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

foreign [Music] foreign okay we're gonna imagine photo department Health Department restaurants all right friends [Music] okay as well States thank you this is done all right I'll rise for the jury foreign we're going to go on a record it is January 24 2023. we're on the case of state of Wisconsin versus Mark D Jensen 2002 cf314 let's have the appearances please good morning you're on the state of Wisconsin appears by special prosecutor Robert jamboy's Deputy district attorney Carly McNeil and public service special prosecutor Beverly Jam boys attorneys Bridget Crosby Jeremy Perry and Mackenzie Renner appear on behalf of Mr Mark Jensen who appears in person good morning judge good morning the Curious back in a courtroom thank you for coming on time folks we're still in the state's case in Chief with that who's your next witness Mr Jam boys Dr Mary Mainland right let's have her come up that's before um before Dr manlin starts testifying I just uh and I mentioned this at the end of yesterday I do want to I've marked exhibits 80 and 81 they're the transcripts that correspond to the telephone calls that were played for defense exhibit 72 and I'd like to admit those and offer those into evidence any objection no objection all right 80 and 81 are received foreign thank you get as close as you can to the microphone and if you could spell your first and last name for the reporter first name Mary m-a-r-y last name mainland m-a-i-n-l-a-n-d thank you go ahead Mr Jam boys thank your honor um good morning Dr Mainland could you please tell the jury um how you're presently employed I'm retired when did you get retired um November of 2020. When You Reach when you retired what were you doing I was um well I still am but I was serving as a medical examiner for Hillsborough County in Tampa Florida so by profession I'm a forensic pathologist foreign exhibit s82 and we're asking some questions about that yes sir what is exhibit s82 this is a copy of my curriculum vitae also known as a resume and um how current is this curriculum Beauty um I think I updated it in October of last year so any changes since October of last year no so can you first of all tell the jury about your education sure um starting with college I received my bachelor's degree from the University of wisconsin-milwaukee I um went to medical school in Milwaukee at the Medical College of Wisconsin received my MD degree there in 1995. after that I did a five-year residency in anatomic and Clinical Pathology also in Milwaukee following that I did a one-year Fellowship which is specialized training in forensic pathology in Richmond Virginia so you have a doctor of medicine yes sir and um are you board certified in anything in any Specialties yes I'm board certified in anatomic clinical and forensic pathology now can you tell the jury what the difference is between an anatomic uh pathologist and a forensic pathologist so when you think of a pathologist you're probably most likely thinking of an anatomic pathologist those are the doctors who work in a hospital or for a hospital um say you have something you don't have a biopsy of something the pathologist is a person who actually looks at the tissue reads it and determines um if there's disease there and if so what what type of disease so you know if you have a breast lump or a colon cancer or whatever that's what uh pathologist deals with forensic pathology um is a little bit it's very specialized um it goes into um kind of where medicine meets the law um there are certain types of deaths um in in the entire United States that are specified by law that need to be investigated um when you are born a good birth certificate when you die you get a death certificate and these certain types of deaths can only be signed um these certain death certificates can only be signed by somebody who is legally um allowed to so this would be a forensic pathologist a coroner you might have heard the term a medical examiner somebody who has that special training and permission by law so practically speaking a forensic pathologist does a lot of autopsies and um that does determines cause and manner of death so when you're looking at uh and can you tell the jury what the difference is between a cause of death and a manner of death sure um the cause of death is pretty simple the cause of death is either a disease or an injury it's what killed a person you know so um gunshot wounds of the head um breast cancer um you know stomach ulcer whatever um the manner of death is more like the how um there are five different manners there's natural which is the most common most people die a natural death then there's suicide homicide accident and finally undetermined and oh I'm sorry no so then I'm going to ask you some more questions then about your um your employment history so after you um serve your fellowship or in the uh in which office was that that you served your Fellowship Richmond Virginia okay and how long was that Fellowship a year and when did you complete your fellowship at in Richmond Virginia in 2000 and so what did you do after completing your fellowship in Richmond Virginia in 2000 um I returned to Milwaukee to the Milwaukee area and um my first job was at the Milwaukee County medical examiner's office and I was employed as an assistant medical examiner and what did you do as an assistant medical examiner at the Milwaukee medical examiner's office mostly As I was describing to you autopsies in order to determine the cause and manner of death now when you're looking at the the manner of death determining whether it's a homicide a suicide accidental natural causes or undetermined what are the factors that you look at outside the autopsy well there are so many um it's just like when you go to a doctor um you know the doctor doesn't jump in and start listening to your heart and lungs right away the doctor likes you hey you know what's what's going on what's the um what's is there a problem what's the problem how are you feeling um what is their pain what's the pain like you know does it get better does it get worse so that's called taking a history the doctor takes an extensive history um usually and so for a forensic pathologist we obviously can't take any kind of history from the body so we um we rely on reports from Friends neighbors family Witnesses police records medical records Etc so we'll um you know we'll use all of that stuff in in some cases in order to figure out help figure out how did this person come to be found dead and ultimately what killed this person and how now which comes first the autopsy or that other analysis of the evidence that was accumulated during law enforcement's investigation well ideally it would be all all the evidence first and then the autopsy but it doesn't always work out that way sometimes it takes a while to get information so how long did you work at the Milwaukee County Medical examiner's Office three and a half years do you have any idea how many autopsies you did in that three and a half years about 250 a year 250 a year 250 to 300. and how many did you do uh when you were serving your fellowship at uh in Virginia 241. I'll never forget so 241 in that first year and then 250 to 300 a year thereafter in Milwaukee medical examiner's office yes and you worked there three and a half years yes and then when you left the Milwaukee medical examiner's office where did you go I went to um Kenosha Wisconsin oh right where we're at today been in this courthouse and um where when you came to Kenosha what how were you employed I was the medical examiner for Kenosha County when did you start here I'm in February of 2005. and how long did you stay here three and a half years so when did you leave when did I leave yeah when did you leave I think it was like in in about the summer time of 2008. and that's when and then where did you go after that I went to Tampa Florida and you've been working in Florida until your retirement yes so when you're working for the Kenosha County medical examiner's office as the Kenosha County Medical Examiner how many autopsies did you perform each year in that capacity um it's hard to remember I've I've broken it down but probably under 200 a year at that time and when you were working as the Kenosha County Medical Examiner did you also take cases for other counties at that time yes so when you were doing about 200 a year they were somewhere for Kenosha County and some were for other counties correct and um when you left the Kenosha County medical examiner's office when you went to uh Tampa uh what did you where what was your job title at when you arrived in Tampa I started out there as an associate medical examiner and uh and how long were you employed as an associate medical examiner about three years um and in that first three years that you were working in Tampa as an associate medical examiner about how many autopsies a year would you perform uh a good 200. 200 a year probably more than that probably about 250. and then um after you've been the associate medical examiner for three years what did you what was your next job title uh deputy chief medical examiner and how long did you serve as deputy chief medical examiner a little over a year and then what was your next job title chief medical examiner so chief medical examiner for Tampa Florida yes how big a city is Tampa Florida um well it's uh about the size of Milwaukee the county is Hillsborough County so I was the Tampa office is responsible for for the surrounding County Hillsborough County and I would say Tampa and um Hillsborough County are pretty comparable to Milwaukee and Milwaukee County maybe a little bit bigger probably somewhat bigger by now so and how long how long do you serve as chief medical examiner for um for Hillsborough County six years and um what was your next job title after serving as chief medical examiner I stepped down to become a deputy chief medical examiner and why did you do that um I could see my retirement coming up and um I knew I had like a couple years to go and I wanted the next person in line to be prepared you know for the chief job um I also wanted to go back to what I really liked doing which was doing autopsies and as Chief you don't get as as much of an opportunity so when you were chief medical examiner for six years how many autopsies did you do then um probably less than 100 a year well no less than 150 a year but you also reviewed the work of other medical exam other associate medical examiners yes and how many medical examiners altogether worked in that office at that time there were five there are six now so you did your own autopsies and you reviewed the work of the autopsies of other medical forensic Pathologists that are working for you that's correct and as Deputy when you went back to being Deputy medical examiner again how many autopsies were you doing in a year about 200 and um you said you served as Deputy medical examiner for about two years yes and then what did you do then I retired and since you've retired you haven't done any autopsies no I haven't but you have you you reviewed cases for other for other parties yes um all together do you have an estimate of how many autopsies you did in the course of your career uh just a little bit shy of 4 000 now you did not perform the autopsy on Julie Jensen did you no um you started in February of 2005. correct and you knew that Mark Jensen had been charged with murder of Julie Jensen since March of 2002. correct I learned that so when you came on board as the medical examiner for Kenosha County were you asked to review the case and the circumstances pertaining to Julie Jensen's death yes were you given any directions or were you just simply asked to review it has to review it and give an opinion as to the cause and manner of death so tell the jury what you did when you were reviewing what did you look at when you were um evaluating the trying to determine the cause and manner of Julie Jensen's death well I looked at everything I could um everything that was provided to me including medical records seen investigation police reports various interviews of witnesses um etc etc I course reviewed the autopsy findings and the toxicology findings um there's probably more that I'm not remembering at the moment I'm sure a document that was previously submitted as a part of exhibit S10 and this is the autopsy report for Julie Jensen foreign previously admitted into evidence looking at this report do you recall reviewing this report yes and this is one of the documents that you examined during the course of your evaluation in this case yes and you said um what you also looked at um other records that were maintained in the medical examiner's office yes did that include autopsy photos yes and you said you also examined police reports yes did that include crime scene photos yes no you've testified twice before about the death of Julie Jensen is that true yes um the first time was at a hearing in August of 2007 correct and then the second time was at a hearing sometime in January or February of 2008 the trial yes and um now at the time that you testified at the first hearing um you're looking at one set of one body of information but by the time you testified at the second hearing you'd come across or you'd been made aware of an additional body bonus is that true yes so let's talk about the body of information that you're looking at before you testified at the forfeiture hearing of the first hearing so at the first hearing tell the jury the things that you remember looking at before testifying um pretty much everything I've listed um witness statements to exclude the new Witnesses who came forward after the hearing witness statements toxicology findings autopsy report police report interviews um I believe some phone conversations between the defendant and others um and again I'm probably leaving something out well if so we'll go through it so right you looked at lab reports correct yes and um do you remember as you're sitting here today let you glean from the laboratory reports um there were a number of substances um in Julie Jensen's system the most important being ethylene glycol which is the ingredient in anti-freeze without looking at the um you remember which lab had produced reports concerning ethylene glycol um there were several um may I refer to my notes if necessary if that'll assist you thanks through Laboratories that um that determined that there was ethylene glycol and Julie Jensen's system the first one was um the St Louis University toxicology Laboratory and um after that other Laboratories um became involved um including the Wisconsin State lab of hygiene National Medical Services University of Kentucky um and even a couple more okay um just uh your honorary Council approach for just a moment sure early morning break folks yeah I just don't want to talk about it right the jury is outside the courtroom the issue that I see in the attorneys can correct me she's reviewing documents that she brought with her that's not the issue your honor that's a separate issue but you don't have a problem with that I I do unless there's um an indication that she needs that to refresh her memory well she just indicated that it would be helpful for her to be able to do that let's let's take up this issue first that Mr Perry brought to my attention that that's the reason I'd ask for the sidebar and then we'll take up that second issue okay okay the first issue is that Mr as I was doing my direct examination of this of Dr Malin Mr Perry came over and he said that he that he would prefer that I not refer to the first hearing as the forfeiture hearing and I not refer to the second hearing as the trial um I understand his concerns about the second part I mean referring to it as a trial but I didn't do that the witness did I I guess I didn't tell her not to um but I could tell her she maybe should refer to it as a second hearing I don't see a problem with referring to the first hearing as the forfeiture here um so I didn't you think the jury knows what a forfeiture hearing is I don't know but I think it's also very easy since it has a title in it to refer to it as the 2007 uh hearing or the first hearing which she testified I I think it doesn't have to have this label on it because it does I don't know what everyone's understanding of it but forfeiture I mean people do understand that word I don't know if they understand what if we would have said preliminary hearing that's fine I'm just saying as an example sure I understand I mean nobody I don't think nine out of 10 people in this court will know what a forfeiture ring was it was so unique at that time I think it was the first one well it was the first it was the first one in the state of Wisconsin when it was held I that's that's it's my request if if it's um I don't know that it's such a difficult request um to avoid putting the title on what these earlier hearings were especially considering you know we're really trying to avoid uh discussion about um first trial prosecution all that all of that stuff and just refer to it as earlier testimony and the dates Mr jambos just say first tearing second hearing yeah I will I will do that um and and so will Dr Mainland I will say this about the forfeiture ring that's what I've been referring to it as for what 15 years so it's hard I will make this is the second or third time I've refer to it as a forfeiture Hearing in the course of this trial and and I and I have to acknowledge that Mr Perry has asked me in each of the previous times not to referred to as a forfeiture hearing it's just um it's not like I'm intentionally trying to upset Mr Perry this is a wicked ass we could have Miss McNeil kick you in your shins or something anxiously happy to do that I'm sure it's hard to my wife from behind too but um I will try to uh recall it refer to as the first hearing and the second hearing and asked her and I'd ask Dr Mainland to do the same thing what's the second issue now well then you'd you'd propose that well it's a problem with her using these documents to re and she had indicated that it would be helpful to her in the course of her testimony to review the documents that she brought with her and let's remember you know we had this discussion about um what what the pro pro uh proponent of an expert witness what they can get in as far as hearsay and which is really we can't I mean when I'm as the proponent of the expert testimony of Dr Mainland I can't seek to admit hearsay uh evidence through her the defense can uncross but I can't on direct and I think we'd all recognize is that at some previous Hearing in this matter and of course that's what the law of land is in the state of Wisconsin um so I was some of these prior reports have been there's been testimony and it's been admitted about the reports that um Joe grafasi prepared at the St Louis forensic toxicology lab uh that's been admitted into evidence um and so she could testify about that and it wouldn't be a problem the state lab of hygiene test report has not been received in evidence nor is the nms report been received into evidence so I'm going to ask her about those reports but I'm not going to offer them into evidence and although it's it's common for a forensic pathologist of course to rely upon forensic toxicology reports that from outside Laboratories is done all the time and in the state of Wisconsin uh on Forensic Pathologists can testify at a trial about the cause and manner of death based upon outside forensic attack psychology lab reports because there's a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that says so I forgot what that is I'm sure Ms McNeil is probably looking it up as I'm speaking but there is a Wisconsin Supreme Court case that expressly says that forensic Pathologists can testify about lab reports or at least base their opinions upon lab reports the only issue I had and and if she's looking at reports that she brought I don't know if the defense is an opportunity to know what she's looking at um well I'd be happy to have Dr Mainland I'm just trying to do a record because obviously we're on Jensen 3. yes and the lawyers understand what I'm saying so if she's looking at something and then it's not part of the record I I I'd like a brief opportunity to see what she has with her all right um I don't have a problem with her testifying uh with the exception of of course testimonial things that we've talked about and that goes for your Witnesses experts too so that's that's right and and our expert Witnesses I expect are going to the same standard being applied to talk about the things that they reviewed to come to their conclusions so that's fine but I would ask for a short time to look at what you want to do it right now and just I will say this on the record in the presence of the witness Dr Mainland I don't want you mention to mention the letter that Julie Jensen wrote a week and a half before she died you're not supposed to mention that even if it entered into your analysis of this case I don't want you to make to reference it I'm aware of that and so if I ask you a question it seems like I'm asking about that I'm not asking you about that okay got it thank you and I won't be asking about that either yeah also that includes uh voicemails that were left for officer Cosman that's that's part of it all okay okay okay once you take a look at what she has I just made myself kind of somewhere thank you foreign thank you can't read to the judge right foreign all right we're back on a record on Mark T Jensen 2002 cf314 the appearances are the same the jury's back in the courtroom thank you for your patience this morning ladies and gentlemen Dr Malin is still on the stand she's still on the oath and you can continue Mr jamboy's thank you honor and just to get us all oriented I was asking you about the quantum and the nature of the information that you had available to you in advance of the your testimony at the first hearing So to that end I was asking you about the toxicological results that you'd reviewed so can you tell the jury about the toxicological reports that you reviewed in preparation for making a determination as to cause and manner of death in this case uh but before the first hearing um I saw taxological results from the St Louis University Laboratory the St Louis forensic toxicology laboratory yes and what were the what was the blood test result that was um provided with regards to ethylene glycol there was ethylene glycol in the blood and um do you want the quantity yes um at uh 50 micrograms per milliliter and then there's another one listing here gcfd 55 micrograms per liter what's that about um oh that that was the I'm sorry see I I confused the two already the other one came later the um gcfid um was the first specimen that was analyzed and that came back at 55 micrograms per milliliter and that what is GCF ID mean uh it has to do with the instrument and the the method of analysis for these drugs they put them through an instrument called a gas chromatograph and um what it does is it separates different drugs and different um ion parts of drugs out and then um there's a thing FID is called a flame ionization detector and that will tell you what you have don't ask me any more detail please but that's that's something that you routinely rely upon as a forensic pathologist yes but you're not a lab rat you don't do that kind of stuff no I don't okay um but then there was another test that was done later and that refers to gcms and it's 50 micrograms per milliliters is that correct yes and what's gcms stand for um again they use the same machine a gas chromatograph um but the method of analysis of detection is uh is mass spectroscopy now so that's a pretty close though I mean 55 milligrams per milliliter versus 50 micrograms per milliliter correct yes but you know there'd also been a test at National medical services and they indicated what they indicated that the blood was negative for ethylene glycol and they'd also tested the urine an nms that also tested for urine correct um yes and they tested for ethylene glycol yes and they came back what they came back negative now nms was the first set of tests that were done uh at the request of the Kenosha County Medical medical examiner's office is that true as far as I understand yes but then at a later time there was samples were submitted to the St Louis forensic toxicology lab is that what you're finding that is that what you discovered when you looked through this report correct and you know why um the medical examiner sent these items out to have them tested at a different Laboratory um found some microscopic findings particularly in the kidney tissue that were very uh worrisome for ethylene glycol poisoning and um so that's why another lab was used so then the reports were sent to the St Louis forensic toxicology lab you've described the blood test results what did the St Louis forensic toxicology lab find about the urine content first test came back at 720 micrograms per milliliter and then the second test with the gcms came back at 549 micrograms per milliliter but National Medical Services somehow come back with nothing yes um so in addition to the blood and the urine what other substance or aspect or something recovered from Julie Jensen's body was tested for ethylene glycol mic contents and who tested the stomach contents um for ethylene glycol it was St Louis University and what did the St Louis University forensic toxicology lab find with respect to the gastric contents the first test that they did the flame ionization detector test came back at 3940 micrograms per milliliter and the second test came back at 4121 micrograms per milliliter in the stomach contents so doctor we're going to get back to um I think glycol a little bit but now I want to talk about some of the other substances that were found to be present in the various systems of Julie Johnson um first of all is that thing glycol found elsewhere in Julie Jensen's system yes where else was it found um in the liver and in the brain and which test was it that found them in the liver and the Brain um again it was the gcms GC Mass spectroscopy so the GC the the gas the gas chromatograph flame ionization detector did not discover the presence or reveal the presence of ethylene glycol another the liver or the brain that's correct but then subsequently the gas chromatograph Mass spectrometer was used and it found what it found um in the liver 51 micrograms per gram of ethylene glycol and in the brain 16 micrograms per gram no looking at all the toxicology screens that were done by the various Laboratories or their other substances found within the body of Julie Jensen yes so tell me what other items were found in the body of Julie Jensen before the first hearing um before the first hearing um honestly I don't recall if certain Labs were before or after if the Wisconsin State lab of hygiene was before the first hearing I believe it was what did this Wisconsin State lab of hygiene find um they found um them and in the blood um which is just the generic name for Ambien um they also found it in the stomach um let's see they found um paroxetine or pixel in the stomach and they found this is a long one chlordiazepoxide also known as Librium in the stomach now I'm going to show these these lab reports and see if that refreshes your recollection as to whether they'd come before or after the first hearing 99. April 7th of 1999. yes yes so long before you started before with the Kenosha County Medical examiner's Office correct so again the Zolpidem which is a the generic name for Ambien was how much of it was found and where was it found it was in the blood at 82 nanograms per milliliter and it was in the stomach they measured one and a half milligrams total and did was diphenhydramine found anywhere yes um it's diphenhydramine found that's the generic name for Benadryl and that was found um excuse me now that was found by a different lab [Music] that was found by um AIT and how much was found to be in the gastric content by AIT um 113 nanograms per milliliter and diphenhydramine was also found to be present by nms is that true yes in the blood and diphenhydramine again is the is the generic name for Benadryl now was any paroxetine found anywhere within the body of Julie Johnson paroxetine was found in the stomach contents and um was not found in the blood and who found it in the which Labs found it in the stomach contents um the Wisconsin State lab of hygiene and AIT and you also said that chloridiazepoxide was found to be present by the Wisconsin lab of hygiene in her gastric contents yes and what is chloridiazepoxide Librium now when you obtain this information in advance of the first hearing had you seen any reference to Librium in any of the documents that you had reviewed yes recall seeing a photograph of a Post-It note that had been found on Mark Jensen's day planner yes and that was one of the items listed on that Post-It note is that true yes foreign I'm going to share this document that has been marked previously a state's exhibit 15. foreign exhibit 15 what is that oh this is a photograph of a page from Mark jansen's day planner with a post written note on it um listing a number of different items well why don't you read the list the extent that you can read it okay um own drug Supply nicotrol um I don't know what that says n o um aspirin bottle hyphen booze razor blades Librium hyphen shells DeFazio Terry with an i patches shells syringe and bag hands and were you were you made aware of who wrote that Post-It note um yes who wrote it Mark Jensen and Julie Jensen had photographed that Post-It note correct yes and she provided that photo she provided the film to law enforcement yes now let's talk about ethylene glycol poisoning in the course of your investigation into this matter did you learn uh the approximate size and weight of Julie Jensen at the time of her death yes how much did she weigh she was 100 and 115 pounds I believe it this was at the doctor's office yes um three days prior to her death and that was her estimated weight at the time of autopsy too wasn't it yeah I think um Dr chambus might have said 110 pounds that was an estimate so she weighed between 110 and 115 pounds at the time of her death yes no doctor are you um familiar with the toxic effects of ethylene glycol in the human body yes are you familiar with the man in which ethylene glycol is metabolized by the human body yes what I'd like you to do is describe to the jury what ethylene glycol does to the human body as it is ingested and then absorbed I'd like you to describe what it does to the body and also what symptoms a person has ingested I think glycol is likely to manifest at various stages okay this will take a little while um ethylene glycol is an alcohol it's some structure is very similar to ethanol or beverage alcohol that we many of us enjoy um one ethylene glycol is first ingested it has the same effect as beverage alcohol does a person will act drunk or loopy or um you know they could have trouble walking they could stumble around depending on how much a person takes they could have seizures they could even enter into a coma and all of this can happen um you know from about 30 minutes after exposure to about 12 hours after exposure so that's um the first phase that's what they call the first phase of ethylene glycol poisoning following that the amount of ethylene glycolate in the body decreases because it's being processed by the liver so as it's processed by the liver it's processed into a number of other compounds all of which are acids um the most important one for the next phase phase two of ethylene glycol poisoning is called glycolic acid g-l-y-c-o-l-i-c and um that causes the body to um do whatever it can to try and get rid of the excess acid in the blood so the person will start to hyperventilate you can get rid of acid by breathing fast by getting rid of carbon dioxide the personal hyperventilate and then they'll have um really deep and um abnormal breathing they also can have heart symptoms the heart can pound it can you know it can beat fast it could even fail um that's the second stage of poisoning and that starts anywhere from 12 to 24 hours after the ethylene glycol is ingested as as the uh ethylene glycol is processed into glycolic acid and then into other acids um one of which is oxalic acid [Music] um it gets it combines the oxalic acid combines with calcium in the blood calcium is always floating around in the blood and um makes crystals crystals um just oxalate crystals and these crystals tend to Lodge in the kidney and they cause kidney damage the acids themselves also cause kidney damage so this the third stage um starting about maybe 24 to 72 hours after taking ethylene glycol is called the renal or kidney phase and that's where you can see the kidneys fail and you can see death in any one of the three phases it all depends on on the dose and what kind of if the person um got any kind of therapy Etc now during the course of your examination of this case did you undertake to prepare your own sides of the tissue samples of Julie Jensen yes did you examine for example that did you produce sides of the kidney sample from Julie Jensen yes sorry what what you do to produce um to produce a slide what is it that you do to produce a slide a tissue of slides um a slide of tissue sample right um at autopsy or or even in the laboratory um as far as that goes in the hospital um the pathologist will receive a piece of a literal piece of tissue and um what's done is that gets it gets fixed in formally so it it's a preservative it's fixed in a preservative then it gets um processed the water's removed from it and it's embedded and ultimately embedded in paraffin wax and it's like into a little block about the size a little bigger than a postage stamp um that block of wax with tissue embedded is cut very thin very very thin on an instrument called a microtome and um like we're talking five micrometers maybe and um anyway that tissue is ultimately placed onto a glass slide um and stained so that um you know the structures become visible and that's what the pathologist looks at under the microscope so you cut some a side tissue samples and you examined them yes and I'm going to show you a series of photographs been marked s83 through s88 we'll go through them one at a time so let's start with s83 and Madam clerk could you make sure that the television screen is on Sam um so can you tell us what s83 is yes this is a close-up picture of uh of a kidney of Julie Johnson's kidney tissue showing structures called tubules and within those tubules you can see one um one foreign body which is a glycolic acid acid Crystal so now look at the screen if you will up there can you see my cursor moving around there oh boy I can't see it can you see it now look at the screen up there doctor look at the one over there I see a lot better can you see it now and yes can you see my cursor moving around yes so is this the tube a tubule right here yes and also right here yes and then another one right over here yes and then there's one right here yes what is this substance inside that kidney tubule that's a crystal a glycolic or and oxalic acid Crystal no and that's kind of a characteristic form there they you know I didn't know what sheaves of wheat looked like even though I grew up in Wisconsin but is that they glyco like our oxalic acid crystals they say resemble sheaves of wheat is that the description that they provide yes so that's supposed to be what sheaves of wheat look like yes sir okay so um and then I'm going to proceed to the next slide um and directing your attention to this slide can you tell the jury what that is this is another close-up picture um of kidney tubules uh okay so you and then you see kind of going diagonally across the screen um in the middle there's a tubule cut the Long Way think of the tubules as like pieces of spaghetti so if you cut it cross section you'll see a round structure on the side if you cut it the long way you'll see the like a long tubular structure and that's what you're seeing here this long tubular structure here yes and what are these white items here that's uh oxalic acid crystals and what is this item what is um this is exhibit s this is S80 you've got them up there which which exhibit is this [Music] click 87 so exhibit s87 and can you tell the jury what this um slide portrays yeah that shows that kidney from a little bit farther away so you can see more of the tubules and you see um you see that a number of them have crystals within them so what do these what do these crystals do to the kidneys well they clog up the tubules um you know the tubules are um what the kidney filters blood into urine makes blood into urine filters the blood removes poisons etc etc and so um the crystals will actually clog up the tubules and interfere with processing now um are oxalic acid crystals in the kidneys are they diagnostic for any particular type of a condition um they're very um characteristic of ethylene glycol poisoning can you think of anything else that causes oxalic acid crystals in the kidneys there there's a certain disease that a certain hereditary disease that can cause that um very very unusual um it's called primary axilluria but in this instance there was evidence that Julie Jensen had ingested ethylene glycol that's correct so um mm-hmm at the let's talk about the amount of ethylene glycol in Julie Jensen's system at the time of her death and then let's talk about what constitutes a lethal dose of ethylene glycol so she had a very small amount in her blood correct I mean 50 to 55 micrograms per per milliliter yes and she had a larger concentration in her stomach of three thirty nine hundred or forty one hundred micrograms per milliliter correct and that that amount in the stomach contents amounts to about um what a teaspoon or a teaspoon and a half of ethylene glycol in her stomach yeah half a teaspoon to a teaspoon something like that so it's a relatively small amount in your stomach yes even though it seems like a larger concentration it's a concentration against gastric contents as opposed to a concentration against the blood correct urine um but there was a relatively small amount in her blood yes now does that give you any information or any does it does it allow you to draw any inferences about the manner in which um this ethylene glycol was ingested or the quantity in which it was ingested um it is consistent with ingesting more than one dose so tell me what it is about this presentation that aside from what any witness statements are what is what about this particular presentation would cause you to infer that there was possibly more than one dose well you're finding um first of all um we know that Julie Denson was alive and experiencing symptoms for um about two days and so we know the first we know she's she had ethylene glycol sometime earlier on she was she felt the effects of it ongoing effects of it she was processing it um you know she was to the point where crystals were forming in her kidneys but yet she had unabsorbed ethylene glycol in her stomach which would seem to indicate to me that that was a second dose she was already feeling the effects and showing showing the effects of an earlier dose so how much ethylene glycol would a person the size of Julie Jensen need to ingest in order for it to be ultimately fatal without any medical intervention there are a number of different calculations out there that you can use um one of the calculations um that I looked at said about 50 milliliters but it's true that um as little as 30 milliliters can be fatal well and the effect that it has in the body I mean the effect of say 30 or 40 or 50 milligrams or milliliters would have on a body is dependent to some extent upon the size of the body correct yes so um as adults go Julie Jensen weighed between 110 115 pounds that's relatively on the small side for an adult yes I mean I weigh 200 pounds and maybe a little more but we'll say 200 uh for the record um a person that weighs 200 pounds would probably be able to withstand a dose of ethylene glycol if they say a 30 milligram 30 milliliter dose of ethylene glycol better than a 110 115 pound person generally speaking probably but a person that is Julie Jensen's size of 110 115 pounds what would be the minimal amount of ethylene glycol that would need to be ingested in order to produce this kind of result where she had ethylene glycol in her stomach and her kidneys and these ethylene glycol are these oxalate acid crystals in their kidneys and then 55 to 57 50 50 to 55 micrograms per milliliter in her blood how much ethylene glycol would you need to ingest in order to produce that in order to produce that um as little as um as little as 10 milliliters after taking as little as 10 milliliters you can see crystals forming in the kidneys I have a no there's at before the first hearing you had heard evidence that Julie was manifesting symptoms in the early morning hours of December 2nd correct and late evening hours of December 1st in the early evening early morning hours of December 2nd yes and what symptoms was she manifesting according to the reports that you reviewed um she was in the early or the first stage of ethylene glycol poisoning the intoxication stage where she's showing the effect of the unprocessed alcohol itself of ethylene glycol so she was um acting drunk and that was the first that was on the evening of the first and the early morning hours of the second correct yes and then you did you hear about a phone call that Julie made to her friend and neighbor Margaret Voigt yes and that occurred at about 10 a.m on this on December 2nd yes and at that time was learning about what you heard about that phone conversation that would cause you to draw any inferences about whether or not Julie Jensen uh was still experiencing or still under the influence of ethylene glycol Margaret Voigt described Julie jansen's Voice as being like somebody who was drunk and that's a sign of I think glycol intoxication yes the first stage of things glycol poisoning yes and at that point Julia said to her friend and neighbor I can't believe the effect this medication is having on me something to that effect correct yes now then there was information about Julie Jensen's presentation on the morning of December 3rd do you remember what you heard about the presentation of Julie Jensen on the morning of December 3rd yes so tell the jury what you can remember about the presentation of Julie Jensen in the morning of December 3rd um she was very um lethargic um very weak and she was breathing um quite heavily and Mark Jensen had repeatedly indicated that she was unable to get out of bed yes true yes and that's consistent with what stage of ethane glycol poisoning the second now and how is that consistent with more than one dose of ethylene glycol poisoning the um the half-life or you know for the amount of time ethylene glycol remains in the body is is really pretty short um if you take a single dose of it um you'll absorb it probably within a half hour or so um you'll have a peak amount in in the blood stream in about an hour and then um then it gradually disappears so um a half-life means that half of the dose has already been processed or metabolized has been um has gone through the body so it normally takes I mean after like five half-lives um you shouldn't really see any of the parent compound anymore [Music] um yeah you wouldn't see any more of the compound wear after five half-lives in the blood and yet she had 55 micrograms to 50 micrograms per milliliter in the blood yes at the time of her death yes and if her she'd only had one ingestion on the evening of December 1st you wouldn't expect to see anything in her blood that's correct is that what caused you to draw the inference that she was likely to have had two doses of ethane glycol yes before the first hearing yes after the first hearing and before the second hearing you'd received additional information correct yes um so let's talk about your let's talk about your diagnosis your conclusions um before the first hearing did you render an opinion to a reasonable reasonable degree of medical certainty is the cause and manner of death um at the first hearing yes and um can you tell us after examining all this evidence and these slides and everything and the police reports and the prime and the crime scene photographs and the autopsy photographs um did you come to an opinion to reasonably of medical certainty as to the cause of Julie Johnson's death yes what was your opinion to a reasonably of medical certainty as to the cause of Julie's death at the first hearing ethylene glycol poisoning did you make any reference to the possibility of asphyxia um at the first hearing I don't recall do you recall saying that you couldn't rule out asphyxia I do recall that so your first opinion was that it was ethylene glycol poisoning but you couldn't rule out asphyxia as a contributing factor that's correct and did you have an opinion to a reasonable medical certainty at the first hearing as to the manner of death yes and what was your opinion to a reasonably of medical certainty as to the manner of death homicide now what was it that caused you to believe that this was a homicide as opposed to some other types for example a suicide um picture did not fit that of a suicide um the the [Music] um the history the circumstances as I was explaining earlier um you know the circumstances surrounding the death all these things that we take into account did not fit the pattern of suicide um at all so let's talk about the circumstances that you were aware of before the first cheering that caused you to believe that's it the circumstances did not fit the diagnosis of suicide what were those factors that you can if you can remember some of them well first of all I'm someone all right someone commits suicide with ethylene glycol with antifreeze um they're typically going to take one dose and they'll take a large enough dose um you know to kill themselves that's their intent to kill themselves so what typically happens is um they're either found dead just found dead or they're found in really bad shape somebody takes them to the hospital and um oftentimes they dilate or despite you know getting medical attention so that's typical for a suicide um the amount of ethylene glycol in the blood is typically higher in a suicide case than it is in a homicide case how much higher um to the order of um 10 to 100 for 10 tens or hundreds more so 10 times more to 200 times more yes even higher what else about the circumstances um leading up to Julie's death were inconsistent with the suicide or more consistent with a homicide she um denied being suicidal to her doctor she went to the doctor on December 1st and he specifically asked her um about suicide and she she said no I'm not suicidal now you also when you're looking at potential causes or manners of death you're also looking at homicide correct yes and were there factors that you looked at in this case that cause you to think that this is more consistent with a homicide than a suicide yes so what are the factors that you looked at that cause you to indicate to conclude that this is a homicide um there were there were indications that Julie Jensen was very fearful for her life um prior to prior to her death in the few weeks leading up to her death she'd spoken to Teresa Fazio yes and she'd spoken to her sister-in-law Laura Coster who's also the defendant's sister yes and she expressed concerns about possibly Mark was trying to harm her or kill her or poison her yes now you'd also learned of searches on the internet for effling glycol poisoning and for other types of poisoning yes and those were on the Jensen home computer yes judge I do object to the leading I think you should ask the things she has considered without feeding it to her well your honor remember just just rephrase it and we'll keep going okay um so what are some of the other factors that you considered well did you consider the computer evidence yes I do and what was it about the computer evidence that caused you to lean toward homicide rather than suicide there were numerous searches for different kinds of poisonings um undetected poison um a whole lot of different categories they were probably over a dozen different subjects relating to um poisoning or death no had you also heard about any motive for the defendant Mark Jensen to want to murder his wife um I was aware that Mark Jensen was involved with another woman he was having an affair yes now you also heard about a pattern of abuse and humiliation and gaslighting that had taken place over the preceding seven or eight years yes same objection as before your honor rephrase the questions were you aware of any efforts on the part of the defendant to shame humiliate emotionally torture or Gaslight Julie Jensen in the Years preceding her death I maintain that objection she can answer the question go ahead yes so what were you aware of what did you become aware of um Julie Jensen um was known to have had an affair in the early 1990s following this affair um pornographic pictures started to turn up at the Jensen home at Mark Jensen's place of employment on um I believe I'm a family car etc etc and um they were suspicious phone calls and um it was ultimately determined that um Mark Jensen was the source of these pictures and these phone calls so this is the factual background that you had at your disposal in advance of the first hearing when you rendered your opinions to a reasonably of medical certainty as to the cause and manner of death in Julie Johnson yes and then there was a second hearing do you remember that yes no can you tell the jury what happened between the first hearing and the second hearing that well I'll rephrase it do you recall whether there was anything that happened or anything that was brought to your attention between the first and the second hearing that altered your perception of what had occurred in this case yes what what had happened that caused you to alter your perception of what had occurred in this case Witnesses came forward additional Witnesses um so what was the name of the witness that you can one of the witnesses that you can recall Aaron Dillard and did you review review Aaron Dillard's statement yes did you review the letter that he wrote to his attorney yes and did you compare the content of that letter that Mark Jensen I'm sorry that Aaron zilder written to his attorney to the facts in this case yes did you find that there was anything about the facts in this case that correlated to or were supported by the content of that letter yes so bear with me while I pull up another slide panel here now in advance of the first hearing you had gone through all the crime scene photos correct yes and you'd gone through the autopsy photos correct yes let's see so directing your attention to the screen this is part of exhibit S10 in advance of the first hearing you'd seen this crime scene photo exhibit S10 yes and you noticed a couple of things about the body for example you notice the way the hand the the left arm was underneath the body yes and did it appear to you that that was a normal position for a person to roll into on their own I thought that was an unnatural position and you did learn that Mark Jensen had indicated to detective rasper that he had rolled Julie into that position yes and actually that position is consistent when they're being rolled into that position yes foreign autopsy photos correct yes and you'd see in the autopsy photos of the rib of the subcutaneous bruising along the rib cage yes but had you ever lined up the subcutaneous bruising photograph to the crime scene photograph that I just displayed to you not prior to the first hearing but you did so after the first hearing yes and you did that because of the testimony of or because the statement of Aaron Dillard yes and directing your attention to the screen foreign no I had to push it all the way so I'm now directing your attention to the screen um is that the side-by-side display of these two photographs yes and you see here the way the arm of Julie Jensen is laid out beneath her as though when she was rolled into that position yes and then directing your attention here you see subcutaneous you see this you see these Marks here and this is rib 2 correct yes and this is rib three here yes and this is rib four there yes and what you notice about rib two here what can you tell the jury about this Mark right here well there's some Hemorrhage or bruising that was not visible on the outside of Julie is only visible after her skin had been reflected after the classic y incision at autopsy yes and then there's another bruise Mark here is that correct yes that's on the third rib yes and then there's another one here on the fourth rib yes and here Julie's laid on her back at the autopsy but when you line Julie up you line those injuries up putting the arm underneath her pretty closely lines up with uh with that with those subcutaneous injuries to her to a rib cage is that true yes and you had noticed that before you read Aaron Dillard's statement I'm sorry you had not notice the way this lined up like this until after you'd read Aaron Dillard's statement that's correct you read your errandelier statement and you put these photos side by side yes I'm going to direct your attention to the um I'm going to first of all ask you to look at this document has been marked as s69 do we still need the photo um no we do not I'm going to take that down and your honor my wife was telling me the same thing as you were saying it so um that document yes um this is a letter written by Aaron Dillard um to a Gretchen rosenki and did you compare the content of this letter to the police investigation that had taken place up to this point yes and did you compare it to the crime scene photos and the autopsy photos yes now directing your attention to page three the the in page three Mr gillard's making reference to a prior attempt of the defendant that the defendant indicated that he'd previously attempted to kill Julie when he was at some conference in St Louis did you see that yes and did you compare that to the evidence that you knew about in this case yes and you were aware that there was evidence that Julie had become very sick while Mark Johnson was at the St Louis forensic tax account I'm sorry not sorry St Louis Francis at the St Louis blueprint meeting um correct correct what was the evidence that you were aware of that she'd become sick while he was gone um she had she had become ill she had um vomited um from the bathroom or the bedroom to the bathroom and um it was all over the carpet yes and there was a cleaning bill for the carpet correct and you were aware of that at the time that you first read this yes but at the time that you first heard about this vomiting incident um you not heard about Mark Jensen poisoning her before he left now but this statement is corroborated by that piece of evidence that you knew about concerning this prior carpet cleaning Bill object to this leading just rephrase it Mr Jones so did you could you say whether or not it appeared to you that this represent that Aaron zillard's statement as to what Mark Jensen told him about trying to kill Julie while I was at some conference was that consistent or was that inconsistent with the evidence that you'd already heard about her being sick while he was at a conference consistent now in this and directing your attention to page four he Aaron zilder wrote in his letter to his attorney on a Tuesday he took her to a doctor and that doctor gave her a prescription for Paxil later that day he gave her the Paxil as well as Benadryl St John's Wort literal literal and Other Drugs to make her woozy have you ever heard a drug called literal no but you've heard of a drug called Librium yes and um he indicated then he gave her a few glasses of juice with antifreeze in it um you know to make her feel better and um now that's you had not heard that Julie Jensen had been administered a few glasses of juice with antifreeze in it before reading this letter had you no but that's consistent with the information that you had in this case that she was manifesting signs of intoxication in the early morning hours of December 2nd that's correct and then he wrote she was up jumping around in the bed and saying she was drunk he said he took her to the computer to comfort her and show her it was a side effect of Paxil correct that's in this that's in this state yes and were you aware if there was any any evidence that would support that proposition um if that's a side effect of Paxil it's got to be extremely rare I have never never even heard of that but were you aware of that in fact Mark Jensen had printed out information about paroxetine yes and paroxetine is the trait is the generic name for Paxil yes and he writes in here the next day he went to the doctor to talk to him about her and that doctor gave him the medicine Ambien and now is that consistent or inconsistent with the information that you'd already received concerning this case consistent and he indicated he said that way she would sleep through all the effects of the antifreeze and now can you tell us what effect taking Ambien has on the normal person ambian is a drug that helps a person fall asleep it's a powerful enough drug that it requires a prescription to get it right yes I mean I can't walk down to Walgreens and just buy a bottle of Ambien no I need a doctor's prescription yes now you'd gone through Dr borman's notes that he's indicate anything at all about Julie having difficulty sleeping um he said that um Mark Jansen told him that she was having trouble sleeping and that if if she could get something to help her sleep that might help her feel better so the only part of Dr borman's notes about Julie having difficulty sleeping was the information provided by to Dr Borman by Mark Jensen that's correct and then again on page five he wrote he said that he gave her some more juice quote juice with antifreeze and he in tuned he entoned juice when he said Jews and she was throwing it up a little now before reading this you hadn't actually heard any indication that Mark Jensen had actually given her a second dose of antifreeze is that true yes but the evidence of this case is consistent with her taking more than one dose of antifreeze yes and then he writes Aaron Gilbert writes to his attorney he said she was really sick in the morning and the kids wanted to call the ambulance and he calmed them down he said he gave her another sleeping pill so that she would just sleep now yes at the time of her death ambien or um Zolpidem was found in Julie's body is that true yes was it found in her blood or was it found in her gastric content both so that's consistent with the information that Aaron Dillard was providing in this letter yes so he said you then gave her another sleeping pill so she would sleep and said to me he thought she would be dead by the time he got home from running around he said he went out kids to school some check thing and came home he said she was breathing better and he was scared she was not going to die before the kids got home and they would force him to call an ambulance he said she was sound asleep and very non-responsive is that consistent with the third stage of ethylene glycol poisoning yes particularly if somebody's also been administered Ambien yes he writes here said she was sleeping on her back and he rolled her over a bit and she did not wake up so rolled her over on her face with her face in the pillow he thought that would make it hard for her to breathe and he left her for a bit and came back and she was still alive now the condition of Julie's body the position of Julie's body at the crime scene was consistent with this description was it not yes and Mr Ziller then wrote then he got on top of her and pushed her head into the pillow and sat on her back so she could not breathe and she died and he went to work no that last part is something that you not heard before is that true that's correct but is that consistent or inconsistent with the photo that I just showed to you and to the jury it's consistent no is there any way that Aaron Dillard could have obtained this information unless the person who murdered Julie Jensen gave it to him um additive I'll allow the answer um I can't think of another source well you looked at all the evidence in this case correct yes and you're a trained forensic pathologist yes a medical doctor yes I am you've done thousands of autopsies yes you'd examine the crime scene photos yes you'd examine the autopsy photos yes you looked at all the talk screens yes and you had not come to the conclusion or formulated the hypothesis that Mark Jensen sat on Julie and shoved her face in the pillow and asphyxiated her you had not come to that conclusion had you no you'd not ruled out sermonless fixia you said you couldn't rule it out but you had not concluded that she died by terminal asphyxia that's correct now if Julie Jensen had not been asphyxiated the ethylene glycol on board could have killed her without medical intervention is that true yes even though it seemed like it was a relatively small amount yes but it's only after reading Aaron Dillard's description of Mark Jensen's confession that you compared the autopsy photos demonstrating the subcutaneous injuries to Julie Jensen's rib cage to the crime scene photo showing her having rolled and rolled into that position correct correct now if Julie had just enrolled into that position and left there and died could have been a possible explanation of maybe positional asphyxia contributing to ethylene glycol poisoning is that a possibility yes however would positional asphyxia explain the injuries to the rib cage no she only weighed 110 to 115 pounds right that's correct so this skinny tiny woman just laying on her side with her arm between with her arm between her chests and a mattress would not cause those kinds of injuries to the to the rib cage I probably not but a guy the size of Mark Jensen 165 170 pounds sitting on top of his wife and shoving her face into the pillow until she was dead that would cause those kinds of injuries wouldn't it it could yes can you think of anything else that would cause those kinds of injuries to the rib cage of Julie Jensen um not that fits the um evidence in this case no so Aaron zillard you're aware that he's a con man yes um but he's not a Seer is he yeah that's my knowledge he doesn't talk to the Dead I hope not I mean there was a movie a television series called medium or the I forgot the name of that wonderful actress who was a medium she could talk to dead people we don't have anybody that Kenosha DA's office here that talks to dead people do we not that I know of no out of the 4000 or so autopsy cases that you've been involved in have you ever seen a case like this one before not not in the cases I've personally been involved in but you followed up in this case didn't you yes you did some research on your own yes you compared suicides by ethylene glycol to homicides by ethyl glycol yes and how many different suicides but I think glycol did you were you able to examine um I looked at 15 of them and how many homicides by I think glycol poisoning did you examine well this one I examined directly there were about um 10 that um you know we're we're public knowledge but you didn't get all the tax screens from the from the homicides not all of them but you got tax screens from some of the homicides yes and you got talk screens from the suicides yes what did you find in this analysis of ethylene glycol poisonings suicide versus homicide what did you find about what inferences did you draw what patterns did you see concerning the amount of ethylene glycol in a person who died by Suicide versus a person who died by homicide do I drive an objection involves 971-23 take a break folks all right the jury's outside the courtroom what statute number did you say Mr Perry I was referring to the Discovery statute 971-23 um Miss Mainland is testifying Mr jamboy's obviously knows what she's about to testify he's leading her to it in terms of these comparisons this follow-up these studies comparing suicides to homicides and I don't I don't believe I have um I don't believe I've been provided with that the information that he's asking this expert Witnesses well that's right that he um I think plainly knows that she's done this and what her answers are going to be what's the state's response um I don't first of all she didn't produce a report to me I just she she and I talked about this yesterday and that's when she told me about it that she'd been doing this research on her own and she gave up came up with this information yesterday so it's true maybe I should have told him about it yesterday but um I didn't um what I'd like to do is what's that I looked at 971.23 or actually I'm going to look at it right now um and so let's examine my statutory obligations I we produced first of all they've already have her testimony from last hearing and of course she didn't testify about this but they were aware of what her testimony was going to be as to cause a manner of death and I'm going to pull up 971.23 under sub e it talks about uh results of scientific tests experiments comparisons that the district attorney tends to offer an Evidence at trial and it talks about experts absolutely I mean I would I didn't object to the other things that you know her I did know about her prior testimony and the cause and manner of death opinion didn't know about this and I would suggest this is not a reasonable amount of time before trial I'd ask that this be prohibited from being gone into what's do you have something in writing as to what she was going to testify I'm sorry you have anything in writing as to what she was going to testify as sort of comparison tests I don't have anything in writing I don't um I don't have a report from her I talked to her about this yesterday and she was indicating that um the the typical the average um amount of ethylene glycol on board in his suicide is 2 000 micrograms per milliliter because the statute then also talks about if the expert does not prepare a statement there should be a written summary of the findings of the subject matter of the testimony so we don't have a written statement we don't have a written summary I don't genre what I have is what she told me yesterday and I should and I I suppose I could have told about it yesterday but that's when I found out about it for the record we're not going there that based on 971.23 so be okay we are at this point then I would at least like to have her produce those notes and I'll make copies of them provide them defense counsel because it may be something that we'll go into on cross-examination of one of their experts and it may be something we'd go into and rebuttal after um the defense has rested its case welcome to do that I'd ask that jury be instructed to uh that that prior testimony as it related to her doing these comparisons be stricken and instructed to disregard it she if I'm listening hopefully I'm correct we never got into the studies she just talked about him right yes she did yeah she talked about having we didn't get to the what did you find right I objected in time for that but she did talk about it did a good job Mr Perry thank you so you want me to just say hey don't did the last test uh transcript or the testimony she said that there are tests that's stricken that she's done these comparisons that'd be stricken all right and then Mr Jam boys you uh free to give the defense the summary of well I've got to look at it first I don't know if she's got it with her let me holding up the sheet of paper all right and we'll Market foreign yeah I was gonna say we're not gonna bring back the jury and then tell them we're doing a morning break at 10 30. we'll just take our morning break and then when they come back I'll instruct them and I just wanna on the record that the defense is getting a copy of this report so we're going to wait and then we'll take our break yes your honor and then I I was hoping that I could do a brief four deer of the witness about this information so that they will have that information so that if I cross-examine their expert on it they'll have that information and um they'll have that much of a report from the witness we'll do it after the break yes your honor well let's wait for the report because you marked it I want that part of the record okay I am going to mark it I haven't marked it yet but I will mark it out brought in the courtroom by the bailiff um comparison contrast suicide versus heaven record sure in fact the district attorney is giving a copy to uh Mr Perry defense attorney okay okay let's take our 10 minute break thank you tell the jury this is their morning break thank you now bring the jury back now we're going back on the record on Mark Jensen 2002 cf314 we had discussed a discovery issue and a summary report that Dr Malin provided regarding some tests that she was looking at regarding the issue of suicide versus homicide regarding the poisoning issue you wanted to do some boardier questions Mr Jimboy's first I'm going to provide you a copy so you know what we're talking about all right it's been marked correct yes 90. 90 has been marked the defense has a copy correct Mr Perry that's right thank you so Dr Mainland um the judge had described this as a report but it's not actually a report is it it's no just some notes just some notes that you had obtained by looking at suicide ethylene glycol suicides yes have things like all accidents yes and then undetermined correct no in the suicides that you looked at the ranges of ethyl glycol that were found at the time of autopsy and this is expressed in micrograms per milliliter is that correct milligrams per liter micrograms per milliliter and milligrams per liter are the same thing okay but you don't have to remember that so so this is comparable to um the units that Julie's um Julie Johnson's blood reports okay so the first one is 570. yes 7 400 yes 26.40 yes not determined not detected not detected okay 740 yes 1200 yes 8 30. yes less than 20. yes 259. yes 97.46 yes 1200 yes 966 yes 4 600 yes not detected correct and 9 30. yes now where had you found these ethnological suicide autopsy reports um these are cases that came through some of the offices where I worked um Milwaukee Tampa I think there were a couple in there from Waukesha now when you saw some some of these autopsy reports reflect not detected or less than 20. did you examine those reports to determine whether or not MediCal intervention had occurred yes and had medical intervention occurred yes so most of them or medical intervention had not occurred the results were higher um generally speaking yes and um overall in looking at the suicides the average amount of ethylene glycol number of milligrams per liter of ethylene glycol was 2072. correct which is about 40 times the amount that was in Julie Jensen's blood something like that now I'm not going to ask you any more about this report but I'm going to ask you about um why one might expect to find a less amount of ethylene glycol in a homicide rather than as opposed to a suicide and you can answer that without looking at this report and referring to this report okay you knew that before you did this report right yes okay so um we're ready to proceed then your honor I can I ask some questions about this report I think there's another problem without your honor Dr Mainland um did you receive these autopsy reports in these cases yes and you have those I have some of them not all of them not all of them uh I'd move for production of the ones that she has for one um well first let's find out where are they um they're the ones from Milwaukee and Waukesha basically took notes um from the cases so I did not copy any part of the case File I have a few from Tampa when you have them here or do you have them back in Tampa I have a few from Tampa I believe with me hang on I have no objection you're actually her producing the stuff that she has I just wanted to know what she had with her and what she didn't have with her do you whatever she has we can produce I'll wait while you look yeah the um I have five cases here from Tampa wait just wait the reporters uh plugging your machine in sorry all right I have um five case reports here from Tampa and then um the rest of what I have is um handwritten notes taken from um case files in Milwaukee in Waukesha and Kenosha I'd request that would you have a problem that's making copies of those and providing you with Originals back nope okay you're on a request that the bailiff um make two copies and are these new marketers exhibits counselor goodness I I guess it can be I just do two copies and you can make a decision I think and maybe we should wait for the copying until I'm done asking questions in case there's that's all you want to proceed go ahead um do you have uh are you able to look at these numbers with the records that you have and tell me um where each one of these is from and the date of death yes I only have as I said five records with me actually some of the notes [Music] I think I can tell you the date of death okay we're did you receive these autopsy reports and uh toxicology results did you receive those electronically from people um I probably looked at them physically they were mailed to you no no I I did this a while ago well I still had access physical access um in Milwaukee you did this while you were working in Milwaukee um no but I was able to go and look at um cases okay before you move to Florida um yes I believe so okay um do you have the sources for who made the determinations if these were a suicide and accident or undetermined um no I don't have the the Physicians name do you have the reports that accompany them to support how they came to that conclusion no you just have the just the five on for five of them yeah and for those five you don't have the things I just asked you about for the five I I have um the Physicians determination of cause and Manor I have the initial investigation investigative report and then I have the toxicology report do you know which on this list which five yeah the five from Tampa uh let's see it would be two of the undetermines um and um the other three are suicides wait no one is an accident two are suicides and two are undetermined those are the cases I have with me from Tampa right um which ones on this list please um the two undetermined um well you see that and they're just two of them um the suicides hang on it's none detected one was um 460 milligrams per deciliter that's 4 600 milligrams per liter and the last one [Music] 930 milligrams per liter and the rest you have um no details on with you I don't have any all I have is my notes with amounts which is really just reflected on this uh the show correct so no supporting documentation I have well only my notes I have notes acid day of death and a little bit about the circumstances Etc they're they're 21 if if do you addition there are 21 different things listed on here right yes and you can tell us you can you have details about five of them right yeah I mean official details yes okay um I thought you testified at the start I thought when this um you're first explaining this that you compared suicides accidents on determined homicides um homicides a category that you'd compared um I did but the homicides were from those are from public knowledge I have um you know fewer toxicology reports and those aren't on this list no they aren't I didn't I don't know of any other ethylene glycol homicides either from here or down in Tampa which is where I pulled this stuff from aside from uh your opinion about this particular case correct that's the only ethylene glycol homicide that you think exists that you're aware of in this area yes okay so in terms of comparing your study comparing ethylene glycol fatalities of what's seen in a suicide and what's seen in a homicide on the suicide list you have 15 yes and your homicide list which isn't on here would be one um yeah actually there are but I don't have amounts for most of them you don't know the amounts no okay um that's all I have I I mean I I would I think it's um there's a separate objection just simply to relevance in terms of the the it's a different objection objection it's not coming in anyway right now right I would still ask for production of of those notes at this time though I will just say this um first of all I think it should come in now because now they've been provided the report they've actually been able to cross-examine the witness about the report they've had plenty of opportunity to discuss the report so now the report should come in this is normally what happens you know instead of evidence just being excluded the court will give the the opposing party the opportunity to order the witness and that's what they've just done they've foragered the witness so now this report her testimony about this should be admissible well let's go make the cop yeah let's try to do one thing at a time here I mean it is exhibit 90 right is that I got the right number yes your honor as you can see it's not a report your honor it's just a list of her notes I'm going to correct myself it is what I would consider written summary and it's pretty small and I mean I don't want to say this is extensive but it's pretty small in terms of her conclusions from it and her opinion based on this list and the list of the well the five examples that I don't have yet um and all of the other limitations to this uh I think the reason that statute 971-23 talks about a reasonable amount of time before trial and gives actual like deadlines for expert summaries expert reports is for the I mean it's it's logical right you know we have experts in this case that we would consult with and we would um in order to cross-examine Dr Mainland on this have an opportunity to find out okay well what is what are the stats that would compare to be able to effectively cross-examine on this and so finding out the details of her her notes of which we don't actually have at this moment yet of uh really five cases and then her just numbers listed for 21 different cases um is is not within the meaning of that statute a reasonable amount of time before trial and so I would maintain the objection that I I thought had had been sustained well it had been sustained I'm not disputing the fact that the court had sufficient grounds at the time you sustained the objection um what I'm saying is that there are two potential remedies when there's been this kind of what I would call an inadvertent Discovery violation was my fault it wasn't Dr malin's fault and she told me about this yesterday and when I got it I guess I should have immediately notified defense counsel and I just forgot to do that but one of the other options instead of excluding the evidence is to allow the defense or the the imposing party toward your the witness and that's what's happened here so I think the vort now the stuff that defense councils raised here goes to wait doesn't go to admissibility and I think that it should be admitted what you think it would be beneficial to the defense's expert witnesses to have this information prior to today's cross-examination well the uh it means that they could then con consult with the defense attorneys about it correct um yeah I probably would be your honor I think it would be pretty beneficial so it's not coming in on Direct thank you thank you all right bring the jury back um did we get those copies back yet he's still working on it you got to slow me down sometimes okay so you're telling him not to bring back the jury I know that's why you got to slow me down so I think so we're not bringing the jury yet sir we need the copies first we need the copies first okay he heard you heard thank you thank you foreign both sides now have the additional documentation or notes regarding the comparison studies that the doctor talked about okay let's bring the jury back out foreign jury all right we're back on a record Mark D Jensen 2002 cf314 the appearances are the same the Curry's back in the courtroom Dr Malin is still on the stand on the road uh I just want to tell you ladies and gentlemen of the jury there was some question about comparative studies of homicide and suicide we're not going to get there right now so disregard all that whatever was said is stricken from the record so you can continue now Mr James so Dr Mainland um let's talk about ethylene glycol as an instrument of death okay it is effective as an instrument of death isn't that yes um what happens to a dog if it happens across a bowl of ethylene glycol on the ground and it and it drinks up the bowl of ethylene glycol it dies um and why would a dog drink ethylene glycol because it tastes good um now at the last hearing I had you taste a man antifreeze did I not yes you did I'm not going to ask you to do that again you spit it out right if you tasted it right yes but how did it taste it was sweet so I think glycol itself has a sweet taste to it yes it does but antifreeze um which contains nothing glycol contains other things as well doesn't it yes what are the other things that it that it contains um I believe propylene glycol and now nowadays they add a bittering agent to it but in 1998 they didn't not here so um but there were other additives like things to prevent the engine block from getting rusty and things of that rust Inhibitors and that sort of thing I can't remember all that I don't know all the chemical names but you knew how it tested when you uh or how it tasted when you uh tested it in back in 2008 yes and it tasted sweet yes and that's what would cause dogs possibly drinking if you found it on the ground possibly and sometimes children would drink ethylene glycol right yes and there'd be an accidental uh ingestion of ethyl glycol yes and they'd get very sick yes and sometimes they survived and sometimes they didn't yes and then there are people who ingest ethylene glycol because they want to commit suicide yes and then there are other people who select ethylene glycol as a means of committing murder yes so let's talk about what kind of research one would find on the internet if you're looking at potential ways of killing your spouse what would you find about a thing glycol well you'd find um a number of the things that we talked about you'd find about the effects and and um and Etc you'd also find that it's not usually tested for at autopsy so from a potential murderer's perspective that makes it an attractive vehicle to kill one spouse yes it's sweet tasting and it's not typically detected at autopsy that's correct no in the literature when you if you go online and you look up ethylene glycol as a toxic substance is there has the literature that was available did it indicate what the typical lethal amount of methane glycol would be it depends the um the most common number you'll see in the literature is 100 milliliters that's an old figure that was um that was taken from dogs in the 1930s um it's been shown that as little as 30 milliliters can kill a person no to given the jury an idea of what 30 milliliters look like I'm going to ask you to take a look at this good job so that's a small dosing cup that came with my Nyquil um and how much uh how many different uh variations or markations are there on the demarcations are there on that there are two lines um the first one marks 15 milliliters and the second one closer to the top marks 30. Did you hold on to the jury so the jury can see it so 30 milliliters is just a little bit less than what's contained at what would be held in that cup correct and you is that the amount that you're holding there in your hand that that would fit in that cup would that be a sufficient amount of ethylene glycol to cause the symptoms that Julie Jensen was manifesting yes it would it be sufficient to cause the oxalic acid crystals that were found in her system yes the amount of ethane glycol is found in her blood in her gastric contents and their urine yes but that amount of ethyl glycol that small amount 30 milligrams or milliliters 30 milliliters um would that be likely to cause her death very quickly or would it be likely to cause her death over a longer period of time um you know every every individual is different but um you know the symptoms are kind of the severity of the symptoms will kind of depend on the dose well not the severity the manifestation a person could survive I'm sorry repeat your question please I got off track okay well let's let's start with this um you heard Aaron Dillard's you read Aaron Dillard's letter to his attorney where he indicated that Mark Jensen had provided Julie with two doses of ethylene glycol yes so hold up that cup and you said that that would be a sufficient all at once to kill her correct yes so two doses of half that amount would be enough to kill her probably so hold up the fifth show the jury where the 15 millimeter 15 milliliter line is right where my fingertip is and so that's a very small amount of ethylene glycol yes and if we're mixed in with a cup of orange juice or some kind of a Juice It might not be noticed might not and um if you're going to murder somebody with that thing glycol you don't want them to taste it on the way down right probably not on the other end if you're going to commit suicide with ethylene glycol you just gulp it all down to Foundation um why don't you just lay a foundation as to that question well if a person is going to commit suicide with ethylene glycol they want to they want to die from ingesting ethylene glycol is that right right so what's they like what are they likely going to do if they want to die from ingesting ethylene glycol drink enough of it to kill them yes all at once yes let's talk about the process of dying from ethylene glycol poisoning you talked about you described the stages but can you describe the level of suffering that a person who's dying from ethylene glycol described to the jury the level of suffering that Julie Jensen went through in the last two days of her life it you know the especially the the second and third phases of ethylene glycol poisoning the second phase where glycolic acid is being produced and the body is becoming acidatic is very uncomfortable um I was describing how hard and deeply the person is trying to breathe um in a you know fetal effort to get rid of acid in the body um there could be some some depression of the um of the nervous system as well first stage could cause even seizures by the third stage you can get pain a lot of pain that that would involve the um the crystals building up in the kidneys so you get pain from that you would just feel music it's I guess I could compare it to a bad flu you would not you would feel generally weak and and miserable so one large dose would shorten the agony and the misery and multiple small doses would prolong The Agony and the misery yes so if a person is committing suicide most people who commit suicide don't want to suffer they just want to die right in my experience so ingesting multiple small doses of antifreeze is more horrific way to die than ingesting one large dose of ethylene glycol I would say so on the other hand it's hard to get somebody to ingest a large amount of ethylene glycol unwittingly objection Foundation overall go ahead you can answer it well I'll back up you tasted ethylene glycol right yes it was a sweet tasting substance yes but there was another there were other tastes to it that were not so pleasant yeah there were yes I mean you've had orange juice yes and you like the taste of orange juice yes I do you don't like the taste of ethylene glycol that you're secretly hankering for more ethylene glycol right no I have not it doesn't taste as good as orange juice does it no it doesn't it so if you wanted somebody to drink to ingest ethylene glycol and you're gonna Spike the orange juice with it you'd put in a little bit of ethylene glycol and a lot of orange juice that would um help to disguise it yes so two small doses is consistent with homicide but inconsistent with suicide yes and the the information that you have concerning the last two days of Julie's death of Julie's life I should say the last two days that Julie was alive is that more consistent with two small doses or one large dose it's more consistent with multiple doses and that's consistent with what Aaron Dillard's indicated Mark Jensen confessed to him yes now it is true that it's unusual for a murder suspect to confess to a fellow inmate isn't it um I wouldn't know it's also unusual for one guy to get drunk and tell another guy he's thinking about that he's planning to murder his wife well men say a lot of things when they're drunk but I don't think that many men talk about murdering their wives but this in this case you're aware that there was evidence that Mark Jensen told Ed klug that he was planning to murder his wife yes and he was planning to murder with a drug that crystallized her from the inside out yes and is that a is that a pretty fair description of what ethylene glycol does to you that would be a good Layman's description yes crystallizes you from the inside out right yes now and after Ed clue came forward you're aware that Mark Jensen undertook a conspiracy with a fellow inmate to try to have Ed Club done away with before the trial correct yes I'm aware of that and you weren't aware of that before the forfeiture hearing but you were aware of that I'm sorry the first hearing but you were aware of that before the second hearing correct yes foreign so doctor just to to um complete this line of questioning as you're sitting here today do you have an opinion to a reasonably of medical certainty is the cause and manner of death of Julie Jensen yes what was the cause of her death green glycol poisoning and what was the manner of death homicide nothing further I take it Mr Perry you're doing the cross yes go ahead Dr Mainland you when you started this morning you were explaining your kind of qualifications for going through your CV right yes and you started from the beginning with your was it a residency um medical school yeah and then fellowships yes and your experience you talked about you added up the over the years and the averages for the years um but you ballparked it is doing about four thousand autopsies that's correct um and that's up until your retirement um a couple of years ago yes and you indicated since retirement you've done some Consulting yes who do you consult with um well I did it I had a part-time job I worked for um Life Link of Florida um where I reviewed cases in which tissue was to be donated um I did that for a while I have another case with Mr jamboy's [Music] um and and that's about it really was that uh referred to you after your retirement yes and that was for you to review records and see what had been done yes and that's something you're doing just um for private pay yes have you ever treated live patients only in medical school like when you're doing rotations yes but never after you graduated from medical school no unless they discount you need to Discount my family you've um setting aside any rotation you did while in medical school I guess I'll refer to your professional career okay um you've never dealt with patients who are alive and depressed no I guess I could have broken that up you've never dealt with patients who are alive um actually yes I have you have but um if you went far between okay you don't prescribe medications unless it's your family no you're not a forensic psychiatrist no I'm not what's a forensic psychiatrist a forensic psychiatrist um is same thing as a well not same thing similar work to a forensic pathologist that psychiatrists will look back at a deceased persons um psychiatric history and try to determine you know what was going on with them make make diagnoses Etc so um I guess I guess they um they're also employed um looking at Living individuals as well you've never treated somebody who's ingested ethylene glycol no now Julie Jensen died in December December 3rd of 1998 right yes Dr chambliss to the autopsy and December 4th 1998. yes everything that he did was then turned over to the Kenosha medical examiner yes and that person was not you no you became a medical examiner in Kenosha in 2005. yes and you stayed in that position until 2008 yes so what your role was it sounds correct me if I'm wrong similar to the Consulting work you're doing now that's correct so you're reviewing an autopsy done by somebody else yes you're reviewing samples that were taken by somebody else yes looking at photographs taken by somebody else yes and you're piecing through the reports that have been provided to you and you're trying to come up with something that the most consistent explanation that makes sense to you right yes and that's um when you testify and you say the words a reasonable degree of medical certainty that's what that really means isn't it yes yes um this is what makes sense to you considering everything you've looked at yes you can call it an opinion okay to do your job you need reliable information yes and it needs to be credible yes prior to today did you review um all your prior testimony in this case um very briefly you testified on Direct that you reviewed the autopsy report yes do you usually take the photos when you do autopsies um I take a lot of my own photos um others do not some um some rely on autopsy technicians some rely on law enforcement and the reason you take photos yourself is you want to be sure that you're photographing what you want photographed yes and you can be it's it's part of the whole report essentially right yes okay you wouldn't want to I guess you don't you haven't you aren't doing autopsies anymore it's a bad question um but you don't want to find out when film got developed uh that the picture didn't capture exactly what you wanted of course not and you know film hasn't been used in a long time right since well I used it in 2000 but it's been quite a while okay and then everything went digital yes and in this case these were um these were film photographs uh I believe so and there were film photographs taken by detective ratzberg um I'm not sure who took them but I'll take your word do you still have the autopsy report in front of you yes it was a paper copy was given to you this morning right yes um would if you were to look at um top third of page one with that refresher recollection um yes you're talking about um right about the word personal effects um I see that yes yeah and it says photographs are taken by sergeant ratzberg of the Pleasant Prairie Police Department okay I believe that yes okay would you agree that it's the standard to take photos before incision yes and the reason you want to do that is to document the state of the body as it's received by you prior to doing the autopsy yes any external findings would want to be documented yes you haven't seen any pictures like that in this case have you no I haven't you're not aware that any external preliminary photos were taken at autopsy not at autopsy and so when you're doing kind of your um your review of the work that's been done uh a limitation is the work that's been done right of course and the quality of that work yes how long does an autopsy typically take it depends um a really simple autopsy can be completed in an hour um you know depending on the findings depending on the type of case um multiple gunshot wound case can take days in all of your years of doing autopsies as a forensic pathologist have you ever done an autopsy and then just turned it over to somebody else no you've and the 4 000 autopsy you've done autopsies you've done you've then done the investigative part of it and sent things for samples and done the follow-up work yeah but um you know we do obviously have investigative staff but I reviewed all the all the their work product okay and in this case I'm sorry yeah I reviewed their work product and put it together with the other things that you mentioned by your staff yes okay and in this case you're understanding that Dr chambliss did the autopsy and then turned it over yes and he didn't do any additional follow-up um I'm not aware of it and he he was the Waukesha medical examiner at the time right I think so yes I want to talk about that autopsy report which is marked I think is exhibit s it's part of S10 I believe and that's uh you have that in front of you um and it describes the condition of Julie Jensen as of December 4th 1998 right yes that she weighed 110 pounds approximately okay would you I mean would you think that the um St Catharines where this was done would have had a scale I really don't know would it be um in the four thousand autopsies you've done um do you weigh the body um all of my autopsies except those I've done in Kenosha County I did not have a scale Kenosha County doesn't have a scale they did not at the time well presumably um she was weighed right objection calls for speculation just by the word of presumably the sustained it's in Dr chamble's report isn't it uh the question is vague what is in Dr shamlis's report it's a follow-up question about how much Julie Jensen weighed well we know the reports is 110 pounds let's move on actually it says approximately 110 approximately thank you for correcting it it notes only blunt trauma injuries are minor in few do you see that on page one um and at the time the body was discovered there was little or no rigor legs and neck and body still slightly warm do you see that um I'm looking I'm looking for that which page is that on okay I see it I see it did I read that correctly yes you said what I'm sorry what did you say that on page one on page one now that would be that would be consistent with her dying approximately three hours earlier correct it could be yes so if there was testimony that a first responder was at 4 35 pm would you ballpark her time of death as 135 to 2 35 pm it's again a very ballpark figure but yes it could be that'd be reasonable considering the description of her body at the time she was found yes foreign do you see the spot in the autopsy where it notes the Hemorrhage of the mucosa of the hypopharyngeal muscles on the upper back of the thyroid cartilage of the larynx near the Republic logic folds how did I do um not bad are epiglottic area polglottic um I'm looking for it I I recall reading that I'm looking for it it's uh if you look at page four under gastrointestinal system okay I see it and it says there's a hemorrhage of that mucosa right yes that's something that is not an infrequent finding correct correct that could be entirely postmortem artifact it could be yes can you explain what post-mortem artifact means sometimes [Music] um a body after death would look as though uh and um something could look as as though it's an injury but it's not um that's the simplest way to put it could happen just as part of a Dying process right yes this description yes doesn't mean that a person was struck no not necessarily you could die of a heart attack and have that yes there isn't a photo that adequately shows what this is is there there is yes is there a description or photo enough for you to make a decision about the cause of that um in this case it was not okay okay that finding based on the autopsy doesn't reveal a whole lot does it no I want to talk about the on that same page under cardiovascular system at the top do you see that yes it notes there's petechiai in the lung and cardio pericardial Sac yes can you explain what fatiki I are um petite are it's just a doctor word for tiny little hemorrhages almost almost rash looking just tiny little pinpoint hemorrhages and you can you can see those anywhere right yes anywhere in the body pretty much so yes living or dead um yeah yes is there anything suspicious about there being petite in the long and pericardial Sac um possibly not always it doesn't necessarily mean anything correct it could be a postmortem artifact oh that could be something that just truly just shows up after somebody's died yes and that's a pretty common finding fairly and the pattern that these are described in um that's uh that's consistent with what you just said right that it's a probable post-mortem artifact or perimortem it could be yes okay a heart attack can cause fatigue eye um probably straining yes and nothing even discernible can cause the tki that's true find the right page on page three under internal examination under neck organs tell me if you see that organs okay it notes that the small and large strap muscles show no sign of injury correct can you explain what the large and small strap areas of the neck are yes um there are muscles talking to the microphone there are muscles that run down underneath the skin one down the front of your neck um guys can translate up and see the Shaving muscle they call it and then there are other deeper ones that run down either from your um from like the top of your throat or from your larynx down to your sternum basically okay and you might find an injury there if somebody had been strangled correct yes there's no indication of that in this case no there'd be evidence of injury and a strangulation because there would be pressure on those muscles right yes same section you see where it says the mucosa of the larynx is normal yes the cartilages of the larynx are normal yes the hyoid bone is intact yes you might see damage to that area if there was pressure on the neck right yes in this case there's no damage to that area no talk to quite a bit indirect about um the gastric contents um the report doesn't actually indicate that gastric contents were collected does it no it doesn't it gives a description of the gastric contents yes it indicates that there were about 660 milliliters right correct and I think it described that um it contained uh what Dr chambliss described as potatoes and pepper correct have you ever examined the gastric contents no I wanna um walk through a little bit of measurements in this case because there was a lot of there's been a lot of discussion about that I can just skip to the end do you agree that 660 milliliters is about 22 ounces sounds about right you testified that there were that the toxicology report indicated that there were 3940 micrograms per milliliter of ethylene glycol in that stomach yes a microgram is one one millionth of a gram correct microgram micro yes 3940 micrograms per milliliter if we were to multiply that by 660 we would get 2 million six hundred thousand four hundred micrograms per 660 milliliters does that sound right yes that's the equivalent of 2.6 grams correct which is the equivalent of about one tenth of an ounce you're making me do math on the Fly um I I write that yes okay a teaspoon is point 166 ounces sound right sounds reasonable yes this is about 2.6 grams of ethylene glycol is about half a teaspoon um yes okay so out of the 22 ounces of stuff in Julie Jensen's stomach about half a teaspoon of it was ethylene glycol according to this right that's correct okay the autopsy report notes that the stomach was distended yes that could suggest that the stomach was not emptying properly correct that's possible yes and if the stomach had stopped emptying that could extend the amount of time that ethylene glycol in her gastric contents would be absorbed into her system yes beyond what you might typically expect with the absorption of ethylene glycol yes because what you typically expect with the absorption of ethylene glycol is what you typically expect in a correctly functioning GI system right yes and there's indication that Julie Jensen's GI system was not functioning the way it should be yeah at least at the time of death of gastric emptying time is variable in individuals yes we have no idea about Julie Jensen's gastric emptying time correct gastroparesis is when the stomach doesn't empty properly for any number of reasons agreed yes and that's a pretty common thing to occur even in healthy individuals I'm not sure how common it is but I mean it's knowledge properly functioning kidneys one of their jobs is to eliminate nitrogen wastes from the from the body right yes and if that's not happening then something called uremia can develop yes and that uremia is really just the buildup of nitrogen waste in the body yes basically that's something that can cause gastroparesis yes an electrolyte imbalance kind of the acid-base status is something that can affect GI motility um I would imagine so yes yeah also meaning that can cause gastroparesis probably yes now for something to be absorbed through the lining of a stomach that something needs to come in contact with the lining of the stomach correct yes our intestinal tract has absorptive cells yes no peristalsis did I say that right yeah good job thank you is the grinding up of food liquid everything that's in the gut mixing it with digestive enzymes and puts it into contact with those absorptive cells correct now when there's gastroparesis that's breaking down that system isn't working right correct to know whether the half a teaspoon out of the 22 ounces would have come in contact with the lining of Julie Jensen's stomach with those absorptive cells we really need to know what the other 22 ounces are right um I'm not sure how that would make a difference well if it's um if the 22 ounces is just Clear Water that's different than 22 ounces of sludgy food right okay I understand now what you're getting at yes yeah you'd agree with that then yes that to assess the likelihood or unlikelihood of what was going on with that half a teaspoon we really need to know the makeup of those 22 ounces yes that'd be helpful and we don't know that right we know some about it but not we don't know the chemical composition um we know we know the texture at the color Etc we know the color and we know that it um the description from the person doing the autopsies that it contained potatoes and pepper correct I think you testified and direct about somebody who is acidotic yes now the human body maintains a slightly basic acid-based status right yes for somebody who's healthy it's around 7.4 approximately yes and when you go below seven that's an acid right yes okay now if there's too much acid that's toxic to the cells in the human body right yes and Julie Jensen was necessarily acidotic wasn't she yes and we know that because she was actively processing ethylene glycol yes and the metabolism of ethylene glycol breaks down into those acids that you talked about yes the oxalic acid and then the glycolic acid correct among others and is there any way for a body that's processing ethylene glycol to not be acidotic um if there's a significant amount of ethylene glycol probably not and that's something that we talked about that um electrolyte imbalance is something that can delay gastric emptying yes the autopsy report indicates that the urinary urinary bladder was distended with 150 cc's of urine yes that's a pretty typical amount for somebody to die with yes it is you have an indication that Julie Jensen was drinking a lot of water um yes and you referenced looking at scene photos and descriptions of the scene right yes there's no indication that any bodily fluids were found in the bed not my knowledge that would suggest that she was able to get up and go to the bathroom wouldn't it um either that or she simply wasn't going okay or someone helped her those three options correct that was a typical amount in a bladder yes the soft amount the soft amount of salt the small amount of soft tissue Hemorrhage to the ribs yes that's a non-specific finding isn't it yes that could just be congestion it could be yes can you explain what congestion is um congestion excuse me congestion just means settling of blood um settling our collect a collection of blood that's all is another way of saying that is that would that be post-mortem lividity yes so if if laying uh face down um with gravity bloodwood pool correctly yes yes and that's that's something that um that this might be yes that's something that could have happened when the body was even moved um I'm not sure about that you have no idea whether it's an injury correct I can't [Music] um I can't say definitively that it is an injury and you don't know how long it had been there no I don't is that something that could be a post-mortem artifact it could be and it could just be simply congestion of blood that's a possibility and you're aware that Julie Jensen was was found face down yes it could have been from bumping into something um kind of an odd place to get injured from bumping into something well if somebody was um maybe if somebody was in an intoxicated state they could have bumped into any number of things right it's possible so it could be an injury could not be an injury correct it could have happened before death could have happened after death I don't think it happened after death that's what post-mortem finding is right yes okay the positioning of the arm in the photo um that today you said you thought it was an unnatural position yes um you'd agree that people sleep in weird ways yes they do and when people are on their side an arm has to go somewhere doesn't it yes at least one of them right the report notes bruises on the right buttock yes that's also not a specific finding right that's correct that could happen from falling or running into a table yes you'd have no idea from this description how old they are um that the description would indicate they're fairly fresh could have been there for days um maybe a couple the Brews on the right shin you saw that in the report yes um that means nothing to you right that's correct that's um also what you'd say is non-specific that's correct that could be from bumping into anything correct also no idea how long that's been there no I don't remember don't remember if we described the color but it just is it the location that makes you think it doesn't matter yes the report notes a superficial yellow slightly curved abrasion over the right side of the front of the neck yes that's something that could be post-mortem yes that's something that could have happened before her death yes shortly before it's described um I thought as like by the shape of a fingernail right yes could have been caused by a fingernail could have yes could have been caused by not a fingernail sure it's superficial meaning there's no injury underneath it right correct that's something I think I don't want to misstate what you just said that could be post-mortem right yes that could have happened from moving the body [Music] um if somebody grabbed the body by the neck I would imagine so if somebody moved the body and glanced the neck possibly there were pictures at the scene and she had died and it showed her her eyes right yes you remember seeing those yes um that's something that doesn't strike you as significant in any way right [Music] um the description given by Dr chambliss um if that's a correct description no it does not it's non-specific and common it doesn't mean anything to you based on his description correct and we kind of have to go with his description right right foreign the same scene photos showed her nose yes now it's not uncommon for people to die face down is it it happens and if you die face down you have the weight of your head on your nose right yes cartilage is pretty pliable yes not unusual for a nose to be pushed to one side no by the time of the autopsy um it indicated that the nose was midline yes no damage at all none was described no I want to shift to well judge I'll ask you this I'm going to shift to a new topic let me just ask you how long is your cross going to be as of right now how much more do you need I suspect um at least an hour all right you're going into a new topic I think it's a great time to stop 115 folks don't talk about the case Fusion's last witness um I'm thinking of having our first Witnesses here at three does that seem appropriate based upon cross redirectory cross well I'm expecting my redirect's gonna be quite brief um certainly not anywhere close to an hour um and you're gonna you said you're about an hour we're going to start at 1 30. I mean it's I said 115. 15 I'd say three o'clock is a reasonable time so we're going to be done by three o'clock with this witness maybe maybe I shouldn't ask the question I've been a couple of witnesses drive from Milwaukee so I'm going to tell them to be here at three so let me just ask Mr Jimboy before we go off the Record is this your last Witness Runner thank you all right have somebody available yeah yeah but three o'clock is an okay time to tell them to be here and they're coming from work so I want to be respectful of time I don't want to stop at three and we got nothing to do and there's going to be an afternoon break I'm just saying is three o'clock an okay time to have someone here or should I have them here it's a great time okay we're in recess foreign thank you thank you thank you foreign we're back on the record on Mark D Jensen 2002 cf314 the appearances are the same Dr Malin is still on the stand we'll continue with the cross-examination anytime you're ready uh attorney period thank you your honor Dr Mainland ethylene glycol is a non-volatile substance correct it's um I think it's lowly volatile lowly relatively It's relatively non-volatile and what that means is that it doesn't evaporate easily right right it doesn't mean anything other than that um not to me okay not to me either um you talked about the phases you talked about the phases of ethylene glycol poisoning on Direct and there are the theory is that there are three of them right yes and now this three-stage theory has existed for a long time yes um limitation in understanding the phases of ethylene glycol poisoning is the reliability of information about somebody who's been poisoned by ethylene glycol would you agree with that yes when somebody shows up at a hospital and they've ingested ethylene glycol they might not be the most reliable source for exactly when how much all of the factors correct that's correct okay they may not and and through kind of all the literature that limitation is present isn't it um not all of it some there are some accurate reports but I would say in general yes to extrapolate in terms of how everybody would process ethylene glycol it's a limitation um and I'm not quite sure well I'm not quite sure what you mean well I think today you said every individual is different that's what I'm getting at is uh issues with metabolization okay okay and then how these different phases might manifest in any particular person okay do you agree with that yes that it's um it's not a uh I guess a strict recipe in terms of what happens when any one person ingests ethylene glycol how okay that correct okay correct and I think a a quote that is present in the literature and has been for a long time is that metabolism of ethylene glycol has not been thoroughly investigated in man that's correct and it hasn't been because it's poisonous that's correct okay and aside from you drinking ethylene glycol on the stand most people don't do that I didn't swallow it um there are these three phases right that that that's the theoretical three phases right stage one is um thought to begin it's a pretty big range anywhere from 30 minutes to 12 hours after ingestion yes that's the intoxication phase yes stage two thought to begin 12 to 24 hours after ingestion yes cardiorespiratory phase correct now the reason there's a cardiorespiratory phase is that goes back to that sort of acid-base acid-base level that the the human body needs to be at right yes okay and so if we need to be if a healthy individual needs to be at a 7.4 pH right right um once ethylene glycol starts getting metabolized and it turns into those acids correct yes and the heavy breathing the rapid breathing that's the body trying to get rid of the acid in the blood yes and that would happen while a person is acidotic yes that's where you see possible Cardiac Arrest yes issues with just heart rate yes and then labor breathing yes as long as the body is acidotic would you expect to see somebody in phase two that's um probably the description of phase two um I I'm I'm not I'm not sure it has a strict definition but phase two relates to that um the production of glycolic acidosis what I'm trying to understand is um the logic with it okay and and the explanation for it so the heavy rapid breathing is because the body has become too acidic right yes okay and so it would stand reason that as long as your the body is absorbing ethylene glycol actively absorbing ethylene glycol in the blood you would be acidotic as long as the body is metabolizing it sure and and as long as it's being metabolized it seems like you would probably be in that phase two yes and tell you that through um until you metabolized all of the glycolic acid or whatever acids other acids were being produced sure so if you had unabsorbed ethylene glycol that was still being processed by the blood uh it seems like that would put you into phase two if glycolic acid was being produced right yes okay then you talked about stage three and that's thought to Begin Again a really wide time frame anywhere from 24 hours to 72 hours after ingestion right and that's the renal phase yes and that's the whole issue with the kidneys and kidneys shutting down yes okay these stages can overlap can't they yes you may have a stage that's not clinically apparent that's correct a person could exhibit multiple phases at once that's correct and the reason that you could exhibit multiple phases at once is because when you ingest something if if a if a person were to ingest an alcohol the gut doesn't immediately process all of it at once right right and that gets to kind of um some of the stuff we talked about earlier with uh the GI motility yes it gets to um absorption in those absorptive cells right it gets to a person's rate of metabolization right okay and so it's not like um a stomach isn't like a sink where you pull the drain and it all just goes into the bloodstream not usually right and so if um and you might you might see this or even experience it with uh with with drinking alcohol right uh experienced what this idea that um all alcohol isn't absorbed simultaneously correct okay um you could be uh you could get really drunk at night not drink anymore and still be drunk the next morning you could and is it is the logic that I'm explaining is that consistent with that is what consistent with that just that metabolization uh rates of just GI motility all of that would play a part yes um genetics might play A Part genetics might play a part in terms of how a particular individual absorbs and processes alcohol um I would imagine so I mean yes I know some examples and while we can't study we while ethylene glycol can't be studied on people there are lots of studies about how people process alcohol right yes and the enzymes that metabolize alcohol are that would be the same enzymes processing ethylene glycol that's correct okay would you agree that amongst comparing individual to individual a person who's a chronic consumer of alcohol that could result in the up regulation of those enzymes yes that person would be able to metabolize alcohol faster than somebody who's not a chronic consumer of alcohol yes and the reason they'd be able to do that faster than the person who doesn't drink alcohol is because the body has adjusted that P4 p450 enzyme right to be able to do that yes okay and so it would stand to reason if you are not a regular Drinker you would likely not metabolize alcohol as fast as somebody who is a regular drinker that's yes I think today you testified that well we you testified about um half-lives right yes and a half-life is once um once a substance reaches peak level in the blood it starts being eliminated from the blood correct correct okay and then if a half-life is four hours in four hours time you would have half of what was in there four hours before right right and then four hours later it would be half of that right and it's thought that five half-lives when you do that five times you're basically down to zero correct right okay and so um if a half-life is uh one hour you would expect that it would be out of your system within five hours correct right and if a half-life was eight hours you would expect it to be out of your system in 40 hours yes the peak level for ethylene glycol in terms of the literature is estimated as being typically one to four hours after consumption yes yes I think earlier today you gave the number of one hour I I think one hour is what I've seen more commonly that's the low end of that range okay I mean yes I I have seen one to four hours in the literature aware of cases in which the peak is reached after four hours um yes and it's not the ethylene glycol by itself that's fatal to a person it's the metabolization of it that's correct so you could have and you might frequently have somebody who's died from ethylene glycol poisoning and their blood level at time of death would be zero yes the current reported half-life of ethylene glycol in an adult human being is estimated at being three to eight hours would you agree with that um I've seen three to five more commonly you've seen that in more textbooks textbooks literature and you've also seen three to eight I have seen that as well to know what Julie Jensen's Half-Life is we'd have to know a lot of variables would you agree yes we'd have to know one when precisely she ingested ethylene glycol yes we'd have to know how much yes uh and then I mean that would be unnecessary those would be necessary points to figure it out right well we would have to know where the peak concentration is at what time the peak concentration was correct and then there are all those variables in terms of her own p450 enzymes right right we don't know anything about that with her not specifically no we don't know what was happening with her gut on December 1st to December 3rd we know um the late ended up we do in terms of her GI motility is what I'm talking about right we don't know that no we know we do know how the how it ended up we don't know how it started all the examples I gave of things that can cause gastroparesis um he would stand to reason that Julie Jensen was experiencing gastroparesis wouldn't it yes she had an electrolyte imbalance um that wasn't proven but I'm sure he did she had to have right right her body was dealing with a toxin yes foreign do you still have that little NyQuil cup of Mr jamboy's is up there yes 30 milliliters is what you've testified to be the amount necessary to to be fatal to Julie Jensen it could be yes do you think that's the bottom end of what's fatal tour um I'm not quite sure you think 30 milliliters would be fatal to her probably somebody who weighed um approximately 110 pounds on at the time of death I would I would say probably between 30 and 50. MLS the testing showed that at the time of death she had unabsorbed ethylene glycol in her blood correct it was absorbed because it was in her blood it was in her blood but it was still being processed right it had not yet that was is still in the process of being broken down into those metabolites right in your work as a forensic pathologist one of the manners of death that you need to consider is suicide right yes you would consider prior suicidal statements yes prior attempts at suicide yes anything indicating a suicidal ideation yes and that would be like a comment to a doctor a friend anybody really you would consider a significant history of depression or mental illness yes you would look to see whether or not she had been a person had been diagnosed as being depressed yes you take weight loss into consideration yes in this case you reviewed Dr borman's notes I think you mentioned on Direct yes and on September 21st 1998 you note that Julie Jensen weighed 123 and a half pounds according to those notes yes and then on December 1st she weighed 115 pounds yes and then at the time of her death it's estimated to be 110 pounds yes would you agree that depression and suicides can run in families it's been shown yes it's understood that people frequently try to hide depression from people that's common the majority of people who commit suicide are suffering from depression I would agree with that you would consider whether or not a person's been treated for depression yes and that treatment could include counseling yes it could include medication yes so or is paroxetine right yes okay there's a an FDA warning on that classification of drug isn't there yes it can cause someone initially when they take the antidepressant to get dramatically worse initially yes yes another thing that can happen when people start taking an antidepressant is that they and start feeling the effect of it is that they can have the strength to take their own life or before they might not have that's correct there's a stigma about depression I would say so yes there's a stigma about um suicidal ideations I would say so they're frequently consequences to reporting suicidal ideations yes that can be there are mandatory reporters yes and that could lead to commitment possibly women with children have killed themselves yes would you agree that things can be counter-intuitive with suicides yes what might seem logical to somebody who's not depressed doesn't necessarily apply to somebody who is depressed correct when you made an opinion in this case in any of the times that you testified you didn't have access to Julie Jensen's counseling records did you I don't think I do you didn't know that several years earlier she had been prescribed an antidepressant I may have known that I'm not sure I think you testified today that one of the reasons you thought this was homicide and not suicide is that a suicide would typically take a large amount a large enough dose to kill themselves yes and then you explained and held up Mr jamboy's NyQuil cup that 30 milliliters is enough to kill somebody yes did you take into consideration with your opinion information that um if there had been a suicide attempt in Julie Jensen's family yes did you ever speak directly with Dr Borman about his assessment of depression no I want to talk a little bit about asphyxiation and the findings in the autopsy if you saw injuries to the lips or cheeks would that be an indication of asphyxiation it could be yes in this case there were no injuries to the lips or cheeks that's correct there are no teeth marks anywhere no the next showed no sign of injury that's correct unless you count the perimortum yellow mark there was no damage to the larynx that we talked about correct and you'd see that if um there was pressure on the neck you could correct me if I'm wrong you talked about positional asphyxia a little bit on Direct exam today right yes and the notes that I scribbled down when you testified is that you said it was not positional asphyxia because that wouldn't explain the injury on the ribs yes yes that's the injury that when we talked about you agreed could have just been congestion yes could have been just post-mortem lividity that pooling of blood yes so aside from that explanation you don't have an explanation for the injury to the ribs aside from those two explanations no it's a common finding and it didn't mean much to you at the time right correct foreign the only reason you think asphyxiation occurred in this case is because of Aaron Dillard not necessarily I would say he is my main reason because he provided an explanation for that uh notation about her ribs and a lot of other information consist it found at autopsy right um including that prior to hearing about Aaron Dillard your opinion was that Julie Jensen had died of ethylene glycol poisoning correct and your opinion was that it was probably a homicide yes and that was based on her unabsorbed ethylene glycol inner gastric contents that was one factor and the other was that um that she was experiencing uh multiple phases at once right rejection the question assumes the existence of a fact which is not an Evidence in fact is contrary to the prior answer so I object to that question why don't you ask her what her opinion was based on go ahead well I'll rephrase it go ahead I think you just testified that one of the reasons you thought it was homicide is because she had unabsorbed ethylene glycolin or gastric contents yes what's the other reason objection again he assumes the existence of fact not in evidence to it that there's only two reasons what are the other reasons but um as I tried to explain in the beginning the case didn't look like it did not look like a case of suicide it did not look like a suicidal ingestion the circumstances the circumstances simply were wrong is one of the other reasons that she had crystals in her kidney at the same time she had unmetabolized ethylene glycol in her blood no that didn't play a part in your opinion no it didn't play a part in your opinion that there were more than one dose no is the opinion that there is more than one dose because there was the amount in our gastric contents but my opinion is partially based on that you testified about the letter Aaron Dillard wrote yes did you also review the recorded statement that Aaron Dillard gave um I believe I saw at least part of it at some point in your history with this case yes in the letter that you reviewed he describes kind of um the evening of December 1st December 2nd and then December 3rd correct yes and on December 2nd described that Julie Jensen was vomiting a little that sounds familiar yes did you review in his recorded statement that she wouldn't get out of bed was really just vomiting I would call that yes you've looked at the scene photos in this case yes have you seen any indication that there was vomit on the bed sheets no any indication that there was vomit in the garbage can next to the bed no any indication that any vomit was found anywhere no I think you were asked on Direct about Aaron Dillard I think Mr jamboy's asked you you know he's an admitted con man right or something like that yes and your answer is yes right yes that he you know that about him yes I do you understand that a really good con artist can figure out ways to present a story that aren't obvious to other people yes Mr Dillard indicated that Mark Jensen told him that he pushed on her back or lungs or something like that right yes someone might create that story if they realize there was damage in the longer rib area um possibly Aaron Dillard's letter describes what medications Julie Jensen was taking yes it's not a confession if Mark Jensen had told Julie told Aaron Dillard what medications Julie was taking that no if he's isolate in isolation no if that's what you mean Aaron Dillard's statement and the findings that autopsy line up in your opinion correct yes today you testified that there is no other source for that info for which info for Aaron Dillard to have that information but for Mark Jensen uh I am not aware I am aware of materials that Aaron Dillard had access to um which ones are those uh I believe that he had access to an interview with Detective ratzberg between um Mark Jensen and Detective ratsberg it was also well known that this was an anti-freeze poisoning case yes there were newspapers or articles about this yes there have been articles about your testimony yes they have there have been articles about your testimony that it was your opinion that multiple doses were given yes anyone who read that article would know the state's theory that multiple doses were given possibly you mentioned detective ratsberg's interview with Mark Jensen did you read that um I'm not sure that I've read the same interview that was in the cell with Mark Jensen you're aware of um description of the interview the interrogation between detective ratzberg and Mark Jensen yes and you know that he was suggesting deaths that he thought were consistent with the autopsy findings yes even suggested an autoerotic death um I don't recall that well maybe that doesn't matter because nobody's suggesting that that happened right not to my knowledge suggested in that interrogation her the location of her arm um I don't remember right his suggestions Incorporated what Dr chambliss described as a neck Hemorrhage the petiki over the cardio area and the bruising on the ribs um I honestly don't remember if he referred to all those all of those things you just don't remember precisely what he referred to correct but it's your understanding that Aaron Dillard had access to that yes talked a little bit about this claim of poisoning in November right yes that's one of Aaron Dillard's claims yes that Mark Jensen had tried to poison Julie Jensen in November when he was at a conference yes and got home and found that there was vomit everywhere that hadn't been cleaned up yes in terms of your um I guess investigation or overview of this case are you aware of any reports of her being sick for a several day period in November of 1998. um it depends on how you describe sick do you mean by vomiting or by sure by vomiting no any reports from Neighbors that Julie Jensen was sick prior to December of 1998. I don't think so anything from the voids um no I don't think so people at school I don't think so any reports that she didn't tend to her usual activities in November um no she needed help with the kids I don't recall I don't think so she was at home with the kids in November right yes any claim anywhere that she appeared intoxicated in November no you reviewed Dr borman's notes did you see anything that she came in for treatment in November no no description about any breathing abnormalities in November no if Julie Jensen had been endlessly vomiting on December 2nd and then not eating would you expect to see 22 ounces of material in her stomach and what day did you say December 2nd she may have been drinking you've been asked this before and I'm just going to ask you once again would you buy a used car from Aaron Dillard no I have nothing else redirect Mr Cham voice thank you Dr Mainland you were asked on cross-examination about um injuries to the neck yes and um the kind of injuries they were asking about are the kind of injuries you expect to see with a strangulation right um they're asking about injuries that I said weren't there is that what you're referring to yes yes and um you never suggested that there'd been a strangulation in this case had you no now when you were asked about the the injuries to the rib cage after being asked a series of questions about it you indicated I don't think it was postmortem is that true I think that's what I said well was it so what did you think it was when you observed these injuries after reading Aaron Dillard's report I thought it was Perry mortam and the injuries are consistent with perimortem injuries yes um okay so let's go through the Auntie Perry post um anti-mor antimordum a-n-t-e mortem is pre-death yes Harry Morton p-e-r-i mortem is during the death process right and post-mortem is after death yes so post-mortem artifacts are something you expect to see that could come up after somebody um it's a post-mortem artifact something that happens after death yes and Angie mortem is something could have happened before death yes but paramortem is something that happens during the death process around the time of death now the injuries that you saw um on Julie Jensen's rib cage in the photos was consistent with a paramortem injury an injury during death that would be caused by somebody sitting on a rib cage while her arm is stretched beneath her as it was in the the two photos that we displayed earlier to the jury object to the leading well is it inconsistent or inconsistent with that rephrase it and let's go is it consistent or inconsistent is the notion of perimotorum injury consistent or inconsistent with the two photographs that we displayed to the jury earlier that you were testifying about consistent now Council was also asking you questions about another statement this was the recorded statement recorded interview that Mark Jones or that Aaron zillard had that involves his defense attorney um the prosecutor that being myself and Aaron Dillard did you read that transcript um between or among the three of you it was a it was a it was a transcript of an interview that I conducted with Aaron zillard that was recorded with his attorney president Gretchen Rose thank you do you call ever seeing that that transcript no I don't some exhibits appear Mr jamboy I know that attorneys can search their areas for 71. I'm going to direct uh the court and councils and the defendants and the witness's attention to the screen and what exhibit is this for the record well this is our screen version of exhibit 71 your honor right and um we don't know where exhibit 71 is if we can't locate it anywhere um I will confess it ordinarily I'm the prime suspect when something is missing like this and um if we can locate it I'll produce it if I can't locate it I'll produce another one and we'll have it remarked we'll fix it so in any event now that you've seen the first page of this does that look familiar to at all yes it does so you did at one point see this interview um that was it says Jay jamboy's D Dillard G Gabrielle and R Gretchen rosenki yes and you know who Angelina Gabrielle is yes and you know who I am and um so let's get to the point where Aaron zillard is asked about where this conversation occurred he said he was in Jay Black in the Kenosha County Jail is that correct yes he starts talking about how they got together and we're talking about this correct yes and then I ask I want to clear hear exactly what he said and he replied okay he said it's all it's all this club guy just came out just came and said this and they revoked my bond because that's basically what the conversation was about why are you in jail you were in bond you know and he said on this guy wrote a letter saying I want to kill my wife or this and that and he just comes out now and so then we started getting more deeper into the conversations meaning well why would he say that you know things along that line and he would have just answered that he was an attention getter he was just seeing this as his big moment he could try to steal the Limelight or whatever something like that I don't remember the exact words but that's the gist of how we started talking about his case and then right away when I first got there that's when you know we just started talking and he asked me about myself and I said well yeah I'm here for revocation and all that um it was just a minor chit chat about my case and things like that and I said well yeah I'm looking at four and a half years or whatever unextended but I said I don't think I'll get it I'll probably get a chunk of it but not that much and we went through the conversation more and then you said well yeah and I said he said here you know he gave me this transcript the actual transcripts from the klug hearing and I read that transcript and then I asked it was a transcript of what D of the of the clue hearing of of what of Clue's testimony and Dillard his testimony yeah Luke's testimony now that you've read that does that refresh your recollection as to what documents it was that Aaron Dillard had reviewed in the county jail uh yes he hadn't read that reviewed Mark Jensen's interview with Paul ratsberg he had reviewed Ed klug's transcript of his testimony from the forfeiture from the first hearing yes and he wrote and he said his testimony yeah Clue's testimony and it I told him at that point I said this is kind of really lame you know what I meant if you look at it seems just kind of out there that there's nothing Concrete in this and I said the only thing that's gonna get you this is when we start started talking about he was like well how do you know how do you think I can get around this this thing and I told him that I don't think you can if the two secretaries say that you that you did come back or that klug did come back and say these things to them because in the transcript he said something about he came back to the office and he mentioned it to two of his secretaries or whatever I think it was somewhere at the end of his statement and I said well if he comes back and they say that he did say those things that you're basically that you're you're you know that they can collaborate a statement his statement then you're screwed I don't think there's a way around it okay so question so what did he say to that Dillard um he was just he was kind of quiet think about it and they spoke about he had some spots outlined in it in his paperwork and said that in that statement and that testimony that shows on he was just an attention getter and seeker and that he was talking about specific people in there and about how they probably wouldn't say anything and that he had probably already when we were going through the Testament at the court hearing that he probably already sent and investigator down to try to talk to them he told me that judge uh I I object to Mr jamb was reading this entire transcript well he asked about how many pages is a transcript um well here let me give me tell me how many pages the transcript is uh first of all just I was gonna read the entire transcript but I um it is 34. that's 35 read the entire transcript in the last five minutes what's that I said not yet you said you objected to him reading the entire transcript sure I do listen who's in the middle of it all right let's finish it up in the area Mr jam boy I'm I'm getting there judge thank you Mr Gillard might not be quite as succinct as I might be on my own devices but um I'll skip down some um in deference to I mean the jury's time and and then we started talking a little bit more I was just talking with my lawyer that there are some things that you can look at and verify that we talked I mean he asked me also This was later on he asked me well what do you think I can do to get around it and this was at the point when he was telling me about the toxicology report about how you guys lost or the Department lost a big stack of papers or whatever it was along that that they lost it now let's stop there for a moment Dr Mainland had you been made aware of the fact that the St Louis forensic toxicology lab had lost some of the paperwork in this case I think so yeah and um so how would how would Aaron Dillard know that if Mark Jensen hadn't told him uh I don't know so the stuff that was lost from the St Louis forensic toxicology job they didn't lose the samples or anything like that did they I don't think so they just lost some of the paperwork and they asked to get it replaced didn't they yes and you guys replaced the paperwork that they lost yes but how would Aaron Dillard know that if Mark Jensen hadn't told him that I don't know it certainly wasn't an ed klook's transcript was it I no were you aware that Ed klugs the transcript of Ed klug's testimony from the first hearing related to his conversation with Mark Johnson in St Louis correct yes the leading it didn't relate to your knowledge well State whether or not related to anything other than the conversation that occurred in St Louis between Mark Jensen and Ed klug object to the leading a phrase just rephrase it you call do you do you know whether Ed kluk's testimony at the first hearing related to anything other than the conversation that Ed klug has alleged to have had with Mark Jensen at St Louis no so then Aaron's over continued and I told him that you know what that you have a right to examine the evidence try to get samples of it yourself and then test it yourself and if they can value with that sample you know and uh or and if they can't provide you with that sample you know and then he got on the phone right away and called his people so you can probably verify on the phone records between the 14th and the 17th I forgot exactly which day it was but you can probably verify those phone records because you can hear him say a guy in here told me that I should just try to get the samples rechecked so and you know I'm like you know don't say don't say me you know in the background you might even be able to hear me say it and jamboy's replies well except for one thing that's a phone conversation directly to his attorneys and we do not record those conversations Dillard I don't know if his attorney or his wife at that time jamboy's oh so at the time that he was talking to us he was proposing that we checked the phone records to confirm the veracity of his information to us yes to your knowledge that the defense ever have these toxicology samples tested yes so they hadn't lost the samples at St Louis forensic toxicology lab did they um no they did have them tested just as uh Mr Dillard had recommended that they do yes so jamboy's question okay a guy in here said I should check the samp get the samples rechecked teller yeah something along that line that he I told him because if they lost them you got it you should be able to get the test the evidence yourself jamboy's that's what you told them Dillard and then and that's what I told Mark and I said if they don't have them then that's a big problem and then he says and our Jam boys and was this the first day that you first met him or was this Dillard um this was more toward the second day because I got on the first day I got in there around about seven and they let down at nine and what it was you got there I got there on the 14th I believe it was jamboi so this was sometime in the 15th that he made this phone call Dillard yeah the 15th of the 16th I think was more toward the 15th though in the evening time probably around six-ish I would say if I remember correctly jamboy's okay so then what happened about after that conversation was there anything more that occurred during that conversation Dillard um the one about testing the samples and things like that jamboy's yes Dillard um it was basically a just how to beat the case and what they did what did they have against you and what is your defense against it and he was just going into detail about the pictures with the antifreeze and that you guys came to him saying there was no antifreeze in the house Mark how could you how could she have gotten the antifreeze and he's telling me that in the pictures there are two bottles right in the thing so he had that as a defense I mean he told me about the receipts that his wife would be the only one that was buying all the prescriptions and all the like St John's Wort all over the counter medication and then he would never do it you know he was trying to use that as a defense and then Angelina Gabrielle asked did he show you the pictures of the antifreeze Dillard no I've never I've never seen the pictures um he oh the point with the antifreeze the antifreeze and then uh jamboy's she purchased all the prescriptions all the medication Dillard yeah all the medication and that was slipped on his own let's see I want to go up to something else here and he told me that he said that he he told me that this in regards to the prescription medication that he told me that he takes a medication for that's in the conversation about the acid reflux and the cause of him to have anxiety or whatever the jamboy's Librium Dillard Librium yeah he told me it was an antidepressant or whatever like that now first of all um is Librium prescribed as for acid reflux yes or it was at the time and is it and was it an antidepressant uh no but it was prescribed for acid reflux yes foreign boys and he seemed to think that was a big issue Dillard yeah he seemed to think that was a big issue that he's trying to say that she self-medicated herself she would call behind his back and get all his medications and get you know what I mean and start taking them on her own when it was you know so he told me that aspect he told me what else was it oh something on the Internet he told me about something on the Internet there was a time where you he can verify that he wasn't home or something like that he said that was going to be one of his defense things that there was one time that he wasn't home that he could prove he wasn't home that there was one of the hits for the poison site or whatnot something like that so he said he was going to use that as a defense and then the question and what did Mark sane response that Dillard um the first couple of times I said it he was like no no this is all just it's the state there I'm ready to go I'm ready to go I never did anything there I'm just trying she wanted to kill herself she was depressed as she was nuts she had a nut case for family Nut Cases for family and justifying that you know she killed herself was that the expression that he used I'm ready to go did he say that expression yeah yeah yeah Bring it on Bring It On yeah bring it on we're keywords yeah they can bring it on and um how did you respond to that when you would say things like that why don't we get to some uh redirect questions foreign yeah the second day I was in there we got more into the conversation of well you know why would those people say or why would these people say you did it and he goes I don't know I don't know you know it's just they're trying to grab the Limelight more along those lines then I was like well I go dude you know basically happens you know or I don't remember the exact term I you uh I used but it was more like we all have our problems you know something along that line I said we all have our problems you know if you did it you did it you know what I mean and that's when he started you know he broke down and started telling me everything tell me about that conversation you remember reading that in the now that you're seeing this does that refresh your recollection is the conversation that occurred between myself and Aaron Dillard that was recorded Dillard um that conversation started out as I know like I said I told you I told him that he said or he told me I said I said everybody has their problems you know and something along that line and he was like yeah everybody's got their problems and as we started getting a little teary-eyed we started talking about how the wife more about details about the wife would put one kid in the corner and so on and so forth and and started telling me more about family issues and this and that and I go well you know I said basically you didn't have to kill her you know and he goes well yeah you know just real down and out about it is basically you know just a little bit of Tears you know the water welding up in his eyes and then at that point he started telling me about what happened about he told me about him and her going to the doctor that day the I don't know what days they were I don't know exactly what day but he said they went to the doctor and she said she was feeling down and this and that and they got his prescription for Paxil judge I I object again in terms of Mr jamboy's is essentially I think I think you've refreshed your memory enough Mr Jim boys um well I'm getting to the part that I really wanted to get to let's get to the part and then we'll ask a question on redirect so he told you Erin Dillard said she took the Paxil she took more medications it was you know the Saint John's word he kept saying the Saint John's work he kept saying the Librium and then the Benadryl they took she he's she took she took the Benadryl and the Librium and all that and that's the first night when he gave her the antifreeze did he tell you how he got her to drink the antifreeze yeah he said she was so loopy and everything he says he mixed it with juice and he said here this will make you feel better you know and he gave it to her because she was really really out of it really loopy and tired and more uh I don't know what the word he used was just sleepy you know really out of it now reading that is that consistent with the history that you knew about this case yes you had heard Mark Jensen had said this um in his earlier statement to detective ratzberg correct has Ted said what that that Mark Jensen had told Paul ratzberg that she on that first night she was really loopy and tired at the first night after she'd gone to see the doctor yes and at that point and then he goes on to read and so he would give her stuff to drink and he said that's when he put the antifreeze in there and I said wow how much did you give her you know what I mean didn't she notice that and he said that at that point he said uh that he would mix it probably like a third to two-thirds of juice so that you wouldn't be able to see it and you wouldn't be able to taste it questions so one-third antifreeze two-thirds juice yeah yeah and he's so he gave her the antifreeze that day and then at night time he said she was acting like a nutcase she was up in the bed dancing around saying oh I'm so drunk I feel so drunk now that's consistent with the history that Mark Jensen had provided to Paul ratsburg correct yes but there's nothing like that and Ed klug's statements is there or Ed Clues the transcript of Ed club's testimony from the first hearing no any and he then and then he told me about how he went to the internet to show her that Paxil was a side effect of drunkenness you know he said oh look it's just the Paxil don't worry about it blah blah blah blah so now there is you were aware of the fact that there was evidence that Mark Jensen actually printed out uh some internet information about uh Paxil or paroxetine yes paroxetine is the generic name for Paxil correct yes and listed as one of the rare side effects possible rare side effects of paroxetine or Paxil there is some reference to maybe vertigo or getting dizzy and things of that sort yes but that's a rare side effect correct yes it's not a common side effect no foreign so then he said everything calmed down after he showed her the paroxetine side effect information and she ended up going to bed and the next day he went to the doctor and told him uh or she's acting drunk you know she she's you know all crazy wouldn't sleep at all that night and he got her sleeping medication which was the Ambien he got her the Ambien now that's consistent with the information that was obtained at autop or during the toxicology screens in this case is that true yes and it was also consistent with the evidence that was recovered at the scene do you remember that yes there were there were yes there were certain number of Ambien pills there were some that were missing yes and he said he came home after the doctor and gave her the Ambien and she was sleeping and then he woke her up and gave her more of the antifreeze another glass of it and at that point he said the whole day she was throwing up and she was just really out of it if you know what I mean she was sick and this and that and at that point he said she would just stay in bed a lot that she wouldn't get out of bed and then she was really just vomiting and she'd stay in bed that's that's actually consistent with the testimony you just provided on cross-examination about this information yes and then it point and then he says and he was like you know wow he didn't know if this was working or not because she was still fine you know basically about it you know he's like wow you no expected it to be faster or something and what I take out of the conversation because he was like he was more in I don't know what the word too is um he was more concerned with time it seemed like that it wasn't happening as fast as he thought it was was or something like that you know that's what I got from the conversation and then he gave her he sat with TV and watched TV with the kids now you heard you've heard other evidence in this case that's consistent with that's consistent with the the history that Mark Jensen had provided to Paul ratzberg isn't it that he's sitting up with the kids watching TV on the evening of December 2nd yes and that's consistent with what the information is contained here yes but Ed klug had never said anything about that in his first and the testimony at the first hearing did he no he sat with TV and watched TV with the kids and something like that and they would she would just ask for a lot of water she was drinking a lot of water and throwing up so that that next that night he gave her more of the Ambien then he said the next day when she woke up she was really bad now first of all that's consistent with the second and third stage of ethylene glycol poisoning isn't it that she woke up and she was really bad yes and you'd heard that that's consistent also with how David their eight-year-old son had described her her breathing her raspy breathing to one of his little school friends yes they said the next day when she woke up she was really bad it was it was that she was just breathing real hard a breathing just really nauseous she couldn't she wouldn't get out of bed she wouldn't lift her head and she wouldn't do anything at that point that's when he told me the kids wanted to call the ambulance and he got real nervous about it now that wasn't in Ed klug's report was it no but there was information that the children wanted him to call an ambulance correct yes he said like he didn't know what to do at that point because you know I can't send to the hospital and so he said he took the kids he told the kids that if Mom isn't better by the time you get home from school we'll call the ambulance or we'll take her to the hospital now that wasn't in anywhere and it Clues the transcript of his Ed glute system when he was it no so he took her he he took her to school at that point he came back and actually took the kids to school but then he came back and that's when he told me about him he said he was worried because she wasn't breathing hard anymore she wasn't raspy breathing you didn't know what's going to happen at that point that's consistent with your recollection of this detailed description that Aaron Dillard was providing about the manner which Mark Jensen murdered his wife yes and that's consistent with the evidence in this case isn't it yes that's consists of a third stage of ethylene glycol poisoning yes and he says he got nervous he said he got real nervous and at that point he sat on her he sat on her back and he said I couldn't have the kids come home because I couldn't have an excuse so he said he sat in her back and pushed her face into the pillow and that then he killed her and then at that point you left for work or whatever now there was nothing in Ed klug's testimony at the first hearing that was suggestive of anything like this was there no however you were aware because of your examination of the autopsy records the autopsy foes and the crime scene photos you are aware of certain information that was precisely corresponded or correlated to this description of the murder of Julie Jensen yes now what were those items that you found at autop that you found from the autopsy report the autopsy photographs and the crime scene photographs that precisely corresponded to this description of the murder of Julie Jensen there were the toxicology findings um the position of the body uh at the time it was discovered certain injuries on the body and um the um I think I said the autopsy findings no there was great there was significant discussion on cross-examination about gastrophoresis and a lot of other big as you call them doctor words you know all those doctor words when you were reviewing the autopsy report right and when you were reviewing the photographs and the crime scene photographs the autopsy photographs right when you're reviewing all the police reports in this case in the witness statements yeah and knowing all of that information once you knew prior to your testimony at the first hearing or concern and even at the first hearing what was your opinion to re did you have an opinion to a reasonably medical certainty is the cause and manner of death of Julie Jensen yes and what was that opinion ethylene glycol poisoning homicide and um so the cause of death was ethylene glycol poisoning and the manner of death was homicide yes and at that point had you ruled out possible asphyxiation no no that's what you knew up to the first hearing then between the first hearing and the second hearing you'd read of Doc you'd read of Aaron Aaron Dillard's report yes you'd read this statement that I just read to you yes and you read um Aaron ziller's letter to Gretchen rosenki yes and there was a high level of consistency between the letter and this statement yes the letter was only six pages long the statement was about 35 pages long the interview was 35 pages long correct yes but there was no significant inconsistencies between them I don't think so and there's a great deal of consistency or was it could tell me whether or not was there a great deal of consistency between a description that was provided by Aaron Dillard and the physical evidence that you re that you reviewed at the from the crime scene photos and the autopsy photos it was consistent and was it consistent or inconsistent with the toxicology results consistent and with respect to missing toxicology reports or are losing toxicology reports at the by the St Louis forensic toxicology lab was this information consistent or inconsistent with what you knew of the history about the St Louis forensic toxicology reports consistent and there's no there was nothing in Eric and Ed klug's prior testimony at the first hearing that made any reference whatsoever to certain missing documents that's correct St Louis forensic toxicology lab and based upon well weather is basement after Aaron Dillard had proposed to the defense team that they should request that all of those rep that all of those substances be retested you've learned that in fact all of those substances were retested weren't they yes at the defense request yes consistent with Aaron Dillard's recommendation yes and none of that none of this retesting was no I should say none of this information about these missing reports from the St Louis forensic toxicology lab was available from any Source other than Mark Jensen at that point to Aaron Dillard is that true yes now after hearing Aaron zillard's after reading Aaron zillard's statements you then testified at the second hearing yes and you've now testified at the third hearing yes and knowing all of this stuff you knew all of this stuff about gastrophoresis and delayed stomach emptying and the kidneys shutting down you knew all of that before the testimony of the second hearing and before the testimony at this hearing yes so all of these things were raised on cross-examination you knew all about that long before you testified today yes and long before you testified at the last hearing yes does any of this stuff that was raised by defense Counsel on cross-examination in any way shape or form alter your opinion concerning the cause and manner of death of Julie Jensen no so based upon your observations of the crime scene photos your examination of the autopsy report your examination of the toxicology report your examination of all the police reports and the witness statements and the transcripts from the first hearing and the statement of Aaron Dillard what is your opinion today to a reasonably medical certainty as to the cause and manner of death of Julie Jensen ethylene glycol poisoning with probable terminal asphyxia homicide nothing further across Librium is a benzodiazepine right yes that's used to treat anxiety yes you just testified that it's your opinion that the injuries that were noted on Julie Jensen's rib cage for paramortem yes that became your opinion only after reviewing Aaron Dillard's statement [Music] um yes because before that as consistent with your testimony earlier today it was non-specific right objection to the insertion of that editorial comment in the middle of his question he can ask a question he can't tell the witness what the and I think Crystal what what she said earlier is something that the jury may remember but defense counsel can't assert that fact in the middle of his question she just agreed to that fact by saying yes did you forget the question no I think I said yes you answered yeah you said that it was um non-specific right yes right could have been post-mortem could have could just be congestion could be only after reading Aaron Dillard's statement did you decide it was paramortem correct do you remember testifying in 2007 yes vaguely the first hearing we've been talking about yes there was a a big issue in terms of a mistake that had been made with the uh findings by the St Louis lab correct um objection this is outside the scope of cross I didn't hear him asking about something oh I can't listen to two people at once this is all in relation to this issue about lost papers from the same they asked that question in that area go ahead that's what I'm that's what I'm getting at you didn't use the exact words so let's go oh I had to set the context but I'll get to it um by the time of that hearing in 2007 things had been retested yes what was lost were police reports that had been sent to the St Louis lab correct I'm not sure of the exact content samples were never lost to your knowledge it's my knowledge that's correct yeah I don't think they were I don't recall did you review all the discovery in this case um I reviewed what was provided to me foreign source of information for Aaron Dillard all of that was testified to you in 2007 correct all of in terms of the St Louis lab and police reports that had been lost um I don't recall you testified a number of times on redirect that the information provided by Aaron Dillard was not contained in the Ed Club transcript correct yes and then on a handful of times you said that it was consistent with what was said in the interrogation by Detective ratzberg yes you've read that interrogation correct yeah at least part of it I think what I have was not this thick foreign what did you show her this is the transcript of the interrogation between detective ratzberg and Mark Jensen thank you I just want to say that I'm not not sure I had the um entire thing did some of it yes I may have had the unfair thing I just you tried one of the things that you tried to do in this case is review all information that was in existence correct all information that was provided to me and this is an interrogation of who the state believes is a suspect in this case that's correct this would have been important for you and your role as a forensics pathologist correct yes in terms of statements made by Mark Jensen yes you were just asked a lot of questions about information that Aaron Dillard provided that was not contained in the Ed Club transcript correct and that's information describing the autopsy findings correct yes the Ed Club transcript doesn't talk about the autopsy findings I don't think so if you turn to page 75 to 76 Kelso which what are you looking at right now the interrogation with Detective ratzberg page 76 to 75 to 76 starting at line 24 to line 3 on 76. it's detective ratzberg tell me when you're there I'm sorry [Music] detective ratzberg that says her arm was actually here I'll show you how she was okay her arm is actually across her body like that okay and it's an unnatural position do you sleep on your when you're on your side with your arm across like that do you see that yes I do recall reading this if I could direct your attention to page 98 to 99 lines 25 a 98 16.99 okay Council I'm sorry I need to what what page you looking at page 98 line 25 to page 99 line 16. please let me know when you're there okay it's detective ratzberg that says I know there was some type of contact there there had to be in this chest area Mark there's no question about that and the only person that could have done that was you I'm thinking before you left you pushed on her maybe now she was frail at the time she was frail you said she was labored breathing that makes sense and I believe that okay I know that probably happened but she's frail and you just innocently I don't want to push her like that and could that have caused something I mean we have petechia of the lungs there's some type of contact here in the throat there's also been an indication on the throat as I showed you in Dr chamble's report it just did not appear there something and somebody had to touch her that's the only way it could get there there's no doubt about that and did you push her touch her on the throat maybe maybe like this do you see that yes no that's not in anywhere in the Ed Club transcript right I don't think so but it is consistent with Dr chambles's findings in the autopsy report yes and it's consistent with the statement that Aaron Dillard made yes if you could go to page 152 lines three to six page 162 152 152 line six lines three to six it's three to six okay sorry no I'm just waiting for you yeah um it's detective ratsberg says maybe when you pulled her over this way you pushed her back on the chest and then went back and brought her up again you know you would have pushed her back do you see that yes if you could go to page 161 lines 19 through 20 Page 161 yes are you there yes it's detective ratzberg that says we still have to explain the nose part the head pushed into the pillow how are we going to explain that I mean that's there you see that yes that's not in Ed klug's transcript right right but it does line up with what Aaron Dillard says yes if you go to page 162 lines four through nine okay I'm there it's detective ratsberg that says something had to push it down we've got there's three things that happened here head being pushed the nose some type of contact here at the throat and some type of contact here in the chest okay we know that happened okay you're the only one there you had to do something Mark do you see that yes that's not in the club transcript no but it is consistent with what Aaron Dillard says yes I had asked you on cross-exam about potential sources of information for Aaron Dillard's statement correct yes I'd asked you that it was whether it was well known that this was an anti-freeze poisoning case yes that there were newspaper articles yes newspaper articles about you yes and you volunteered that it was your understanding that Aaron Dillard also had access to the detective ratzberg interrogation yes Aaron Dillard as just read by Mr jamboy's denies reviewing anything except for the klug transcript correct um I don't recall I I yeah please if you would find that well in the letter or in the recorded statement that was maybe not all of it was read but um and Mr jamboy's asked is this refresh your recollection in terms of what Aaron Dillard says he got the information from do you remember that um yes and that Aaron Dillard's claim is that he got this from Ed klug that part I don't remember okay you reviewed everything that was provided to you in this case correct yes you reviewed way more than just Aaron Dillard's statement and when I asked you about sources of information it's your understanding that the transcript that's in front of you that you're just reading from that Aaron Dillard had access to it while at the jail yes he may have he was on the same cell nothing further your honor right do we have exhibits that are by the doctor um just one oh two let's collect them you're free to go thank you thank you thank you right well honor I did have a few questions for uh we had to redirect already pardon me you did your redirect yes we're not going to do double redirects we haven't done it for any witness we're not going to start here so you are free to go you are we need to review the exhibits and make a decision about make sure all the exhibits have been moved into evidence let's go take our break right now while the attorneys do that is Kim we're off the Record all right bring them out foreign we are back on a record on Mark D Jensen 2002 cf314 the appearances are the same jury is back in a courtroom I'll ask the state Mr jamboy's what do you wish to do next movie exhibit 53 60 61 70. 82 83 84 and 87 into evidence your honor do you have all that I think 61. I believe 61 also 61 and 70. 360 . 70 70 71 to 70 years oh I'm sorry 71 was already received so 60 61.70 82 83 84 and 87. all right those will be received 53 also received yes all right that'll be received at this time also okay so we have all of the state's exhibits that they wish to move in correct yes sir so what does the state wish to do next at this point you're on the state rests all right the state is arresting folks they're uh direct portion has been completed with that the defense now do you wish to call a witness Miss Krause yes judge me called Jolene Bly all right and judge when we take a break we will have a motion outside the presence of the jury uh your motions preserved uh I know you called a witness but I will preserve your motion and we can hear it foreign okay can you remain standing raise your right hand he's always where the testimony this man to be the truth hold ing have a seat get as close as you can to the microphone spell your first and last name okay my first name is Jolin j-o-l-y-n-n last name is Bly b-l-e-i thank you go ahead Miss grossey Miss ply I'm going to talk to you a little bit about what you were doing in 2007 as it relates to employment okay can you tell us where you were working I was working at the law firm of Glenn Fitzgerald and Aldi in how long had you been working for Glenn Fitzgerald and ALDI um just about four ish years four and a half in 2007 yeah I started in 2003 and do you still work for that firm I do not um when did your employment change um it changed a couple of times it changed in 2011 when the firm um disbanded yeah and um I was with Fitzgerald Law Firm until 2018 and then 2018 I started with Federal Federal Defender Services of Wisconsin in 2007 what were your job duties I was a legal assistant and in 2007 did you know Mark Jensen I did and you see him in court today I do and can you just identify what he's wearing he's wearing a dark colored suit dark colored tie all right to Witnesses identified Mr Jensen in open court continue how did you know Mr Jensen at that time he was a client in her office um and did you work with his attorney and Mr Jensen while he was a client I did and you know the attorney that was representing him at that time I do and who was that Craig Albee and you worked with Mr Alby I did what type of information um or what what were your job duties as it related to The Mark Jensen case um reviewing Discovery uh going through um the case um organizing the case working with Craig doing any response or any duties that he needed done um drafting correspondence mailing things I want to talk to you a little bit about the mailing thing and drafting correspondence okay I'm going to show you what has been marked as exhibit 94. do you recognize that document I do and what is it it's a letter that I would have typed to Mark Jensen how do you know you would have typed it my initials are at the bottom CWA jmb and that just means that you're the one that typed it for Craig Elby correct and is it on specific letterhead it is it's on the Glenn Fitzgerald and all the letterhead that we used is it signed by an attorney signed by Craig Albee the purpose of this letter was to send Mark some um materials from his case and does the letter identify what materials are being sent it does I'm going to refer you to item number one on that letter and what does that say testimony of Ed klug now just to be clear can you tell this jury when you wrote that letter uh it was typed um on August 10 2007. more knowledge of the case and all the help you had been doing this was after the first Hearing in the Jensen matter yes it would have been after Ed klug testified it said his transcript yes I'm going to show you what's been previously marked as exhibit number 70. do you recognize that as Ed klug's transcript I do and does the date um correspond with the letter that you sent um there's no cover sheet um to do let me show you one okay 95 yes does it have a date of Ed klug's uh transcript or the testimony it does and what date is that uh Monday July 30th 2007. and is that the transcript that was included on August 10th yes it is and that was enclosed with the letter yes and item number two what is that um interview of Mark Jensen on April 21st 1999. okay I'm going to show you what's been marked as exhibit 53. can you tell me what I just handed to you exhibit 53 is it's a transcript of an interview of Mark Jensen that was conducted on April 21st 1999. so does the transcript that I handed you exhibit 53 correspond to the letter that you sent Mr Jensen yes and that would have been the document that you included in with that letter yes and does it say on exhibit 53 as related to Mark Johnson's interview who that included um yes it included Sergeant Paul ratzberg and detective Heather Berg thank you now item number three on the letter can you tell us what that is exhibits introduced at the forfeiture hearing during the testimony of Rhonda Mitchell and um so exhibits that were during that hearing yes remember what type of exhibit that was I don't specifically recall um I thought there was maybe a PowerPoint presentation um I don't recall exactly what was all included um so it was some type of exhibit it could have been a PowerPoint presentation yes item number four can you tell us what that was other computer information previously received and do you remember what that was not I I don't remember now prior to July of 2007 um Mr Jensen would come into the office correct and would he get the materials from his case when he came in yes is it generally when like police reports would be given to him or witness statements would be given to him yes and after July of 2007 Mr Jensen was no longer out of custody correct so if Mr attorney Elby wanted to send or what did Mr Jensen to have materials how would Mr Jensen get them we would mail them to the jail remember what jail you sent them to Kenosha County and do you remember sending packages frequently or was it pretty infrequent uh pretty frequently um after he was um taken into custody now as a legal assistant did you request records or jail records yes and do you remember making a request of the Kenosha County Jail in the mark Jensen case yes foreign is exhibit 91 one of those requests yes and um is the request for like prisoner transaction lists as it related to Mark Jensen yes and that would have been from July 30th to September 24th is that correct yes and then there was also a request for sell transactions or where somebody was located both for Mr Jensen and Mr David Thompson correct and did you also request um a roster list of who was in the Kenosha jail on specific dates yes I'm going to show you what's been marked as exhibit 92 foreign I'd like to refer you to exhibit I think 92 I just handed you yes um that's a list of items or things that were sent to Mark Jensen yes and does it say the dates at the top as to when those items would have been received it does and can you tell us what dates those are July 30th 2007 through September 24th of 2007. and if you look at an entry on August 11th of 2007 um does it say what the jail received um two LRG large envelopes from Attorney Glenn Fitzgerald August 10 th oven yes and do you remember if it was more than one envelope um with what's here um and with as much as we had on the letter yeah I do believe it would have been two large envelopes and when you look at that exhibit there are other entries about materials received from the law firm yes and that's from that July 30th to just September 24 2007. correct it doesn't have anything after September 24th 2007. it doesn't um was Mr Jensen still in custody after September 24 2007. yes would you continue to send him items as requested yes I'm going to show you what's been marked as exhibit 93. it's a two-page document these are certified records from the Kenosha County Jail the first page of that document can you tell me who that discusses Mark Jensen and does it say where Mark Jensen was housed during his time at the Kenosha County Jail yes and does it say where Mr Jensen was from September I'm sorry August 14th to August 17th um that's not a date on here but um I believe that he was in the same area during that time and does it say what area that is it sell black J number two and then if you turn to the second page it talks about the cell transactions for Mr David Thompson correct and does it say when Mr Thompson arrived in that same cell block J uh yes and what day is that September 6 2007 and it does it say when he leaves cell block J looks like he leaves on September 9th 2007. and then does he go back he does on September 10th 2007. it appears that at one point he's kind of out of the jail or yes out of the cell block yes and I think that's September 10th yes I'm going to show you what's been marked as exhibit 96. we are not going to go through this all it's a certified record from the Kenosha County Sheriff's Department Miss Bly I am going to ask you to go to the August 14 2007 cell block J yes and can you tell us who was in cell block J with Mr Jensen um Joshua Joshua jerkowski Mark Jensen Miguel Mendoza Michael Smith Christopher Watkins Bernard Bush Jason Whitner Michael Hale and Michael Ruiz you don't see an Aaron Dillard in the Cell Block on August 14th you do you see an Aaron Dillard there on August 14th I do not and of the individuals outside of Mr Jensen how many of those individuals were white men [Music] or I'm going to ask you to go to August 15th of 2007 sell black Jay okay and how many individuals are listed on that day and including Mark Jensen and do you see in Aaron Dillard on that day I do and outside of Aaron Dillard and Mark Jensen how many other individuals are white males four I'm going to ask you August 16th cell block J um do you also see Aaron Dillard in cell block J on that day I do and how many other white males are in cell block J on that day besides Mr Dillard and Mr Jensen three so a total of five with those two and then I'm going to ask you go to August 17th of 2007. okay and you see a Mr Dillard in cell block J on that day no and how many other white males are in there on that day including Mark Jensen um not including Mark Johnson thank you five five including him it would be six correct and as you looked at those records um you didn't see David Thompson at that point in cell block J no I'm gonna ask you to go skip ahead to September 6th of 2007. okay do you see David Thompson in cell block J at that point I do is Mr Jensen still in selbach Jay yes and then I'm going to ask you to go to September 10th do you see David Thompson in that cell block on September 10th no um and then I think we had testified from the previous exhibit that he was there on the 11th what about September 12th on September 12th he is not listed opportunity to review a lot of materials in this particular case I did and when Mr Jensen was in custody he wanted to receive those materials yes and you made sure that he was provided with whatever transcripts whatever scientific studies whatever doctors reports or whatever witness statements were provided to attorney Elby correct it was your job to kind of copy those and those and then get those off to Mr Jensen correct that's right I have nothing further who's gonna do the cross I am go ahead Miss Brookfield um so the exhibit that you've just been testifying off of in front of you what number is that 96 . sure and so these are the jail records that you asked for certified copies of is that correct correct showing where inmates would be located at various times in the jail correct um now uh in terms of how the jail works and in my might be moved during the course of a day correct I I'm sure it's possible um obviously inmates are moved within the jail sure yes um and so did where an inmate is in a record depends on when that record is during the course of a day correct I would assume so for instance if the record is created to reflect where inmates are at like 8 A.M in a certain cell block then that record wouldn't reflect any changes occurring after 8 A.M if that's when it was printed sure yes here so um I'm going to direct your attention to this would be let's see page this is a big document so I'm going to try to go by page number foreign so I'm showing you page six of that document although um again it's a big document so I think actually printed on the page in the upper right hand corner would be page four correct but if we're looking at the pile of paperwork it's page six okay um and so then do you see at the top there the top left hand where it says run 14 Dash August 2007. yes and then it says 6 20. yes so it appears that when we're looking at that particular date it's reflecting um what the situation was at 6 20 in the morning it doesn't say morning or afternoon um if I show you a different page and I'm just gonna go to and again this is in the big pile so I can't really give you a page number but I'll ask you what this page shows foreign you see there that that reflects uh in the top left hand corner 17 August 2007 yes correct and then what cell blocks are shown on that page um well the first couple are cut off um the last one I can read is J I'm sorry um h-i-n-j and I'm assuming there's nothing listed above that and then if you look again in the upper left hand corner the time there is 2204. correct so while the other time the 620 it didn't say morning it appears that military time is being used on this document it does yes and this is from the same pile of documents correct it is okay so then 620 would be morning and then 22.04 would be evening it it it does not say that for sure but is that your understanding of these records I would have to get clarification from the sheriff's department to make sure that the 6 20 was am it's not zero six twenty um like the 2204. but you agree that on the page that I'm showing you it's reflecting military time it is and is there any reason military time would not be used through the course of all of these documents a I don't have a reason to believe that but I do not know for sure okay thank you so you agree that Aaron Dillard was housed with Mark Jensen um according to these records at least as of August 15 2007. I believe that's what it was I do you need to see that page again please yes August 15th foreign also on August 16th of 2007 Aaron Dillard was housed with Mark Jensen I believe that so yes correct and then I think it was your testimony that according to the record on August 17th of 2007 Aaron Dillard was no longer listed as with Mark Jensen in J block yes I'm just going to show you that page do you see that they do okay and then just take a look at that yes 20th yeah she was showing me the 2204 time so then just to ask you a question off that that from August 17th of 2007 appears to reflect a time of 2204 correct um and so in military time that's 1004 PM correct foreign foreign and then in these records that you were shown it did show that Mark Jensen and David Thompson were together on September 11th of 2007. is that correct I believe that was one of the dates yes um so just to be clear about these records and the times I was showing you at the top um is there any reason for you to doubt that that is in military time I don't have a I I don't I can't say that for sure and you've worked you worked at a law office for years correct correct and then police reports are almost always in military time correct most of them so um you would certainly be familiar with that through your work at the law office correct um and again the time changes to reflect uh military time at the top of some of these records correct the time changes to reflect military time so the record I showed you showed a time of 2204 correct um and so the other time being um about 6 20 I think it said at the top you have no reason to believe that at one point the record is not in military time and then within a day or two it is in military time now all right thank you redirect um Miss Bly when you requested those records you just requested the records of the individuals in those locations between those dates correct and that's what the jail certified incent to you correct um and the information that you provided is from those documents correct you don't have do you have any knowledge about how the jail works as it relates to when they do their count I do not or when they put the information from the count into the computer I do not or when they update the transfers I do not thank you anything on that Miss McNeil no honor all right your excuse thank you and exhibit he won 92 93 94 95 and 96. any objection right they're all received what number is it foreign thank you gonna remain standing when you come up here raise your right hand you some we swear the testimony it's meant to be the true whole truth nothing but the truth to help you guys yes sir thank you you want to get as close as you can to the microphone spell your personal last name for the reporter Lori l-o-r-i ranker r-e-n-k-e-r thank you Mr anchor did you previously go by Lori Brown yes ma'am is there something that changed in your life which changed your last name I was married um and can you tell the jury what you do for a living I'm a director of human resources for a non-profit and prior to being a director of resources for a non-profit what did you do um I worked at a law firm and what kind of work did you do for the law firm I was their Law Firm administrator are you a lawyer by trade I am did you go to law school I did and what year did you graduate Law School 1990 do you know a person by the name of Aaron Dillard yes ma'am and how did you first meet Mr Dillard um in 2006 I needed work done on my roof and I contracted with Mr Mr Dillard to do repairs roof repairs prior to Contracting with Mr Dillard to do roof repairs had you met him previous to that um he was an acquaintance um do you remember if you met him on some type of personal site I don't recall that's there um and did he when he is that on when he introduced himself to you was it as Aaron Dillard it was and um you said you contracted with him to do some type of construction work yes I had a portion of my roof for the decking was um it looked like it was rotting in the in the shingles were coming off and um I showed it to him and he said I could fix that I you know I recommend that you have an entire roof replacement I've got a crew of guys that are my team and this is what we do and um I could fix that he was very personable very knowledgeable and instilled a lot of confidence in me that he could effectuate the repairs did you contract with him to repair your roof I did you also have a personal relationship with Mr Dillard he was a friend and during the time that you contracted with him to do your roof and during the time that you had this friendship do you have opinion as to the truthfulness and honesty of Aaron Dillard I do and what is that opinion I I feel that he was um he was not truthful or honest with me with regards to um this project I ended up being defrauded of objecting to this judge she can offer the opinion that is appropriate but going further than that is not once you rephrase the question I asked as to what your what your opinion was as to his truthfulness and honesty I did not feel like he was truthful or honest no and was that based upon both the personal and business relationship with Mr Dillard it was based on the business relationship with Mr Dillard yes thank you ma'am I have nothing further we have any questions from the state no I don't thank you your excuse thank you this point we are going to play a video it is three minutes is it a witness on the list it is Spears and I don't know the number thank you soon that seemed a bit loud is the jury still here [Music] oh I don't know let's just hit play and then we'll see how loud it is any questions tell your last name for the courts a little bit further down I don't know why it's so loud on my computer say your name and spell your last name for the court uh Deborah Cheagle t-e-g-e-o and Miss teagle did you formally go by the name of Deborah Spears yes it was my prior prior name yeah you recently married and took the name teagle yes Miss teagle do you do you know a person named Aaron Dillard yes I had a brief relationship with him now how did you how did you meet Mr Dillard um I met him out one evening and uh did he introduce himself to you he introduced himself as uh Kyle Resnick to me when we first met he told you that his name was Kyle Resnick yes there's a person you know are you able to see this this is the person you know as Aaron Dillard depicted on here yes where is Mr Dillard who's the first man on the left top right here yes and uh how did you how did you come to know that the person you understood to be Kyle Resnick was Aaron Dillard thank you um I started borrowing money to to Kyle Aaron and it just didn't pan out and I didn't believe I I wasn't believing what he was saying so I swallow it one one day because it just things just didn't seem right and I got his real name and I found out his name was Aaron Dillard and got his address and ran a check on him and found out he wasn't such a good person so how long did you know Mr Dillard is Kyle Resnick before you realize his proper name weeks and then did you know Mr Dillard for a while after that period of time I tried to stay once I figured out his name I tried to stay friendly with him in hopes to return some of my money recoup some of my money back now based on your contacts with Mr Dillard Ms teagle did you form an opinion as to Mr Dillard's character for truthfulness he has no character am I in my words it's not a very truthful honest person uses people and for what he can get out of them and that I don't have anything very nice to say about Kyle or Aaron thank you Miss teagle no further questions foreign thank you same exhibit item number three and spell your name I just want to check the volume I think this is about 11 minutes and spell your name from the court sir Frank Quintana q-u-i-n-t-a-n-a and uh you're currently in uh well you're in the Walworth County Jail to appear in this court but you're you're currently in the Kenosha County Jail is that it is uh at some point did you uh meet Mark Jensen yeah in September and was that in the Kenosha County jail yes it was the uh do you know what dates you were in the Kenosha County Jail in September it was September 7th to the 10th and and do you recall what cell block you were in at that time in Jay Black you were in the J block yes and did you have occasion to have conversation with Mr Jensen during the time you were there between September 7th and September 10th yeah I think I asked if I use this paper Kenosha paper just to read the newspaper did you have any more substantial conversation than that that you recall not really did you have a chance to observe Mr Jensen in the Cell Block During the period of time you were there between September 7th and September 10th yes and uh what did you what did you observe sir a couple guys taking advantage of them and when you say you saw a couple guys taking advantage of Mr Jensen could you could you explain that for me well there was one guy I was in uh sell three and then there's two guys in cell four and the bigger guy I believe is Thompson kept pretty much the bullying Jensen asking to make a bunch of calls for him three-way phone calls and then uh a Saturday he brought we have little totes in your room to put your belongings he threw his in Jensen's room and told him to fill it up with canteen or he's going to put some blood in his mouth he'll be drinking out of a straw or eating out of a straw no this was Mr Thompson said this to Mr Jensen and um well tell me tell me that last that last that last part about the can the canteen yeah what do you mean by canteen on Saturdays you can order well your Wednesday get canteen on Saturdays and uh at times he kept telling Jensen he had two minutes to give him his commissary or he's gonna put blood in his mouth and to be eaten out of a straw and that's something that you personally heard yeah I was there and do you know how many days after you arrived that you heard this this threat that was the next day I got there Friday night and Saturday canteen came so we think around September 8th yeah okay and is Mr Thompson depicted on defendants exhibit number five this is top right hand corner is this Mr Thompson and did you did you see Mr Thompson engaging in intimidation of Mr Jensen from what I've seen yeah he was Jensen was scared of him kept telling him I thought he was kidding when he asked about his canteen and Jensen went up to Thompson a couple times and said you're not serious are you and he said yeah what happened yeah I am if you don't do it now you're going to blood in your mouth and some eating out of a straw or something like that and then Thompson too is a little storage container in Jensen's room and Jensen filled it up and gave it to him and what kind of stuff did he fill up the bin from what I see it was just the chips and candy and stuff like that and Thompson passes it around to some of those guys in there did Mr Jensen make any effort to fight back or do anything no no he looked scared to me and and with regard to the phone calls the appear that Mr Jensen was doing that willingly or at the insistence of Mr Thompson well I noticed a couple times Thompson was getting mad that Jensen couldn't get through to make them three-week calls from him and he kept trying and trying was he engaging in any intimidating tactics from what I've seen I mean the blocks were real small he did not have one little table everybody sits at so pretty much see what's going on did you make any effort to intervene and assist Mr Jensen while you were there no I didn't want to catch and catch a case I had you know I didn't want to catch any more trouble because I told the guard when I left Monday and I believe they should get Johnson out here because he was taking advantage of him now when on Monday where did you go on Monday transitional facility and that's a different that's a a different person is there a probation and paroled okay so you went to a probation and parole hold facility and when you were taken out you had some conversation with the guards yeah I don't remember what Garner was but I told him I felt that he should get John Snyder because taking advantage of them a couple guys were pretty much thousand was the leader of them now had you become friends with Mr Jensen no I maybe asked him if I could even I believe I asked where he uses the classified the other coach paper if I can read it tomorrow I talked to him and September and uh why is it that you felt you should say something I don't know because that's BS to get taken advantage because there's a lot of that going on in that jail through can't defend yourself they're going to take your Milan in the centrality did you see anybody else giving Mr Jensen a hard time I think I think Dustin Sally just kind of egg and Thompson on too about going to get some commissary Mr Mr Quintana um well it appears because you come to us from the jail you've been you've been convicted of a crime before is that right yes and how many times by nine on nine maybe nine times maybe more I don't know for sure okay and uh now uh did you ever see Mr Jensen again after after September I came back to jail in December when I blocked together did uh did Mr Jensen remember you no I had came up to him again asked him for the favor because he had the Kenosha newspaper and I told him that I remembered him back in September when they were taken advantage of him back then and we talked a little bit and he asked me if I'd come testify what I've seen in September and I said it's fine I'm nothing to lie about and told me exactly what happened okay thank you Mr Katana the prosecution they have some questions specific conversations between Mark Jensen and David Thompson about um a problem witness for Mark Jensen a what not any problem witness for Mark Jensen no I just what I observed was about the phone calls and um Thompson putting his empty toad in there to get Jensen's canteen where was your cell in relation to Mark Jensen's South I was the third salary next to Thompson's and Jensen's was his last cell number six now did you ever see Mark uh Jensen and David Thompson standing or sitting against the back wall and talking among themselves I've seen him when he gave him his commissary and I think Thompson came back and tried to get him leave a game a couple of the bags of chips back or something I don't know why but sort of but um and listen to questions carefully please did you see David Thompson and Mark Jensen either sitting or standing against the back wall and talking to among themselves you never saw that happen no I've seen him talking by the telephones and by the TV so you did see them talking to each other but it wasn't by the back wall yeah it was by the television set yeah because Jensen kept asking him if he was serious about two minutes to give his canteen to him or not but okay that was one conversation yeah were there any other conversations that you saw or heard that occurred between uh David Thompson and Mark Johnson made by the phones when he was having attention make three-week calls from it tomorrow now that conversation that occurred between David Topps and Mark Jensen about the give me your commissary thing did that occur earlier on or was that later in the time that they were staying there it was sometimes happen I don't even know exactly sometime on Saturday yeah and you had been in that cell block since Friday through Friday night I got there so this was the it was Friday night that you got there so it was Saturday sometime during the day was the first full day that you were there that you saw this conversation now you were there then Sunday and Monday also correct I left Monday morning oh she left Monday morning so you're only there one day after that and that was Sunday now did you see any conversation that occurred between Mark Jensen and David Thompson on Sunday maybe around the phones I mean I stayed in my room which my room was right across from the phone so did you hear what they were talking about but you did see them talking around the phone yeah for three-way calls because Mark had told them I remarked on them that he tried to get a hold of whoever and he couldn't get through or something did you ever hear David Thompson and Mark Jensen talking about a witness that was a problem for Mark for Mark Jensen no I never heard that did you ever hear the name and clue while you were in that cell block with Mark Jensen no no did Mark Jensen ever talk to you about his case while you were in that cell block with Mark Jensen no did you ever hear Mark Jensen talking to anybody else about his case while you were in that cell block with Mark Jensen no not really no did you see Mark Jensen reading stuff about his case while he was in the Cell Block I might have seen him going through his papers when I went his son was back by the windows when I walked by the windows he might have been going to his court case well so you did see him doing that scene in his cell I didn't leave I seen him a couple times reading his court case did you ever see him talking to anybody else when he's going through his paperwork not that I seen did you ever see him show his paperwork to anybody else while you're in that cell no I was there a note [Music] thank you Eric for the questions there's nothing for them and spell your name judge we would need a break at this point we don't have an additional witness here we have a longer video but it would take up more wait are you moving in 104. I'm going to yes judge there's two more videos there's one more video on that exhibit oh I'm sorry then but it's a longer video so I don't think we have a legal issue that we still have to discuss so we're going to do that now so then we don't delay you at 8 30 in the morning so we're releasing the journey they are released please don't talk about the case come back at 8 30. um they can be released the jury is outside of the courtroom we uh I believe have a motion by the defense that was made before uh the testimony started for the defense so you can make your motion Miss Crosby judge at the um I'm sorry Mr Perry that's fine she's the one who said there's a motion I swear to God she said the motion so you're you're right all right are you going to make the motion I am yeah all right this is at the um the conclusion of the state's case the defense moves to dismiss uh insufficient evidence um uh insufficient credible evidence pointing towards establishing that Mark Jensen committed first degree intentional homicide all right um I am gonna quote as to what the motion is it's a motion to dismiss that close of the state's case it says motion must be denied if considering the state's evidence in the most favorable light the evidence a deuce believed or rationally considered is sufficient to prove guilt Beyond A Reasonable Doubt so I have to give the state the most favorable light here and I I do have for the record three notepads already full we had 38 Witnesses for the state and um we will start out with the first witness in this case was uh Ruth warvel v-o-r-v-a-l-d for Waldron vorwald thank you she knew Julie Jensen she indicated on December 3rd 1998 she was driving north she saw Mark Jensen on that day on Lake Shore Drive Mark waved it was in the middle of the morning and she thought it was kind of unusual because Mark worked in Racine we had Sharon Krause she testified um she saw a mark on December 3rd 1998 indicated that Mark said to her that Julie was gone showed no emotions we then had Teresa DeFazio who testified under oath she indicated Julie said I cannot use the computer she would show up every Wednesday to help at the school there was a statement that Julie made that my husband is going to kill me she also indicated she told Mr paggio she found a list of drugs issues of overdose she also indicated that her husband mark was on the computer off and on looking up areas she also indicated um she said that Mark would make it look like a suicide Carrie Ashley indicated she called Julie December 2nd 1998 Mark Jensen answered Mark said Julie was sick in bed she also indicated she saw Julie's items in the garbage she also indicated she saw Kelly Labonte in the house within a month Eric Shore the young man testified in December of 1998 he heard David Jensen the older boy indicate information about his mother's health indicated he was very concerned said his mother was sick she had heavy breathing for the record we talked about the actual breathing that was being mentioned under oath in that um his dad would not take her to the hospital he also indicated he uh observed Kelly Labonte in the residence within a very short period of time Laura Shore that is the mother of Eric indicated that she had information that Julie was sick Angelina Martinelli indicated Julie was an excellent mother she had the younger Jensen boy in preschool Joseph Manji who at that time was principal of Bradford High School Julie applied for a job there sent the resume they were going to hire her and sometime December 1st or 2nd he called Mr Julie to tell her that she was going to be accepted for the job and a male answered and he said that that was Mark Jensen and the statement by Mark Jensen was Julie's asleep she'll be asleep for a long time and it was a laugh Kimberly Noble she indicated that Julie was a happy person she was a good mother we had to exhibit nine it was a tape of tedious Wojcik w-o-j-t um he talked about conversations that he had with Julie she was very upset over things regarding the children um and one of the highlighted items I have as to his tone testimony he said Mark meaning Mr Jensen was chasing Julie around with a glass of wine and there was syringe on the nightstand thank you she also indicated that this is Julie that Mark was looking at uh porn sites when the door was halfway open or closed Dr chambliss Michael chambliss who was an expert been in the field for 38 years forensic pathology indicated the autopsy that was performed the exhibit was moved into evidence he talked about the issue of the head on the pillow that was an issue for him he talked about uh ethanol like glycol poisoning the Suffocation issue and under oath Dr Chandler said homicide yes to Mark Jensen poisoning was a contributing factor Edward klug worked with Mr Johnson he was at this conference in St Louis at the hotel November 6 November 7th 1998. conversation after a banquet a night of drinking they're at the hotel and Mark Jensen is telling Mr klug about poisoning his wife going to websites and trying to make it that it was not detectable in a normal autopsy he would put it in her drinks and uh that conversation Mr klug talked about we also had records of phone bills of Mr klug calling his wife at that time right after that um I'm sure klug also told uh under uh testimony you told Ron reck w c r u k I believe we had David nearing talk uh a broker who had worked with Mr Jensen talked about the conversation again with Ed Club Mr Nehring also talked about the alcohol drinking that Friday at St Louis that he saw we had notes from Ed Club we had the tape of Ron Cosman who was the original police officer in the case as to the harassments he talked about 20 photos that he was given by Julie he talked about the porno photos he talked about this extensive calendar that Julie had all her activities that she had marked notes from Julia as to what she was doing had some information about purchasing property in November of 1998 there was something also when officer Cosman testified um and the note that I have is that Mark Jensen said klug is stupid also there's a note that Mark Jensen said that Julie was crying about a miscarriage she locks herself in the bedroom Mr castman also continue to talk about the suspicious activity that was being reported at the uh Jensen Holmen in 1992 through 1996 the phone calls to harassment talked about the pictures of the porno pictures of the sexual information David Nehring testified and Mr Nehring said that he's known Mr Jensen since 1991. [Music] he indicated that Mark Jensen had a personal relationship a romantic interest with Kelly Labonte he also indicated divorce did had come up Julie was having some issues indicated Mark Jensen was looking for drug interactions on the computer at work there was a conversation between Mr Jensen and Mr Nehring whether Kelly should be at the wake when she should move in that is Kelly Labonte Rosemary mcnennis she worked in the uh office and Racine at work in the summer of 1998. Mark Jensen was the branch manager she said there were no harassing phone calls that were coming in the Brokers did not open up their own mail Kelly Labonte Brooks she married Mr Jensen and in February of 19. she married Mr Jensen but the relationship she said started prior to that she met Mr Jensen April 1998. 1998 to Summer Miss Brooks also known as Kelly Labonte was engaged to her boyfriend she developed a romantic relationship with Mr Jensen September of 1998 we had numerous email messages between Mark Jensen and Kelly Labonte that start in September and um I would indicate a lot of those mention email messages or for flirtation issues as to some sort of romantic relationship though there's no other explanation from all those emails they used to have letter codes that they used I want you I love you I miss you on basically every email and this starts in September 1998 prior to uh the death of Julie Jensen David Wilkinson he's the one that uh was called to the scene he indicated he came about 4 32 P.M to the Jensen residence Julie was already Dead on Arrival EKG was performed nothing the phone was off the hook he looked at the photos of the deceased he said he was dispatched for 32 pm he arrived 44 35 pm at the house Paul rasburg who was uh before he retired was a lieutenant but he was Sergeant of the detectives of Pleasant Prairie at the time in December of 1998 he responded to the home the Jensen home at 4 30 on December 3rd he had the video that we saw of the house he showed that he had the consent of Mr Jensen to search he took the home computer into custody he recovered the computer in the hard drive he indicated he gave that to the crime lab December 13 1998. he also indicated that he recovered some sort of cigar box from the Jensen home also that items were in he found a daily planner of Julie it was received in a uh into evidence the last entry of the daily planner is uh august 19 1998 he had photos of the crime scene and he did the interview of Mr Jensen that was recorded um that we watched there's also a transcript of it and um what's interesting about that interview he's asking Mr Jensen about his relationship to Kelly Labonte and the exact answer that Mr Jensen said Kelly Kelly is just a friend that's it he doesn't say I've been having sex with her she's my lover we've been having a relationship he also tells detective rasper Julie did not get out of bed December 3rd 1998 he also said Julie was in a serious condition he also indicated I did not call a doctor They seized the computer they went Lieutenant rasberg also indicated they drove to St Louis and they got the work computer they dropped it off at the Department of Justice so they got the personal computer they go a work computer from Racine he also got the computer from regarding Kelly Labonte they also have information and this is a lieutenant rasburg indicated that they have evidence of Julie's voice and it sounded drunk we had also information as to the searches on the computer and it is the home computer that is Jason ruff r-u-f-f division of criminal investigation for the state of Wisconsin he was qualified as an expert digital evidence indicated the search at that time was on Yahoo and they have searches that were done on this home computer from the Jensen residence S2 in October 12 1998 O'Hare Marriott website somebody's searching Morton's Steakhouse downtown Chicago and Kelly Labonte testified that's where we were going to go in Chicago Morton's Steakhouse downtown Chicago searches for cruises we got telephone records of Kelly Labonte and Mr Jensen talking about hey maybe we're going to go somewhere else maybe we should take a cruise there's searches of botulism food poisoning and they're all at very strange times they're not during the day 2 A.M 3 A.M 5 a.m or whatever they're all searches during the early mornings of the uh our your searches for nicotine searches for uh toxic toxic alcohol medicine ethanol glycol poisoning medication overdoses poison websites antifreeze even on December 2nd the day before the death of Julie Jensen 9 30 p.m there's a search for antifreeze there's a search for on December 2nd alcohol consumption rapid breathing blood pressure issues her searches December 3rd 1998 antifreeze poisoning just information as to shock cardiac shock 9 40 a.m December 3rd 1998 searches for poisoning videos were watched it's the home computer found in the Jensen residence Meredith Perez she worked at the office and Racine she said there's no harassing phone calls there's nobody hanging up there's no swearing there's no porno pictures coming in Stacy Bauer talked about conference in St Louis talked about the information at Ed Club talked about and she's the one that said oh my God he killed her Joseph crevassi c-r-i-f-a-s-i took the lab samples blood tests the antifreeze or the ethanol glycol is in Julie's blood Perry tariko he's the individual that had the affair with Julie Jensen he denied sending harassing pictures making the phone calls he also indicated that Julie is one of the nicest people he ever met we call back Jason Ruff again the computer expert talked about the searches again thank you we had a video of Jones Scully she worked with Mark Jensen again she indicated I didn't find any porno photos nothing received at work Marion pacetti she was part of the book club she saw Mark the day that Julie Jensen died Mark Jensen told her he could not get his wife to the hospital said she had a bad reaction to medication never said anything about depression to her Aaron Dillard obviously there's a dispute as to his credibility but he's testified as to what Mr Jensen told him while they were in custody talked about Ed klug testimony Ann Lynch a teacher she knew Julie Jensen she worried about Douglas having to go full time in the fall this isn't late 1998 she indicated the marriage was in trouble Paul Griffin Julie's brother talked about the family the relationship he had with Julie but we also have a recorded statement from Paul Griffin to Mark Jensen and Mr Jensen in that recorded statement he didn't know he was being recorded give some different explanations as to what happened to Julie the last days thank you so Julie was sick she was taking medications Mr Griffin also indicated that he went to which would be his nephew's birthday party David who was a young boy and 1999 January 21st Kelly Labonte was there this is what three weeks after the death of Julie Johnson and Mark introduced her as a friend from work and what did Mr Griffin say Kelly Labonte looked like she knew where everything was in the house very familiar with the house David Thompson interesting character he's the one that agreed to kidnap Mr klug and then when I was listening to him I'm thinking well he's con he's got prior convictions we're not going to dispute that but after his credibility was attacked I was surprised to see what he does today pretty successful individual turned his life around there's no dispute as to that and we got these phone records we got Mr Jensen and Mr Thompson and Mr Thompson's ex-wife or his mother or his child talking about money being transferred 500 575 another 500 um we also have Mr Jensen on some of the phone calls to his mother talking about people sitting on other people he was talking about his kids doing it and that's kind of where he was going in those conversations and he he was dancing all the way around but he was talking about somebody being sat on something being taken care of and that's why he he needs the money and then we also go back to the telephone conversation that he had with Kelly Labonte where he's asking hey I need some money and unbelievable it's five hundred dollars and I need to get it to my parents yeah and I can't tell you what's for but I'll tell you later so Mr Jensen's talking about egg cook and the sitting and this kidnapping with Mr Thompson his wife and his mother and they're all recorded David Ellis obviously very limited information he was the investigator that the Jensens had hired but they canceled it Gretchen rozeki the attorney for Mr Dillard talked about the letter that she sent regarding her client Dr Mary mainland the medical examiner for Kenosha County she retired November 2020 pretty impressive resume she was a medical examiner in February 2005 left in 2008 went to Tampa Florida she's done 4 000 autopsies she didn't perform this autopsy but she reviewed numerous records on both sides grilled her what she reviewed whether it was a medical record a police report photos autopsy transcripts she talked about what her opinion is and she was pretty clear even after the cross that Mr Perry did she was pretty solid in her opinion she talked about the phases of poisoning and how they would start whether it's December 1st 2nd of 1998 continuing and what she saw in all the information that she had she indicated Julie Jensen had two doses of this poisoning it caused her death in the manner of death is homicide she talked the bruising on the body so she was pretty adamant so I got two experts say homicide I got lots of witnesses that put Mr Jensen in that a good position so I think the evidence considered most likely in the states light there's sufficient evidence here to prove guilt Beyond A Reasonable Doubt at this point so the motion is tonight okay I have one more issue um we have a transcript from Marvin oakler that we're going to play is he a witness he is a witness all right what number is he all right Marvin oakler thank you it says deceased transcript yes so we have generally agreed on all parts that sugar should not be played except for as it relates to him um the prosecution doesn't want us to play the part where Marvin oakler talks about the Griffins I have no objection to that I'll make sure that that's taken out but they also object to Marvin oakler talking about his experience as a pastor at funerals I think that's fair game based upon all the testimony of the prosecutions um Witnesses about Mr Jensen's Behavior at the funeral how long is the portion about the pastor talking about funerals maybe two minutes I'm going to let it in it's been an issue brought up by the state's witnesses that Mr Jensen did not look like he was grieving there's numerous Witnesses so it's two minutes we'll let it in and you're not going to play the portion that that they object to us to the Jensen family no I don't have any issue of getting that redacted when do you plan to play your videos tomorrow because we have two doctors testifying in the morning not experts but doctors the afternoon are I would just request that the defense send me the new transcript of what it should look like and then I can follow along with that do you have a transcript typed up of the video I have his prepared transcript and then I will get the video prepared I didn't prepare it because we had to resolve this issue we've just been highlighting the transcript and that's completely sufficient I just want to be able to follow along get her to transcript which which doctors are you going to have tomorrow the plan is to have Dr Paul DeFazio and then Dr Richard Borman all right let me in the morning in the morning and um are they going to take up all of the morning are we going to go in the afternoon with them I'm hoping it's just the morning okay but we'll see all right okay anything else from the state know your honor anything else from the defense no I think the jury has left right they're gone okay see you tomorrow 8 30 we'll give the defender a call

Channel: Law&Crime Network

Views: 95,755

Keywords: law and crime, law and crime network

Id: xy_FcZjMGX0

Length: 513min 0sec (30780 seconds)

Published: Wed Jan 25 2023