she was manifesting signs of ethylene glycol poisoning um in the in the evening hours of December 2nd 1998 is that true yes so is that is that consistent with two two doses of ethane glycol yes it could be no had you also examined cases of ethylene glycol homicide um I have not um studied them or looked at I've looked at a few individual case reports and um unfortunately most of the homicide the information and ethylene glycohomicides is is out on the Internet it's it's public knowledge I don't have a whole lot of um scientific data from those cases well we'll stick to the data that you've employed and the data that you collected related to suicides correct correct and according to data you collected on average the average suicide death at the time of autopsy the decedent had an ethylene glycol concentration of 2072 milliliters per per liter which would be like 2072 micrograms per deciliter which is no you got these are off I might well in this case Julie Jensen had 55 micrograms per deciliter in her blood correct no she had 55 milligrams per liter or micrograms per milliliter they both mean the same thing okay and it was expressed as 55 micrograms per milliliter in this case correct yes and that would be the equal and what was in using the equivalent terminology the average suicide had how much in their system 2072 micrograms per milliliter or milligrams per liter so approximately 40 times the amount that Julie had in her her blood yes there's one other thing um we've heard the jury's heard testimony that if Mark Jensen did exactly what Aaron Dillard said that Mark Jensen did that they would expect to find that the decedent had vomited would you expect necessarily that Julie Jensen would have vomited if Mark Jensen sat on her chest and shoved her face into the pillow I can't say one way or another so you well by that means you wouldn't expect it or you would not accept you neither expected nor not expect it that's correct okay so the fact that she hadn't vomited at the time that it's alleged that Mark Jensen sat on her chest and shoved her face into a pillow that's not indicative of anything to you one way or the other that's correct oh my God the time Julie's Jensen's death there was a moderate amount of urine in the bladder and her stomach was distended with 660 milliliters of substance in it is that true yes does the fact that there wasn't much in her bladder and her stomach was distended does that mean that she was out and about and using the bathroom or what does it mean to you it um I can't make any conclusion from that when the urine when the kidneys shut down does the body continue to produce urine um it it will slow down and then it will stop so and there were actually acid crystals in Julie Jensen's kidney tubules is that true yes and what would that do to the kidney functioning it would interfere with kidney function foreign thank you everyone for the questions what's doing the cross go ahead Mr Perry just a moment please Dr Mainland you're not a toxicologist are you no you're not a clinical toxicologist no I'm not not a forensic toxicologist no I'm not um this is uh this study that you're referring to how many cases did you look at I looked at um a total of 21. okay and what are the dates of those 21 cases they range from sometime in the 1990s to um several years ago to about 2018. and where did you find those I found them in Florida in Tampa Florida in Milwaukee and in Kenosha counties Wisconsin and there were two I believe from Waukesha County and uh who decided that these were suicides or accidents the medical examiner in charge of the case the typically you'll be the one who did the autopsy and in each of these cases did you have um information as to ethylene glycol levels uh yes I believe so and information in terms of when the ingestion of ethylene glycol took place in some of them yes some of them know and some of them yes some of them know that's correct okay and in the ones that you didn't um did you uh somehow determine when they had ingested ethylene glycol um no and exactly how much ethylene glycol each of these had ingested no there was no way to tell that unless of course they made a statement do you have um specific can you look at your list and tell me um the weights and ages of each person on this list I can tell you ages I cannot tell you what's can you tell me their um each person's individual half-life for ethylene glycol no I can't uh you mentioned that um this this came up when you testified before in this case um a week or two ago I don't know it's all a blur um and you said again you said on Direct that a figure you've seen for absorption rate is an hour do you remember testifying to that yes and I asked you on cross that the figure actually that's commonly cited is one to four hours do you remember that [Music] um vaguely and you you agreed with that that one to four hours it's what's commonly cited if if if I agreed to it I agreed to it okay does that seem like something you have not read um no okay so it's consistent with what you've read is one to four hours for absorption rates yes do you have your um your study in front of you yes okay um I'm not sure I'm going to see if there's an electronic copy of this judge I'm going to ask for a moment so we can scan this in so I can publish this to the jury go ahead do you see what's up on the screen yes is that accurately reflect what's in front of you yes it does okay and the only difference I suspect is that in the upper right corner I had written s 90 and that that's the um States that's the exhibit what's marked on the sheet in front of you correct that's correct okay um aside from that absolutely consistent with what you have yes on the um left hand side it lists uh suicides correct yes and this is milligrams per liter yes and milligrams per liter is uh that's the level you you put that in there because that's what Julie Jensen's measure was yes and it's also the one that um that I commonly use so that I'm um most familiar with okay um you have up there that the average of these 15 instances is 2072. yes and again with the caveat that we don't know when any of these people ingested ethylene glycol correct correct and we don't know if they had ingested second or third doses of ethylene glycol correct and we don't know the amount of ethylene glycol that any of these individuals ingested um we know some of them but most of them we do not and we don't know anything about these individuals metabolism of ethylene glycol correct and we don't know their absorption rates of ethylene glycol correct the average is computed by adding them all up and dividing by 15 right yes you see several on here that are well below 2072 don't you yes you see one on here that says less than 20. yes that was determined to be a suicide yes you see two on here that say not detected yes also determined to be suicides yes in the middle column you have accidents correct yes and on the far right you have undetermined yes what does NT stand for not tested um in one case there was no specimen available um the body was still the body was buried and in the other case um it was a late report it um the body had already been cremated it came through over the phone so we have 21 cases on here total correct yes and it's your testimony as I understand it that from looking at this you're saying that a higher level of ethylene glycol is consistent with suicide than with homicide I would say that it's more consistent with suicide and you have no homicides listed on the sheet do you no I think you testified that you can take that off yeah thank you that a large enough dose early on would kill somebody yes okay and um what precisely would they have died of if it was a large enough dose ethylene glycol poisoning and would this be in phase one that they would die a person can die in any of the three phases if it was a large enough dose are you suggesting that they would die in Phase One of ethylene glycol um I'm suggesting that the larger the dose the more likely that what would happen that the person could die in phase one of ethylene glycol poisoning yes you're familiar with the concept that what people die of with ethylene glycol poisoning is not the ethylene glycol itself right it's the breakdown products and the breakdown products haven't occurred in phase one right right um Mr Jam boys could you put up exhibit I think it was 133 the the picture of the ribs we testified about um what Dr chamblers described as soft tissue small amount of soft tissue Hemorrhage to the ribs before right yes and you had reviewed all the autopsy photos before yes before testifying a couple of weeks ago before testifying a week ago a week ago it could have been this morning for all I remember yeah um had you seen this photo before um I believe I have okay and um do you see a shadow on this photo uh yes I'm going to well I hope he's okay with this I'm gonna have to use his cursor so I can ask you questions here oh my God I don't want anyone to mistake me as being a prosecutor this um this right here is what you said is um you identify as Hemorrhage yes and um how about this that's shadow that shadow not Hemorrhage shadow shadow what's behind the shadow soft tissue soft tissue can you say that there is no Hemorrhage behind this shadow um I can't say what's behind it because um I can only see the surface because you can't see it right correct because of the Shadow correct um this little Mark right here is what you said is hemorrhage yes and how about this Mark right next to it that um maybe hemorrhage might not be may not be and um how about this right here yes yes that looks like Hemorrhage to me okay and how about this right here that may also be hammered how about this right up here that may be Hemorrhage yeah how about this area right here that I'm not sure yeah it looks similar though doesn't it yes it's um in Shadow it's in a shadow but it looks similar yes we talked about this soft tissue Hemorrhage what been identified by Dr chambliss when you testified a week ago right yes um you agreed it could just be congestion it could be you agreed it's a non-specific finding um postmodern congestion is non-specific yes that post-mortem lividity could cause what we're seeing in that picture I guess I believe I um I believe that's what I said because when you're laying face down or on a side the blood pools yes you agreed that if it is hemorrhage you have no ability to say when that injury occurred all I can say is that it appears to be fresh there's no injury on the uh that was noted externally on Julie Jensen's ribs correct correct there's no injury on her back um if you count her buttock I mean um uh I guess her back opposite the side of the ribs no no fluid in the bed no nothing aspirated um no Dr chambles did not report any aspiration your understanding from review of all the records that Julie Jensen is drinking a lot of water right yes uh from review of the autopsy does it appear that her body was able to produce urine yes I think I think you described it as a moderate amount of urine um I forget what I said probably is it a moderate amount of urine yes was it your testimony just um earlier today that you think it was a second dose because there was some amount in her stomach yes the half a teaspoon yes um you remember all the discussions about gastroparesis that we had correct yes and delayed gastric emptying yes and the need to be able to say what was in those 22 ounces of stuff to be able to say whether or not that half a teaspoon would have been absorbed into her system can you put that a different way I I I don't quite she had 22 I think I get what you said but I'm not she had 22 ounces of gastric contents right yes um aside from the description that it was green and had potatoes and pepper in it uh we don't have a great description of it do we we have um quantification as far as the potato and pepper and we have we have the word fluid yeah I believe that's what he used the word fluid and we talked about um what uh what can cause delayed gastric emptying right yes and we went through a laundry list of of things of variables that may in Julie Jensen's system have caused her um I guess sort of GI system to shut down yes in terms of the possibility or even just the likelihood that this half a teaspoon could have been a Remnant from an earlier dose yes you'd agree that um 55 micrograms per liter is um almost an undetectable amount of ethylene glycol in her blood 55 micrograms per milliliter and now I screwed that up right um it it's near the threshold that some Laboratories use for reporting some Laboratories use the threshold of 50. micrograms per milliliter and if they see a number under that they may report um as not detected or as less than 50. so it's near the cusp of what wouldn't even be detected by Labs what wouldn't be reported I'm not saying that they they can't detect it it's just that at a certain number a lab will choose to either report a result or not report a result it you know you could have 30 for example and they would report less than 50. but less than 50 doesn't mean necessarily zero is what I'm trying to say I've got nothing else thank you any uh redirect Mr Jerry briefly could you do me the kindness of putting exhibit 90 back up on the screen again foreign you indicated that among the suicides there were two Notch detectives and one less than 20 um milligrams per liter correct yes and um do those three have anything in common with each other that you know of beside the fact that they were suicides yes um I believe that two of them um had received treatment I know that one of them had not okay so of the two not detectives and one less than 20 of those two three of them had received medical treatment correct no two of them which two you said two of these three had received treatment yes okay which to it do you remember which two no if if memory serves me I can certainly find that out for you it'll take a while um one of those was um a personal case of mine and that's why I remember um that that person had not had any treatment I believe the other two did okay and the one that was a personal case of yours that had not had any treatment you don't remember us the not detected or under 20. no I don't remember but all of the rest of them excluding those three all the rest of them had uh rate ratios of 570 uh not less than 570 and up to 9746 milligrams per liter correct yes so if you excluded those three then the average would actually be higher than 2072 wouldn't it yes and by the way I've already done so I would move exhibit well you can take that down now thank you I move exhibit 133 into evidence it's received um sir were you aware um that what Mark just said about what Julie Jensen had been eating or drinking in the day or two before she died um Mark Jensen said she had been drinking a lot of water as far as food I don't recall nothing further anything else Mr Perry briefly go ahead if you had excluded those three the average would be higher right yes if you had looked at even fewer cases the average would be higher depending on which view sure if your study listed uh there's one that says 7400 correct yes there's one that says 97.46 yes and um and then and then we'd have an average for uh what it would take what would be found in a suicide rate in in those three yes and it would be even higher wouldn't it yes um this isn't uh by any means a comprehensive analysis of ethylene glycol poisoning deaths in America over any defined period of time is it no it is not this is um what you found based on your particular access from a few offices of information that you believe is related to ethylene glycol isn't it yes and nothing else nothing else with all the limitations that I described earlier about lack of knowledge yes that's it thank you all right thank you for coming for real and your honor you're good you're absolutely positively unequivocally completely finished yes it says we have the exhibit there's no exhibits over here your honor I will see this with respect to exhibit 90 I inadvertently altered it I I wrote as foreigners I wrote mg L that was not on the original exhibit so I've doctored the exhibit so I want to make it I'll put on the record that I did that I came to White it out or put my initials next to it why don't you put your initials next to it I think that's the correct way of doing it the uh moved in um and 133. said they're done with their rebuttal all right does the defense have any rebuttal we do not judge thank you foreign relief now we are done with the testimony all right we got to do our work now folks we got to talk about jury instructions we got to talk about other legal issues um so you get to go home we stay and work but come back 8 30 sharp please don't talk about the case we're getting really close where you can deliberate okay have a good evening see you tomorrow all right the jury is outside of the courtroom I believe a couple of days ago I did mention um jury instructions um and then Mr jam boy said in the king if there were instructions from the last trial as the defense had a chance to look at those instructions that were used I have had a chance to review them I have not had a chance to talk to co-consul about them okay you want to do that right now I would like to judge but before we do that can I just put um an objection on the record sure okay so when Mr Fazio was testifying I objected and said it was based upon the motion and Lemony because she had testified that Julie told her that she had told police officers about being in danger or about telling police officers about thinking Mark was going to kill her and I believe that is outside of I think that's inconsistent with the ruling this court made that no statements to law enforcement and the letter were not coming in so that's why I made that objection all right no instruction because I thought it would just it's noted for the record thank you okay you want some time then to look at the jury instructions the state want to do the same thing I think what I'd like to do is this I'd like us to go back to our office and then prepare the proposed substantive jury instructions and procedural instructions that we want in this case and provide them to court and Council and we can discuss them then tomorrow morning um I did not look at the I knew that there were instructions obviously for the last trial but I haven't read them so I don't remember what was done or only one that I noticed that was a little different that I have not seen there was a specific instruction as to Laura Costner I don't know why maybe somebody could tell me but that was the only one that stood out that was different all the other ones were the normal ones used in a criminal trial with the elements of the crime well the I I thought the Reasonable Doubt instruction was different too because I thought there was a sentence added into the reason I didn't notice that but um I I'm the only one here that was at the last trial and I have absolutely no recollection of why we had a special Laura Caster instruction um no idea at all it was probably made by the defense that's my reading of it well I certainly wasn't going to ask for a special instruction I don't even know what the instruction was I I think that we should just use the same standard substance of instruction with respect to first degree intentional homicide I think we should use the standard Reasonable Doubt instruction and I don't think we should have any instruction for Laura Coster well I think we should have the lawyers give a chance to look at it I um I uh I I released a jury obviously they don't have any other duties today we're just going to have to wait as to the defendant leaving but what I want the attorneys to do then um take your time this evening or what whatever time you're going to do it and come up with some instructions for me and I'll look them in in the morning and we'll go through each one of them okay a couple other housekeeping manners while we are waiting and we have the time um I don't want I shouldn't started out that way let me ask this uh the state who's doing the closing for the state who's doing the closing for the defense okay I gave you an hour and a half for your opening are we going to do an hour and a half for closing I'm not talking about rebuttal or anything okay and Mr Perry any idea I we don't have the rebuttal so I do think it'll be a little longer Okay the reason I bring it up because the poor court reporter has to take care and when when we're doing a closing there's no time where we're not talking it's talking continuous and I got to figure out when to do a break for the jury so if I have some idea I can look at the clock and say okay she said an hour and a half he said hour and a half I can figure it out we're not going to do both closings in my instructions straight through that's that doesn't work the jury can't take it the court reporter can't they so give me some idea when you come back tomorrow the other thing I wanted to bring up obviously we have 16 jurors so I am going to strike four tomorrow it'll just be random I'm just going to use numbers but I'm not going to release the 4 that I strike I'm going to put them in a separate location in a courthouse they're not going to leave they're not going to be able to discuss the case but if we need to take one from the four we'll bring that person in I don't want to send them home and then something happens we've gone too long in this trial for something to go wrong so if anybody has an objection to that see it now you know I don't objection to that it's just I I seem to have some vague recollection of queso that says that you can't bring in an alternate and put them back in the uh pack to with the jury without the defendant's consent I don't know so the defendant's got a consent I understand it but I don't want to send the floor home you don't need our consent you don't need the state's consent but I do think and I know judge you know you guys always quote Trader from the last case he kept the dirt I think he had eight alternates and he kept them in the courthouse he didn't let them go home I didn't read that judge and all I would ask is allow us time to just talk about it and we can let the court if you've got a different idea let me know but I here's my problem if I send the 12 back and I deliberate in the 401 home something happens to the one in the 20 that are part of the 12 what do we do you understand the Court's concerns based upon the length of this trial I just want a chance to look at the case attorney Jam boys it's talking about and talk to it with Council but we can let the court know in the morning I know I know you can if there's a agreement you could take a verdict with seven jurors I know that but it has to be agreed right unlikely but yes that we would agree but yeah so think of that or any other housekeeping Matters from the state anything else from defense all right let's make sure the jury's gone before we take back the defendant so we'll see you at 8 30 we'll do jury instructions okay have a good evening foreign

Channel: Law&Crime Network

Views: 96,152

Keywords: law and crime, law and crime network

Id: Pss0jh15M18

Length: 448min 15sec (26895 seconds)

Published: Mon Jan 30 2023