Return to Transcripts main page


Killer Testimony

Aired February 27, 2013 - 22:00   ET


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everyone, 10:00 p.m. here on the East Coast.

And welcome to an A.C. 360 special report, "Killer Testimony" in the Jodi Arias trial.

Joining me tonight is HLN's Nancy Grace -- Nancy.

NANCY GRACE, HOST, "NANCY GRACE": Anderson, killer testimony, well, that is certainly one way to put it.

Anderson, Jodi Arias doesn't deny killing her longtime lover, Travis Alexander. At least, she doesn't anymore. As you know, Anderson, at first she denied she was even there on the scene. Then she talked a lot, Anderson. She blamed the murder on two masked intruders, something like ninjas, a man and a woman.

But now, Anderson, she says she killed Travis Alexander, all right, but it was in self-defense. And even though she's fighting for her life on the stand, she has been smirking her way through nearly two weeks of direct and cross-exam.

COOPER: Yes. Nancy, have you ever seen testimony that has gone on for 12 days from a witness accused of murder?

GRACE: No, I haven't, because usually most defense attorneys follow conventional wisdom and they don't put their client on the stand. The thinking is it's better for the jury to suspect you're guilty and remain silent than speak and confirm their suspicions.

COOPER: Yes. This is a death penalty case, and I guess they're trying to appeal to any juror who -- they don't think they're going to get her off of this, but maybe they can at least avoid the death penalty.

A lot to talk about.

GRACE: Did you say appeal to the jurors? I don't know if detailing her anal and oral sex in the parking lot is really appealing to anybody.


COOPER: Well, now that you put it that way, I suppose you're right. Day 12, as we said, the prosecution has now worked its way up to the day that Arias killed Alexander. It is stuck, though, on the sex that they had that day and on the dirty text messages, raunchy phone sex, a subject that the trial has touched on again and again and again, very graphic stuff, including the phone sex tape.


JODI ARIAS, DEFENDANT: Remember the first time that you and I grinded at Ehrenberg? It was so hot.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You were talking in very fond tones about that experience in this clip that we just played, weren't you?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And it was because it was fun, right?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And it was something that you enjoyed, right?



COOPER: Nancy, as you been have reporting, that enjoyment she talked about strongly contradicts her own testimony that Travis Alexander physically, sexually abused her and made her feel like a prostitute.

So does this.


ARIAS: I would really like to marry a return missionary, but like you, someone who can be freaky. I worry that I might feel like a wilting flower is all who never really blossomed to her full potential, at least in the sexual realm.

I feel like I have with you, but like I still have plenty of blossom time left.


COOPER: The prosecution has come under strong criticism.

Nancy, you're a former prosecutor. I'm wondering what you think about the prosecution's waging of this case so far, their cross- examination so far.

GRACE: Well, Anderson, many people have claimed that the prosecution is too hard, too harsh on Arias.

But let me remind everybody of the consequences of holding back. You have one swing at the ball, Anderson. You got one chance to get up to home plate and swing and hit a home run. And if he doesn't use everything he's got now, he's not going to get a second chance. And back to, as you described, raunchy, I think it's XXX-rated, Anderson.

The whole point is not to talk about their sex life or their proclivities or whether it's deviant or not. I didn't really care about that. The point of this sex testimony, Anderson, is because from the get-go, she claimed that he sexually abused her, beat her, demeaned her, and so on and so on.

But now the prosecution, Anderson, on cross-examination, is using her own words and those nasty, as you say, text messages and firing them right back at her, Anderson, to show a lot of their sex activity was at her instigation, and that she liked it.

COOPER: And the judge has given a lot of leeway in terms of the details in this case, and again 12 days of testimony, probably, again, because it is a capital murder case.

A lot to cover in this hour ahead, and Nancy and I, along with Jeffrey Toobin, criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos, Dr. Drew Pinsky.

We're going to start, though, tonight with the very latest from the court today, what happened today, again, the 12th day of testimony.

CNN's Randi Kaye was there. Jean Casarez, "In Session" correspondent on truTV, also joins us.

Randi, a lot of time in court today focusing on the car that Arias rented when she went to visit Alexander. It's amazing the details that came out today and Nancy has commented on this. What was the prosecution trying to prove with the line of questioning? Explain what happened in court today.

RANDI KAYE, CNN ANCHOR: Well, they went at her on this rental car, and really what they're trying to get at is premeditation. They're trying to show that she planned to murder Travis Alexander.

So they tried to show that when she went to the rental agency to rent this car, they offered her a red rental car, and they said that she told the agent, no, I don't want a red rental car because that attracts too many police officers. They also said that she filled up three gas cans. They showed the receipts in court, filled up three cans in California so then when she did go to Arizona where she said she never went that there wouldn't be any record or any receipt of her buying gasoline in Arizona.

And, finally, they also showed that the license plate on the back of her rental car had been turned upside-down, and the front license plate had actually been removed. So, upside down, if anybody saw her car maybe at Travis Alexander's house, they wouldn't have be able to give police a record of the plate because it was upside down and unreadable.

She says that there were kids who played a prank on her when she was stopped at a Starbucks and took off her front plate and turned the other one upside-down while she was inside buying a strawberry frappuccino. The prosecution, the state doesn't buy that.

COOPER: Nancy, I think I can hear your eyes rolling right now. What do you make of this? When you hear that she buys all this gas and to drive to Arizona, that just raises all sorts of red flags.

GRACE: Well, it does, and here's the whole point behind it. And not only that, the prosecution pulled up a whole lot of gasoline station receipts in these odd amounts that would not fill your car up. Clearly, she was filling up the gas cans.

And so having to think about it, and this is how I would put it to the jury, have you ever in your life driven across the country, driven around with five or six gas cans full of gasoline in your trunk? Think about it. Think how outlandish that is. But, again, it veered back toward sex again.

Jean Casarez, I want you to explain maybe better than I did why it is so critical all this detail about their sex relationship.

JEAN CASAREZ, TRUTV: Because the defense is showing and wants to show that she was a victim at the hands of Travis Alexander.

Yes, there was physical violence, but their theory is it started with her as a victim with his power and control over her over sex, that she was just a follower and he was the dominant one. But today in court it really turned around, because the text messages shows that she was the instigator many times, she was the one that was the leader, and maybe he was the follower.

GRACE: And, Jean, it was even I think more than that, it is more dastardly than that, because she, in his death when he can't defend himself, is painting him out to be a pedophile. We have gone over this many times.

Anderson, you and I have talked many times about child porn in this country. And in this case, police combed through his laptop, his desktop, all the way through the attic, the whole house. He never even visited that type of a Web site, much less download photographs that she said she saw. She's really dragging him through the mud.

COOPER: Well, and the number of lies it's already been proven that she told them to investigators. You said the ninja idea of a home invasion, saying she wasn't even in Arizona when the murder was committed.

And, Randi, Arias was asked about a phone call she made to the detective investigating the murder, pretending she had no idea what happened to Alexander. Again, we now know this was all a lie. Let's listen to that.


ARIAS: Do you know when all this happened? I got a call last night. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Some time between Thursday and last night. We're not sure yet.

ARIAS: Was there a gun? Was there...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can't say what type of weapon was used. Do you know of him having any weapons at all in the house?

ARIAS: His two fists, really.



COOPER: There were times today she can't even keep her lies straight on the stand.

KAYE: Absolutely.

First of all, just to think about that phone call, here she is, she already knows that she killed Travis Alexander. Here she is checking in with this detective, checking in on the case. That is mind-boggling on its own. But then you have her checking in asking about the weapons, asking about how he died, pretending she doesn't know, and it turns out that she did know.

The state says that she robbed her grandparents' house, stole a gun from them and that's part of the way that she killed him, in addition to the 29 stab wounds, of course, including slitting his throat. But she says that she found this gun in his closet when he was coming at her and charging her and grabbing her at the waist.

So, a lot of different stories there, and certainly of course the home invasion. First, she said it was two men and then she changed it to a man and a woman.


GRACE: Randi, you just brought up a really good point, because in her initial conversation with police -- and, Anderson, I know it's not scientific evidence, but I look a lot at body language.

She was actually curled up in the chair in a fetal position as she was telling cops this first crazy story. And he asked her point blank, Detective Flores, did Travis Alexander own a gun? And she said, no, not that I know of.

So her story has totally changed about that. And I think one of the reasons she called the detectives, Anderson, is she's trying to find out the forensic evidence so she can tailor her story to what she knows to be the forensic evidence.

COOPER: Well, Jean, the other thing that's kind of remarkable is she was giving interviews to "48 Hours," to other media outlets in the run-up to this. This is someone who was not just lying to police, but was going out on a media campaign and lying. CASAREZ: And every single interview is being shown to that jury. And she talks about, I am innocent. I will never be convicted by a jury.

The jury is listening to that. And so much about Travis, so many inconsistencies. She talks about the wonderful person that Travis is, but you didn't hear any of that in the direct examination. You heard about someone that was not only a sexual pervert, but someone that abused her physically and mentally.

Her journal doesn't have anything about physical abuse or mental abuse. It has wonderful things about Travis.


GRACE: Even on those specific days where she says Travis slapped me or he beat me, on those days she writes, everything is great. I don't have anything new to add today.

Sean (ph), do you have that 48 hours sound? Let's see it.


ARIAS: He left the room for a minute, maybe a few minutes, and she was in the bathroom standing over Travis, and I charged her.

I ran down that hall and I pushed her as hard as I could, and she fell over him, landed near the sink. There was two sinks in the master bath, and he landed near the left sink kind of near the trash can close to the windows, and I started to pull on him, and I said, come on, come on. Come on, let's go, let's go.

And he just wasn't -- he was sluggish and lethargic and he just wasn't getting up and he wasn't really saying much of anything. He was there and he was conscious and I could see that. He wasn't saying much. I was able to get him about -- he was sort of not crawling, but he was kind of moving and trying to stand up, and I was able to get him about halfway down the hall when she came back at me and we struggled.


GRACE: You know, on that version she deserves the Medal of Honor for trying to save his life. What about that?

COOPER: And, Nancy, this is a person who, 27 stab wounds on her ex-boyfriend, none of which she said she can remember doing at all. She says she remembers various sounds and things, but 27?


GRACE: Oh, you're going to love this, Anderson. At the very end of the day -- I'm going to let Jean tell you.

Jean, were you in there when the prosecution tripped her up on one of the very last questions? CASAREZ: I was.

GRACE: Remember, she told the jury she has no recollection of what happened, it's all a big blur. But then at the very end, Jean, you tell it.

CASAREZ: Well, here's what happened. The question was, when did you shower after sex? Well, she couldn't quite remember, but she remembered it was the shower. And the question was, is that the same shower that you dragged Travis into? Yes, she said. She admitted it.

And that is counter to her saying she blacked out and doesn't remember a thing.

GRACE: Whoopsie. Ruh-roh.

COOPER: Damning testimony right there, and a lot more to talk about. Jean and Randi, we will come back to you shortly. Nancy and I will be right back in just a moment.

Let us know what you think about this trial on Twitter right now @AndersonCooper. I'm tweeting tonight.

Nancy and I will be joined by Jeffrey Toobin, Mark Geragos from a defense standpoint, talk more about the legal strategy, the defense strategy. What are they really trying to accomplish? And are they actually trying to get her off or are they simply trying to save her life so she doesn't get the death penalty? We're going to look down at the defense's apparent decision to de-glamorize their client.

Remember, she was kind of -- she was a blonde before, looks very different in the pictures when she was in a relationship with this guy, Jeff Alexander. She looks very different on the witness stand. That's not an accident -- excuse me -- Travis Alexander. That's not an accident. Jeff Toobin calls it a make-under, not a makeover. That and more, including testimony, when we continue.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's you that's a person that likes this sort of activity and looking like a horny little schoolgirl, right?





UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So how is it that, if it just happened, you can't even remember what you just said?

ARIAS: I think I'm more focused on your posture and your tone and your anger, so it's hard to process the question.


COOPER: You're watching the "A.C. 360," "Killer Testimony," the Jodi Arias trial.

I'm joined by HLN's Nancy Grace.

You just heard one of many instances of verbal fireworks between Jodi Arias and the prosecutor during a marathon cross-examination that has some wondering what exactly the legal strategy is in this case.

Joining us now is CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, also criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos, co-author of the upcoming book "Mistrial: An Inside Look at How the Criminal Justice System Works, and Sometimes Doesn't."

Nancy, you were talking about some of the criticism that the prosecution has been under.

Mark, you have been very critical of the prosecution, particularly yesterday, less so today. You say he sort of dialed it back today, but what do you think the prosecutor has been doing wrong?

MARK GERAGOS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: This prosecution -- prosecutor could have just gone in three to four hours, taken the gas can evidence, taken the reported gun being stolen evidence and a couple other points, got in, got out and decimated her.

Instead, he allows her or has allowed her to come back, to get on her feet, to get her kind of sea legs, if you will. He was infinitely better today. I can't even tell you how much better he was today. He had dialed back today. I don't know if he was watching you last night or what.

COOPER: What is the problem with that? You're saying he's building sympathy for her, people feel like he's beating her up?


GERAGOS: Look, you can talk about -- and I hate to get in the way because I know I'm apparently the only guy with my finger in the dike of this prosecutorial gang bang that we're engaged in here tonight.

But the fact is that when you're defending a death penalty case, all you're trying to do is get some juror to find something mitigating, to find something human in this woman. And, yes, you could paint her to be the most inhuman monster on the planet. But if she's up there and she's talking about in that last scene him acting out, basically, as a prosecutor -- and I don't disagree with Nancy. You only get one strike.

I'm not saying to hold back, but you don't have to just be a 14- karat jerk about it. You can get in and you can cross-examine appropriately.

(CROSSTALK) GRACE: Let's hold on a moment and remind everybody that this prosecutor has already done what is near impossible. He has actually put a woman on death row.

Statistically, that is very, very difficult to do. So all of the pundits and all the defense attorneys can sit back and throw stones all they want to, but this is the guy who is in the pit, he's fighting, he's sweating, he's trying the case. He has a success record.


GERAGOS: If you try cases, you can make those critical assessments of somebody's trial. I will agree with you.

If somebody has not tried cases or hasn't tried a case in 10 years, I have a problem with them second-guessing. But if you're somebody who is trying cases day in and day out, then I think you have got the ability to say I think this prosecutor was over the top.

GRACE: This guy has a winning track record at death penalty cases.


GERAGOS: Every prosecutor in America has a winning track record. The conviction rate in America is somewhere hovering at 92 to 95 percent. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Let's not overestimate the prosecutor's track record. Take him out of the prosecutor's office and they're lucky to ever win a case.

COOPER: Jeff, let me bring you in because you are a former prosecutor. Do you think he's gone too far?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: It's an unusual problem that he has.

He has such a target-rich environment with this woman. She has lied so many times that you have to pick and choose.


TOOBIN: Prosecutors, we want to press every advantage. And the core of his case is that she claims abuse, yet if you look at her diary, if you look at her records, if you look at the e-mails, she seems to be enjoying this relationship a great deal.

Perhaps she could have -- he could have made that point with 20 e-mails instead of 50 e-mails and texts and voice-mails.


GERAGOS: Well, you said it yesterday. You said it was an embarrassment of riches. There may be a point here where he was so excited, where do you start, what do you do, but at a certain point, somebody has to sit and counsel him and say, dial it back, get in, get out, slaughter her and be done with this.

COOPER: But you guys think that the defense is basically just hoping not to have her killed, that they're not really going for an acquittal here.

GERAGOS: I don't think in his heart of hearts that this defense lawyer is expecting a not guilty.

I could be absolutely wrong. I'm not in that courtroom. Maybe he does. I think this is somebody who is hoping -- one of the things he could -- also, and one of the things that has been speculated on, you can have a hung jury. I have had a hung jury on at least 10 different occasions where they find it's between a first and a second, between a murder and a manslaughter, where you get jurors who say, no, I'm not going to convict premeditated. You have got another juror who says I absolutely am not going to convict on anything less.

TOOBIN: This case is also a good lesson on why death penalty case are so much more expensive than other kinds of cases, because when you have a death penalty case like this, the judge lets the defense do pretty much anything they want.

So you had nine days of direct testimony by Arias, which is just absurd. There is no reason anybody needs to testify for nine days.

GRACE: Hey, guys, guys...

TOOBIN: But the judge let her do it.

GRACE: Before we go down the slippery slope of how much justice costs, I want to remind everybody of something that happened in court the other day.

Jodi Arias -- you know, Travis Alexander doesn't have any parents. His parents are both dead. He was raised largely by his grandmother. And after slaughtering Travis Alexander, including nine stab wounds to the back, slit ear to ear and a gunshot wound just to cap it off in the head, 29 stab wounds, she sends his grandmother, the murderer, the killer sends his grandmother flowers, sympathy flowers.

Now, don't you know that grandmother wishes she had picked that vase up and thrown it to the ground? And now she's got to listen to Jodi Arias go on and on and on.


GERAGOS: Right, and she has to listen to her go on and on and on, for Jeff's point...


GRACE: It has to do to credibility.

GERAGOS: No, it doesn't, Nancy.

GRACE: Yes, it does. (CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: But for a death penalty case...


GERAGOS: ... judge in America is not going to let somebody go on and on in direct for nine or 10 days. It's just not going to happen. Every judge I know of in a non-death penalty case is going to say forget it.


GRACE: You already said that. I heard it the first time.


GERAGOS: Jeff said that.


GRACE: This is about credibility.

TOOBIN: An execution, Nancy, an execution by the state is not necessarily everybody's idea of justice.


GRACE: Well, it's not necessarily my idea of justice. So I don't know what -- why you're saying that. But I am telling you, if I could be so bold as to speak without being interrupted, that what she did to Travis Alexander's grandmother is extremely important here, because it shows who she is and what she is all about.

GERAGOS: Exactly.


GRACE: She is a liar and people don't really to her.

GERAGOS: Well, so what does that have to do though with the idea of it being a death penalty? Fine, go in, cross-examine her on that. Make her look like the absolutely diabolical person that you want her to paint her out to be and that she richly deserves.

COOPER: I'm wondering, Nancy, what you thought of when she pushed back against the prosecutor.

He asked her a question, and she said, look, I can't focus on the question because I'm paying attention to your body language and your hostility. Do you think that was effective? Do you think that was a way that some in the jury might actually feel sympathy for her?

GRACE: You know what? It's absolutely possible that someone on the jury did feel sympathy for her, but I don't think so. She is sitting there. Let me just say she definitely knows which fork to use at dinner. She's sitting there like she's at a tea party. This is a murder one death penalty case. We just heard all about her oral sex, her anal sex, her getting tied up, the whole shebang. And now she's acting reticent? You know what? Stop.

TOOBIN: Well, I mean, I think Nancy makes an interesting point there about how she looks.

There's been this astonishing physical transformation. The jury has seen photographs of her when she was with Travis and she was blonde and she was wearing tight clothes. And now she comes before the jury and she looks like a library, like the stereotype of...

GERAGOS: Like she's a third-grade schoolteacher.

TOOBIN: ... of a third-grade schoolteacher or a librarian with the thick glasses and the brown hair and...


COOPER: And as a defense attorney, that's something you would counsel a client?


GERAGOS: Absolutely. You're not going to have her going up there looking like she does in some of those pictures.

COOPER: You actually -- you and I talked about this a little bit earlier tonight, but which I found fascinating, that studies have shown that female jurors are...

GERAGOS: Are much harder on women than men are. That's absolutely the case.

TOOBIN: And rape cases in particular, although death penalty -- murder cases -- but women jurors are very tough on women victims. They don't like consent defenses. They're tough in date rape cases, very much so.

COOPER: We have to take a break. Jeffrey Toobin, Mark Geragos, they're going to stay with us.

We're going to be back with Nancy.

There's something else we want to talk about straight ahead. All of Jodi Arias' lies -- I mean, and there have been so many -- more about how she changed her story about what happened so many times that she admitted on the stand today she even had trouble keeping the stories straight. So why should the jury believe her now?

We are going to get into that when we continue.



JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: And that's another version of events that occurred on June 4 of 2008, correct?


MARTINEZ: And they're not true, right?

ARIAS: Neither of them. It's all the same things, just different versions. I couldn't keep my life straight.


GRACE: That's Jodi Arias on trial admitting that even she's having trouble keeping all of her stories straight.

With us tonight, CNN senior legal analyst Jeff Toobin, criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos; of course, Dr. Drew Pinsky with us, host of "Dr. Drew on Call" on HLN.

Hey, Dr. Drew, it's nice to see you. I know it always doesn't matter why in court the prosecution has a job to do, they've got to prove who did what and it doesn't always matter. But just out of curiosity, what kind of person can make up these elaborate stories, and then, she knows she killed him, but they go on national TV and tell different versions?

DR. DREW PINSKY, HLN ANCHOR: Well, that person could be a psychopath. And Jodi, in fact, fits a pattern of psychopathic stalking.

It's the same person that can sit on the stand and say to us, "You know, Jodi wouldn't do that kind of thing. That's not Jodi. I don't want to give a picture of someone who might have done those horrible things. That's why I told those ridiculous stories that I couldn't keep straight. And by the way, Jodi is the type of person that would send the victim, the man I slaughtered, his grandmother, irises in sympathy." Why irises? Do you remember, Nancy? Why irises? "Irises, because he and I decided that's what we were going to name our first child."

GRACE: He wanted to name their daughter Iris.

PINSKY: That's right.

GRACE: You know, all the guys...

PINSKY: That disconnect is fantastic.

GRACE: Help me out. Jodi, a liar act here (ph). Help me out. All the guys are attacking me, saying that that doesn't matter. But you know what? I know, when my fiance was murdered, if his murderer had sent me a vase of flowers, I don't even know what I would have done. And it does matter. It does matter that she did that to his grandmother.

PINSKY: It does matter, and although -- although I hear Mark groaning in the background, Nancy -- I heard the groan...

GRACE: He's groaning because it's not 1997. Groan away.


GRACE: I asked Drew, not you.

GERAGOS: Well, you were talking about my groaning. So I was going to try to move it out of the groan.

GRACE: He was. I want to hear Pinsky, not you.

COOPER: I think we've heard enough about groaning in this trial, by the way.

GERAGOS: There's been an excess of groaning in this trial.

GRACE: OK. So Geragos, what do you think about the rope evidence? What about that?

GERAGOS: About the what evidence?

COOPER: The rope evidence. That there was a rope.

GRACE: The rope evidence.

GERAGOS: Look, the -- to my mind, everything in this case -- and they've got -- you've heard about a mountain of evidence. This is a -- this is an absolute overwhelming tsunami of evidence against her. The only shot that the defense has in this case is somehow to get a couple of those jurors to -- if not identify with her, at least want to come and help her.

COOPER: And to that -- and to that point -- to that point, Dr. Drew, I wanted to hear your perspective, because if you noticed, in that clip...


COOPER: ... we just played, she's constantly looking over at the jury, trying to make eye contact with the jurors.

PINSKY: Oh, yes.

COOPER: That's conscious.

PINSKY: Carefully schooled. But -- well, not only is it conscious, the problem is it's done like a robot. I'm sure she's schooled to do it, but it's like everything else with Jodi. It's disconnected.

But Mark and I were on my show just a few minutes ago, talking about something that is fascinating. You guys were talking about getting some sympathy from someone on the jury. Women are becoming a little more sympathetic with this woman the longer she stays on the stand. GERAGOS: That's absolutely true.

PINSKY: Men, Mark -- do you agree about this? -- are getting completely creeped out to the point where we almost can't tolerate it anymore. And I think if she finds sympathy, it's going to be with a female juror.

GERAGOS: Which is absolutely counterintuitive when you start to see what's going on here.

COOPER: And you think this sympathy comes from what? The idea that she may be being bullied by the prosecutor?

GERAGOS: Well, I don't know -- remember, part of what this is, when you ask jurors after a trial, why did you do this, why did you do that, you can drive yourself crazy with that type of analysis.

It's generally kind of a zeitgeist. They have a feeling. They go because they identify with somebody, because somebody is either being bullied, you want to go with the underdog, or whatever else. You carry kind of a theme and then you hope some jury resonates with a juror.

In this case, yesterday what was happening, I think, was that there was some overplaying of the prosecution's hand to the point where it could have resonated with some jurors. And you can say good lord in heaven, but Nancy -- Nancy...

GRACE: You know what? All of you need -- you all need a reality check.

GERAGOS: The reality check is when the verdict comes back and you see what happens.

GRACE: ... because you're all talking about -- do not make me cut your mike.

GERAGOS: Just see what happens.

GRACE: Anderson won't do it, but I will do it.

GERAGOS: I think it's a different concern.

GRACE: You all are completely wrong calling Jodi Arias -- calling Jodi Arias the underdog.

Let me remind you that Travis Alexander had a life ahead of him. He was a great young guy trying to follow his fate...

GERAGOS: OK, which has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.

GRACE: ... whether you all believe it or not. He took 29 stab wounds. He is the underdog. You keep referring to her like she is somehow being pressed upon.

GERAGOS: No, I didn't keep...

GRACE: She killed him.

GERAGOS: You can construct -- you can construct whatever kind of narrative you want, Nancy. That's one of the reasons that you were great as a prosecutor.

What I'm trying to explain to you and to anybody who's listening before you cut the mike, although I think Anderson's people have control of the mike tonight, that -- that unfortunately for you, there is still a jury there. It's not your studio audience that's going to be voting thumbs up or thumbs down. The jury is.

GRACE: You know what, that's completely irrelevant what you're saying.

GERAGOS: The jury is. Right. I know the jury is irrelevant to what you want to point out.

GRACE: I was trying to point out...

TOOBIN: Can I just ask Dr. Drew a question? Because this, to me, I think -- we've been talking a lot about sex and all this -- there's some salacious evidence. But to me...


TOOBIN: ... the most sinister evidence was today, and it had nothing to do with sex. It was this woman in California filling up gas cans to go all the way to Arizona and back so she wouldn't have to buy gasoline. No one could find that she had purchased gasoline in Arizona.

A degree of premeditation that I think not even the hardened hit men sometimes might think of. I mean, that's just astonishing to me that she had that sort of criminal mind, or so it appeared.

PINSKY: So it appears. And that's the level of disconnect and the level of rage. I've been interviewing some people who say she might have developed something called a borderline rage in someone with psychopathic tendency who had developed psychopathic stalking behaviors.

You add all that up, she can't deal with rejection. She disavows her own behavior and starts planning something that makes perfect sense to her, even though -- and by the way, Nancy, I'm completely with you. I showed some images today that I had difficulty looking at pictures of the murder scene, but I thought it was so important to be able to see...

GRACE: I wanted to scream when I saw his dead body slumped down in the shower.

PINSKY: But Nancy, because -- I showed that because, just the way when we're teaching medical students, we have to show people...

GRACE: I know.

PINSKY: ... the specimen. We have to -- there's an experiential testimony. And I think without that, people don't get the brutality of this. What Jeffrey is talking about is the pre-meditation. The brutality. And those are the things that's being dragged out -- about this case.

COOPER: He was left in the shower, is my understanding for several days. There was the 911 call from a friend who said, like, "I found him in the shower."

GRACE: Anderson, I'll tell you what happened, and the prosecution has brought this out.

She has a history. She gets a boyfriend. They immediately have sex very early on. They get very close, very serious. She believes she's wronged. Either he cheats or he flirts or something. She breaks into his e-mail, and then she races out for a confrontation. It's happened over and over and over.

And this time he was still sleeping with her but was taking another woman in the next couple of days to Cancun. And she flipped out, and she murdered him. That's what happened.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But again, the level of alleged premeditation is extraordinary, Dr. Drew.

PINSKY: Extraordinary, I agree, Anderson. But Nancy is right. It's something that some people categorize as simple obsession. Simple obsessional stalking.

However, what Jeffrey was pointing out is the psychopathic component to this, and that's what makes it hard to look away. How this woman could lie with such impunity. How she could sit on the stand and talk about what Jodi does and doesn't to. And then you see these pictures.

COOPER: And then, to see her day after day on the stand. To see kind of...

COOPER: Day after day on the stand. Again, if it is a psychopathic tendency, to kind of -- to see that laid bare just day after day, hour after hour on the witness stand, is an extraordinary thing, and it continues more. We've got to take a quick break. More with Nancy and Jeff Toobin, Mark Geragos and Dr. Drew. Stay with us.

How she's morphed into kind of a plain Jane and whether that's going to help or hurt her case. We'll be right back.


COOPER: Coming up, more on the extraordinary lies that have emerged on the witness stand that Jodi Arias has told time and time again to authorities, to the media, and even on the witness stand. Details on that ahead.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Jodi, why do you think detectives think you killed Travis?

ARIAS: There was a lot of forensics suggesting that I was in his house. Of the evidence that they presented to me, I was asked the question, if you were presented as evidence in your party, what would you think? And, you know, I need to be honest, their evidence is very compelling. But none of it proves that I committed a murder. None of it proves that I committed a crime. What it does substantiate is what I did tell detectives.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you -- I have to ask you this. Did you kill Travis Alexander?

ARIAS: Absolutely not. No, I had no part in it.


COOPER: So fascinating to watch that, Nancy, when now we know, of course, she was lying. And when somebody says, "I have to be honest," you know, that always raises all sorts of red flags for me in an interview.

GRACE: You're not the rest of the time, you've got to be honest this time?

COOPER: Right. You know, and just to watch her stone-faced lying right there is fascinating. I'm here with Nancy Grace.

Take a look at the woman on trial today. She looks a lot different, as we talked about, from the woman who dated Travis Alexander. Blond hair is gone, along with any trace of makeup. She now wears glasses. We don't even know if she really needs glasses.

She's certainly not the first defendant to get a make-under instead of a make-over, as Jeff Toobin called it, instead of a make- over. What's the evidence that a defendants looks can sway a jury? Randi Kaye joins us again, along with Jeff Toobin; Mark Geragos; Dr. Drew Pinsky, host of "Dr. Drew On Call" on HLN; Jean Casarez, "In Session" correspondent on TruTV. What do you make of the change, Jean, in her appearance. I mean, she's transformed?

JEAN CASAREZ, CORRESPONDENT, TRUTV'S "IN SESSION": Sure, and they're portraying her as the victim. They dressed her as the victim. I also noticed in court that her chair is lower than her attorneys' chairs are, so she even looks like the demure little person the defense wants her to be. And she has been that person virtually until today.

COOPER: That's an old trick Jeff Toobin uses when he sits next to me. He makes me sit down very, very low in the chair. Yes.

TOOBIN: But I hope I don't get convicted. COOPER: What -- I mean, how long can she stay on the stand?

TOOBIN: Both of us have been just astonished. Maybe Nancy has some experience like this. I have never seen a defendant testify for ten days. Particularly for -- well, 12 days now, and basically nine or ten on direct.

GERAGOS: On direct. It's astonishing.

Particularly for defense witnesses, direct testimony tends to be pretty brief. But the judge clearly is just letting both sides go on as long as they want, and it didn't sound like they were going to finish tomorrow. And maybe Jean could...

GRACE: It's interesting that you would say that, Jeff, because you know where they left off today. They left off at about 2 p.m. the day of the killing. That jury has got to be on the edge of their seats, because he was killed at about 5:30.

And what's interesting is she had this digi cam, a digital camera with her, and she's taking pictures of him in the shower, of apparently what they believe are sexy pictures of him flexing his muscles. And they're time stamped. And within three minutes from that photo, it's accidentally a photo of her dragging his body to put him back into the shower. It all happens in just three minutes.

COOPER: That's what's so... Dr. Drew, let's talk about that, because I mean, that's what's so crazy. I don't -- you know, I don't want to use that term, but that's what's just so bizarre to me...

PINSKY: It's a great word.

COOPER: ... that she is taking photos minutes before a killing is about to take place. I mean, how do you -- how do you process that?

PINSKY: A normal person can't. That's why we can't look away. You know what's interesting is most psychopaths are male, so the fact that this is a female already catches our attention, and then the extraordinary brutality and the cold-blooded nature of this with the premeditation we've all been talking about this evening, it's sort of what keeps us interested, because we literally can't believe it. A normal brain won't do that.

COOPER: Just remind us, Dr. Drew, I mean, you talk about sociopath. You talk about psychopath. What's the difference?

PINSKY: Sociopaths are usually often trauma survivors. They are people who really don't believe other people have feelings or can't appreciate that feelings and use people for their own ends. They don't sort of have agency in and of itself.

A psychopath has no empathy. A psychopath is disconnected and disavows everything and takes responsibility for nothing.

GRACE: Yes. That's interesting, too. Hey, Randi, when you're in the courtroom, I'm interested to hear if you observed the same thing I did in the courtroom, you and Jean. Does she ever really change her affect in court? I mean, when she's acting like she's, you know, taken aback by the prosecutor, she has the very same demeanor. It's all such a big charade.

KAYE: Absolutely. I mean, she -- she's trying to confuse the prosecutor in a way. Seems just -- almost as if she's playing games with him. And she never changes her face. She's always very solemn looking, very quiet, almost shy. And then when he goes at her, it just makes him look bad, which is why he's getting so much criticism.

And she also, as you know, Nancy, she tries to engage the jury. Every answer she pose -- she looks at the jury and answers to the jury first and then turns back to the prosecutor.

COOPER: Let me jump in here and -- let me just jump in here and play devil's advocate, because is it fair to be judging how somebody is on a witness stand, how somebody -- I mean, everybody responds to grief, responds to trauma in different ways.

You think back -- remember that case in Australia of the woman who said that a dingo had eaten her baby. And she was resoundly criticized, and nobody in Australia believed her because of the way she appeared on the witness stand. She didn't seem like that she was grieving enough. I mean, do you think -- is it fair, Mark, Jeff, to really kind of...

TOOBIN: It may or may not be fair, but we have a jury, and juries respond as normal people do. And your affect on the stand matters a great deal.

Now I can't say, watching her, that her affect is so terrible that she's going to get the death penalty. The weird sort of half- smile is the thing that has -- that has struck me, but we all have a picture in our head of what the appropriate way to respond to tragedy is, and we may be simply wrong.

COOPER: Actually, it has now been proven that a dingo did eat that baby.

GERAGOS: Which is one of the reasons why, generally, the defense does not want to put their client on the stand. Remember, you've got somebody who's in custody. They're getting carted over from the jail at 4 in the morning. They've been in a cement cell. You're going to put them on the stand. You've got a prosecutor who knows the case inside-out, who slept in his own bed. He's going to cross-examine this person. He knows the rules of evidence. He supposedly -- or she -- has control of the courtroom. You would always expect that it's going to be an uneven fight.

And the jury instructions do generally tell you that the jurors are supposed to take into account their affect, their -- the way they give testimony, so that's certainly in play.

COOPER: Mark -- go ahead. KAYE: I think no matter how she acts in court -- I think no matter how she acts in court, once these jurors see these crime scene photos, which is expected to happen tomorrow, and they think of her stabbing Travis Alexander once in the heart, in the chest while he's kneeled down in this vulnerable position in his bathroom, and then when he's up at the sink spitting up blood, and she's stabbing him nine times in the back, that's what they're going to remember. That's all they're going to remember when this trial is said and done, I think.

COOPER: Interesting. And again, she says she doesn't remember any of that. She doesn't remember the stabbings.

PINSKY: Convenient. Convenient. Convenient.

COOPER; Time after time, one after another after another. We have to take another quick break. We'll be right back.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Was the relationship ever violent?



COOPER: We're with Nancy Grace. Now Nancy, you were saying tomorrow, day 13 for this woman on the witness stand, and perhaps the most dramatic testimony yet, counting down to the minutes -- the last minutes of Travis Alexander's life.

GRACE: Yes, it will be. And of course, she has already stated that she has no recollection of stabbing him and slicing his throat. But I really wish that everyone would try to reverse the roles. If a man had driven that far to kill a woman that he had been stalking and terrorizing, this would have been open and closed.

That people see Jodi Arias and they are taken with her beauty. When I look at her, Anderson, I see a killer.

COOPER: Interesting perspective. Nancy, appreciate you being on this hour.

GRACE: Thank you for having me.

COOPER: We're going to have a lot more ahead. From Dr. Drew, Nancy, and team, everyone here on 360, have a great night. We'll see you tomorrow.