Return to Transcripts main page


Prosecutor Takes Another Crack at Jodi Arias

Aired March 7, 2013 - 19:00   ET


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST: Jane Velez-Mitchell here. You`re not going to miss a single moment of the Jodi Arias trial. Let`s go back into the courtroom as prosecutor Juan Martinez gets one last shot at skewering this slippery defendant. Listen.

JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: If you put the gas, gasoline into the car first or into the cans first.

JODI ARIAS, MURDER DEFENDANT: Yes, I do remember that.

MARTINEZ; OK. But yet when the jurors asked you the question, "Do you remember that," you said, "Oh, I put the gas into the car first, and then I must have tripped or turned off the meter, if you will, and that`s why there`s separate transactions." Do you remember telling us that?

ARIAS: That was my only logic and understanding...

MARTINEZ: Well, I`m not asking about your logic and understanding. Isn`t that what you told the jury just previously today?

ARIAS: I did say that but not in response to the question you`re referring to.

MARTINEZ: Ma`am, whether it`s a response to the question I`m posing to you or not, isn`t it true that that`s what you told people, the jurors here?




MARTINEZ: So my question to you then, ma`am, is, isn`t it true, then, that you do remember the sequence of events involving the filling up the car with gas in Pasadena?

NURMI: Objection, mischaracterizes her testimony as to what she was filling up.

STEPHENS: Overruled.

ARIAS: The only part I remember as far as sequence is I put the gas in the gas cans, and then so I didn`t leave the hose laying on the floor or the ground, the concrete, I hung it up. That ends the transaction. That`s all I know.

MARTINEZ: So you`re saying -- now you`re back to the -- telling us you don`t remember whether or not you put gas in the car first or in the gas cans first, right? That`s what you`re saying?

ARIAS: I really don`t know the exact sequence. I wouldn`t bet all my money on what it was. I can only go by receipts and times to help me remember.

MARTINEZ: So that`s what you`re saying. You don`t remember. That`s what you`re telling us, right?

ARIAS: From memory, no.

MARTINEZ: That`s what I`m asking you for. What is your memory of that event, right? Right? That`s what I`m asking you, right?


MARTINEZ: And with regard to that time, nobody was yelling at you at that time, right?

ARIAS: That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: Nobody was grilling you, right?

ARIAS: That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: You`ve been fond of telling us how great of a memory you have if no one is yelling at you, right?


MARTINEZ: But that`s something that you just don`t remember, right?

ARIAS: Not in great detail, that`s right.

MARTINEZ: But you did tell us that you do have a very good memory for detail previously, though, right?

ARIAS: Usually, yes.

MARTINEZ: Ma`am, the other thing that you told us was with regard to these gas cans, is that you purchased one in Salinas, California, right?


MARTINEZ: Five-gallon gas can, right?


MARTINEZ: And then you purchased this gas can in Salinas, and you said after a short period of time -- well, you didn`t say a period. You said that you returned it back to the store, the Wal-Mart in Salinas, right?

ARIAS: That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: And it`s the same store that you bought it from, right?


MARTINEZ: Because it was in -- probably because it was in the same general vicinity, right?

ARIAS: Right.

MARTINEZ: And, ma`am, one of the other things that you said was that the reason that you did this was because you -- it was expensive and -- it didn`t seem to make sense to you to get that gas can, right?

ARIAS: Yes, in hindsight I realized it didn`t make sense.

MARTINEZ: All right. So why is it -- are you -- why is it then, ma`am, that you showed up with three gas cans in Salt Lake City?


STEPHENS: Overruled.

NURMI: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) question, as well.

STEPHENS: Approach, please.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Quick side bar. Let`s debate it with our expert panel. How`s the prosecutor doing? Jordan Rose, attorney, in Arizona?

JORDAN ROSE, ATTORNEY: Fantastic. This prosecutor is killing it. I mean, all of the questions here are like, you know, what, are you a liar, are you promiscuous, are you lying to me? And here the prosecutor`s showing she`s lying all over the place. It`s a wonderful day for -- for prosecution.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Rene Sandler for the defense, how`s he doing?

RENE SANDLER, ATTORNEY: It`s not a wonderful day for the prosecution. It`s a great day for the defense. This prosecutor went right back to what didn`t work for him to begin with. It`s minutia. He`s not sticking to the main points that the jury wants to know about. Minutia. It`s in the win column for the defense.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I will say this, it`s like deja vu. We have gone over this material over and over. This is day 17 of Jodi on the stand. It`s wild, and we`re going right back into it.

MARTINEZ: You have three gas cans in Salt Lake City, ma`am?

ARIAS: I don`t even recall going to Salt Lake City. I went to West Jordan, and I...

MARTINEZ: Hold on. First let`s break that down. You`re saying you don`t ever even remember going to Salt Lake City ever on June 6 of 2008.

ARIAS: I don`t recall where the city limits end and begin. But to answer the gas can question, I went to Mesa with two gas cans.

MARTINEZ: Well, you did go to Salt Lake City, right?

ARIAS: I was in the vicinity. I went to Sandy I think and West Jordan.

MARTINEZ: You did visit an individual by the name of Ryan Burns, right?

ARIAS: That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: And during that time, before you left Salt Lake City, you left Salt Lake City area in the very early morning hours, right?


MARTINEZ: You filled up with gas, right?

ARIAS: I think I did. I don`t know.

MARTINEZ: Well, let`s look. Let`s start looking at this.

And in fact, ma`am, we`ll take a look at Exhibit 237.017. You see "SLC"?


MARTINEZ: You don`t have any doubt that stands for Salt Lake City, Utah, does it?

ARIAS: No, I don`t doubt that.

MARTINEZ: And that`s Tesoro, right? That is a gas station, right?


MARTINEZ: And you filled -- you put some gasoline in there, right?


MARTINEZ: Look down there. It does have your name on it, right?


MARTINEZ: And if we look at Exhibit 237.016. Salt Lake City, right?


MARTINEZ: And -- you see your name right there?


MARTINEZ: So you were in Salt Lake City, first of all, to establish that, right?

ARIAS: OK, yes.

MARTINEZ: And you were there in the early morning hours, right?

ARIAS: I left Ryan`s house in the early morning hours so...

MARTINEZ: Well, let`s -- just make sure that we have the time, 237.016. See the time there?


MARTINEZ: What time does it indicate that you were putting gas in the car, right?

ARIAS: Yes, 3:57.

MARTINEZ: Right, and it does tell us here that you went to pump No. 2, right?


MARTINEZ: Put in 10.672 gallons, right?


MARTINEZ: And the price for each one was 3.85 per gallon, right?


MARTINEZ: And was $41.18, right?


MARTINEZ: Then at -- Exhibit 237.017, same gas station, see that?


MARTINEZ: You see the date and the approval time?


MARTINEZ: That`s 4:05 in the morning, correct?

ARIAS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: And on this one, it`s $36.98, right?


MARTINEZ: And it talks about that you`re at pump two again and it`s 9.853 gallons, right?

ARIAS: That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: You actually put in more gas, though, didn`t you?

ARIAS: I don`t know.

MARTINEZ: Well, then let`s take a look at -- you had a bank account at Washington Mutual, didn`t you?

ARIAS: Yes, I did.

MARTINEZ: And, in fact, we have some receipts here that talk about you having an account with Washington Mutual. In fact, you had two of them, right?

ARIAS: Yes, a business and a personal.

MARTINEZ: Two thirty-seven point oh-oh-five. You see that?


MARTINEZ: There`s an account. There`s a deposit. That`s your account, right?

NURMI: I`m going to object. This is beyond the scope of the questions.

STEPHENS: Overruled.


ARIAS: That`s my account.

MARTINEZ: And then you also had another account, 237.006. And we`ve talked about this exhibit, right, before?

ARIAS: Um, yes, I think so.

MARTINEZ: Washington Mutual account, right?


MARTINEZ: And there are records that Washington Mutual keep, don`t they?


MARTINEZ: Aware of that?


MARTINEZ: And there are statements that they send out to you, don`t they?

ARIAS: Um, I think I got them online usually.

MARTINEZ: But there are statements that are prepared, whether they`re online or they`re sent out, right?

ARIAS: Yes. That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: So go ahead and take a look at the exhibit. Whether or not you recognize that, it`s your statement from Washington Mutual.

ARIAS: Yes, it does look like that.

MARTINEZ: And what`s the time period, ma`am? Should say in the upper right-hand corner.

ARIAS: It says June 1 through June 30.

MARTINEZ: All right. Let me have it back.

Let`s take a look at Exhibit 523.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Stay right there. You will not miss a minute of the grilling of Jodi Arias. A short break, and then we`re back into the courtroom with everything.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Prosecutor Juan Martinez getting his last shot at grilling this woman. Let`s go back into the courtroom as he tries to corner Jodi Arias. Let`s listen.

MARTINEZ: Let`s take a look at Exhibit 523. That`s your parents` home, correct?

ARIAS: No, that`s my grandparents` home.

MARTINEZ: That`s your grandparents` home. And that`s where you were living, right?


MARTINEZ: Page two, there are three transactions that I want to focus into Tesoro. And Tesoro is the -- 237.016, that`s the merch slip. You see that?


MARTINEZ: Two-thirty-seven point zero-one-seven. That`s also Tesoro. Do you see that?

ARIAS: Two-thirty-seven -- what did you say?

MARTINEZ: Tesoro, do you see that at the very top?

ARIAS: Oh, yes, I`m sorry.

MARTINEZ: OK. And so when we`re talking about this exhibit, do you see three transactions to Tesoro in Salt Lake City, Utah, correct?

ARIAS: Yes, I do.

MARTINEZ: You were in Salt Lake City, Utah, on June 6 of 2008, weren`t you?


MARTINEZ: You just told me that you were leaving there in the morning, that area, to come back to Yreka, correct?

ARIAS: That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: You told us previously that you were going to come back so that you could go back to work, correct?


MARTINEZ: And if you take a look at this purchase here from Tesoro, you see the amount here?


MARTINEZ: How much is that, ma`am?

ARIAS: Thirty-six 98.

MARTINEZ: OK. Let`s take a look at exhibit No. 237.017. How much is the amount?

ARIAS: Thirty-six 98.

MARTINEZ: It`s the same station, the same amount, correct?

ARIAS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: That`s the same purchase, right?


MARTINEZ: And exhibit No. 237.016 is for how much, ma`am?

ARIAS: Forty-one 18.

MARTINEZ: And if we go down here, you see that right there?


MARTINEZ: How much is that?

ARIAS: Forty-one 18.

MARTINEZ: That`s the same amount, right?

ARIAS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: And then you do have, though, a third transaction there. Do you see that?


MARTINEZ: Nineteen 65, right?


MARTINEZ: Ma`am, if we go back to exhibit No. 237.017, how much was the price per gallon that you bought that day?

ARIAS: It looks like $3.85.

MARTINEZ: And nine-tenths, right?


MARTINEZ: Ma`am, if you take this amount per gallon, 3.859. Three point 8-5-9, $3.859 per gallon, and you divide it into this amount of $19.65, do you know how much -- what that division would indicate?


MARTINEZ: Would it surprise you that it would indicate that it`s 5.09? Would that surprise you?


MARTINEZ: So you make three purchases here, don`t you?


MARTINEZ: You also -- there are two purchases for sure that we know that are for gas, right?

ARIAS: That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: The other one is for $19.65, right?


MARTINEZ: If we do the mathematics, that equals five gallons of gas...

NURMI: Objection...

MARTINEZ: If you were putting gas --

NURMI: Objection, argumentative. There`s no testimony that it was gas purchased.

STEPHENS: Overruled.

What was your question?

MARTINEZ: The question is a mathematical one, ma`am. Isn`t it true that if you divide $19.65 by $3.859 that you would get 5.09?

ARIAS: If the math is correct, then yes.

MARTINEZ: And you did indicate to us that you did buy a third can in Salinas, didn`t you?

ARIAS: Yes, I did.

MARTINEZ: And you bought that in Salinas, and it was a five-gallon gas can, right?

ARIAS: That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: Ma`am, would it surprise you that the Wal-Mart in Salinas does not have any record of any refund...

NURMI: Objection...

MARTINEZ: ... back on June 2 when you claim you bought this, or June 3 when you claim you bought this.

NURMI: Objection, beyond the scope.

STEPHENS: Approach, please.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: The prosecutor trying to show the way she filled up those gas cans was to avoid being placed in Arizona. We`re going to take a very short break. You won`t miss a second inside court. Stay right there. Back on the other side.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Prosecutor Juan Martinez trying to pin Jodi Arias down, but she keeps slipping and sliding. Let`s listen in.

STEPHENS: We continue.

MARTINEZ: Ma`am, exhibit No. 237.008. Wal-Mart receipt. You see this, correct?


MARTINEZ: This is the Wal-Mart that you went to in Salinas, and you purchased a five-gallon gas can, right? You told us that before, right?

ARIAS: Yes, I did.

MARTINEZ: And you were there on June 3rd of 2008 at 3:22 in the afternoon when you made that purchase, right?

ARIAS: That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: Would it surprise you to find out -- and you said that you got a refund in cash, didn`t you?

ARIAS: Yes, I did.

MARTINEZ: Would it surprise you that Wal-Mart does not have any record of any refund for a gas can on that date of June 3rd of 2008?

ARIAS: Considering that I returned it, that would surprise me.


ARIAS: Considering that I returned it, that would surprise me.

MARTINEZ: It would surprise you?


MARTINEZ: Because you claim you returned it on that day, right?

ARIAS: Yes, I did, and I received cash for it.


ARIAS: And I received cash for it.

MARTINEZ: And you received cash. OK.

You also told us that you received an injury to your right finger at Casa Ramos. Do you remember that?


STEPHENS: Approach, please.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. That`s a brief sidebar. Just to bring you up to date. What`s happening is that the prosecutor is trying to prove the point of premeditation. Trying to show that she didn`t want to be caught filling up in Arizona, which is where the victim lived.

This means that he believes she filled up, got gas cans, filled up in California, went to Arizona, killed him, then went to Utah, but she has no receipts from Arizona because she didn`t want to be caught there, because she plotted this killing, allegedly, according to the prosecutor. So that`s what he`s trying to prove with these most studied receipts in history, practically.

Let`s go back in the courtroom.

MARTINEZ: ... that you said that you damaged your right finger. During a glass breaking incident at Casa Ramos. Do you remember telling us that?

ARIAS: It was not glass breaking. I jammed it on a metal ledge.

MARTINEZ: All right. So at Casa Ramos, you injured your finger, right?


MARTINEZ: And do you remember that you told us, well, no paperwork was filled out, right?

ARIAS: That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: And you told us that no paperwork was filled out -- was because this was a really small business, right?

ARIAS: I said it was -- did I say small business? Private business, yes.

MARTINEZ: Well, no, private -- most businesses are private -- are you saying now that -- that you meant to say it was a private business? Is that what you`re saying?

ARIAS: No, it was a small business. There are only, like, maybe four or five restaurants.

MARTINEZ: So you think that four or five restaurants are a small business, right?

ARIAS: Usually, I work for chains that have thousands of restaurants, so that`s a very small business, yes.

MARTINEZ: So to you this is a small business, because you believe that there are only four -- four locations, right?

ARIAS: There may have even been less than. I don`t know. I think there were very few in the Northern California area.

MARTINEZ: And just because they`re a small business, they do not have to comply with reporting accidents on the job is what you`re telling us, right?

NURMI: Objection, calls for speculation, irrelevancy.

STEPHENS: Sustained to that question.

MARTINEZ: Ma`am. Actually, didn`t they actually have -- back then, didn`t they actually have 13 restaurants?

NURMI: Objection, calls for speculation, asked and answered.

STEPHENS: Overruled.

ARIAS: Not that particular franchise. They only had a few. I know that -- my understanding is that it`s a family of two brothers or cousins. They`re related somehow. And that they own a chain of a different type of restaurant in Oregon. And then the restaurants I worked for, there was just a few of them.

MARTINEZ: So you`re saying that the -- there may be two restaurants, then, that are called Casa Ramos, right?

ARIAS: No, not two. There were more than two, but there weren`t that many.

MARTINEZ: No, you`re saying is that -- that there`s -- that you`re drawing now a distinction between the ownership of the Casa Ramos restaurants, one being owned by one member of the family and one being owned by another member of the family, right?

NURMI: Objection, relevance, argumentative. Way beyond the scope of any of the questions.

STEPHENS: Overruled.

ARIAS: The other restaurants are called Azteca so yes, they`re completely different.

MARTINEZ: So when we talk about Casa Ramos, we`re actually just talking about, on the marquee, Casa Ramos, and your -- your belief is there`s only approximately four of those, right?

ARIAS: I only knew of four or five.

MARTINEZ: And because of their size, you told us, in response to a jury question, that even though you suffered this injury -- well, you did tell the manager about the injury, didn`t you?

ARIAS: I had to get a Band-Aid, yes.

MARTINEZ: Well, you did tell the manager about the injury, didn`t you tell us that?


MARTINEZ: And you did take a picture of that injury, right?


MARTINEZ: And we`ve seen that picture of that injury, right?


MARTINEZ: And you`re saying that, because of the type of business that it was, no claim had to be filed pursuant to the laws of the state of California, right?

ARIAS: That`s not what I`m saying. I said that that was my speculation as to why nothing was ever filled out.

MARTINEZ: You didn`t fill anything out, right?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. A very short break. We`re back with more on the other side. Stay right there.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s go back in the courtroom for the crescendo, the climax, of this massive marathon grilling session. Listen.

ARIAS: That was my speculation as to why nothing was ever filled out.

MARTINEZ: You didn`t fill anything out, right?

ARIAS: No, I didn`t.

MARTINEZ: The manager didn`t fill anything out, even though you told him about it, right?

NURMI: Objection, calls for speculation.

STEPHENS: Sustained.

MARTINEZ: You did talk to the manager about it, correct?

ARIAS: Not in great depth, I...

MARTINEZ: I`m not asking you right now -- yes or no, did you talk to the manager?

ARIAS: I asked him for a Band-Aid.

MARTINEZ: So are you now saying that you didn`t tell the manager that you hurt yourself on the job, is now what you`re telling us?

ARIAS: I`m not sure what was said. I just know I needed a Band-Aid quick, because it was busy and I was about to bleed a lot.

MARTINEZ: So it appears, from what you`re telling us now, is that you never indicated to him that you were injured on the job, then, as you previously told us.

ARIAS: Asking for a Band-Aid is an indication that I`m injured.


ARIAS: Asking for a Band-Aid seems to me is an indication that I`ve been injured.

MARTINEZ: No, but what I`m saying is specifically, previously, on your examination, you indicated that you did talk to the manager about your injury. Do you remember telling us that?


MARTINEZ: And during that conversation, you said that he knew you had injured yourself at work. Do you remember telling us that?

ARIAS: I don`t know what he knew. I just know that he knew I asked him for a band aid.

MARTINEZ: So now you never told him about injured on the job, you just asked for a band aid, right?

ARIAS: Yes. And I was holding my hand, putting pressure on it.

MARTINEZ: And you`re holding your hand putting pressure on it. And you`re saying he didn`t ask you anything about how you injured your hand at all, right?

KIRK NURMI, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Objection, calls for hearsay.


ARIAS: I only remember that we were very busy, in the middle of the rush and we didn`t have time to sit and discuss my hand.

MARTINEZ: I`m not asking you if you were busy. I`m asking you whether or not -- isn`t it true that he did not ask you, according to your statement, anything about how you suffered that injury?

ARIAS: That according to my statement, what you`re saying is not true, or it might be true but I don`t remember what was discussed regarding the injury. All I know is I hurt my hand. The skin folded back. I flipped it over, put pressure on it, went and found a manager, said, I need a band aid right away. There were tons of tickets coming through. I had a bazillion margaritas to make and it was busy and I needed a band aid. That`s all I know.

MARTINEZ: So you did not cut yourself on a margarita glass though, right?

ARIAS: No, I didn`t cut myself on glass. It was a jam from metal.

MARTINEZ: Right. Previously do you remember telling us in response to a jury question that you had cut yourself on a margarita glass?

NURMI: Objection --


STEPHENS: Overruled, you may answer.

ARIAS: I didn`t say margarita glass in reference to cut trauma. I caught my hand on a glass at Travis` house.

MARTINEZ: I`m talking about Casa Ramos. I`m not talking about Mr. Alexander`s house. I`m talking about Casa Ramos. You`re saying that you injured your finger, your right ring finger, on something other than glass, correct?


MARTINEZ: And you didn`t tell the manager about the way this occurred, even though it occurred while on the job, right?

ARIAS: I don`t recall if it was discussed in detail or not.

MARTINEZ: And you`re the same person that previously testified today that you have a very good memory for details, right?


MARTINEZ: Except for that, you don`t remember that one, right?

ARIAS: I didn`t say it was perfect. I said it was good.

MARTINEZ: No, I`m not saying you said it was perfect. You yourself admitted that you have a good memory for details, right?

NURMI: Objection, argumentative. (inaudible)

STEPHENS: Overruled.

ARIAS: I don`t even know that I used details. I just said I think I have a good memory.

MARTINEZ: Judge, I`m done with Miss Arias.

STEPHENS: All right. Ladies and gentlemen no court tomorrow, Friday; no court Monday or Tuesday, the 11st and 12th. So we`ll see you back here on the 13th at 10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. on the 13th. Between now and then, remember the admonition. Are there any questions? We`ll see you next Wednesday. You are excused.

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN HOST: Oh, my gosh, whoa, bottom line, the prosecutor is trying to make the point it never happened in his opinion. She cut her hand killing Travis Alexander, not making a zillion margaritas at some restaurant.

All right, let`s debate it. Is this a brilliant grilling or enough already? Bring in our expert panel. I`m going to start with the defense, Rene Sandler, what say you?

RENE SANDLER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I say enough already -- enough. Move on. Let`s talk about the murder. Does he want to score some points with this jury and talk about what this case is about? Let`s move on. This is feeding right into the defense strategy -- collateral details inure to the defense, not the prosecution. That`s where prosecutors lose cases.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What do you say, Tanya Young Williams, celebrity spokesperson, National Domestic Violence Hotline -- you think this is brilliant or a bomb?

TANYA YOUNG WILLIAMS, CELEBRITY SPOKESPERSON, NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOTLINE: Well, I think that the jurors have proven that they have listened to the testimony very, very well. And they have their questions. They have their answers. I think it`s minutia. I think he`s overcompensating because he thinks they might have missed something.

But at the end of the day, it`s very clear with over 200 questions, they`ve asked what they needed to hear. I sat in the courtroom, Jane, don`t forget, and looked in juror`s eyes for over four months of a trial. And I can tell when they`re exhausted. They get it. Let`s move on already.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`re all exhausted. But it`s not just the prosecutor`s fault. Let`s go to Jordan Rose for the prosecution.


JORDAN ROSE, ATTORNEY: You know, before the jury questions, I would have said, "It`s minutia, he`s got to move on." But we listened to those jury questions, Jane, and my goodness, they picked up on every little detail. They clearly took more care and attention to all the lies than I would have ever thought. And so I think he is absolutely hitting her hard in the place that he needs to, to affect those jurors. And that was shown by the hundreds of questions.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: 200 questions.

ROSE: He`s showing she`s a liar. He`s repeating it.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And guess what, we just got breaking news just in. Turns out that they have still more questions. And those could be read. And then each side gets to question her after that.

I mean honestly there are marriages that have lasted less time than this woman has been on the stand at this point. A lot of hostile questions from the jurors, none more hostile than this one -- check this out.


STEPHENS: After all the lies you have told, why should we believe you now?

ARIAS: Lying isn`t typically something I just do. I`m not going to say that I`ve never told a lie in my life before this incident, but the lies that I`ve told in this case are -- can be tied directly back to either protecting Travis` reputation or my involvement in his death in any way because I was very ashamed of the death.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Selin Darkalstanian, our senior producer in court listened to these more than 200 questions from the jurors, many of them hostile and sarcastic. What did you take away because if they think she`s such a pathological liar, why ask her anything at all? Your thoughts -- your feeling as you`re listening to these questions.

SELIN DARKALSTANIAN, HLN SENIOR PRODUCER: We were listening to the questions all of them very skeptical, all of them saying, "If you were lying, why should we believe you now?" That was the big question that the entire courtroom took note of. And then all the other questions of, "Well, you didn`t have any injuries. You bumped your head on the floor and this guy was stabbed 29 times and dragged around the house."

Really, really skeptical of Jodi Arias, questioning her with hard- hitting questions but as the judge was asking the questions and she was answering, we could look at the jury box and they were writing more questions. They were passing them over to submit it into the jury box. So there`s a whole another slew of questions they have for her because as she`s answering them, they have more follow up questions.

I don`t know if they`re try to prove her wrong as she`s answering the questions but they`re writing more questions in that jury box. Unbelievable, Jane. The questions were in favor of the prosecution in my opinion.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, let me ask you a quick question though. As she`s answering the questions -- because she has an answer for everything, all right. So they`re questioning her fog. You say you have a fog, you don`t remember stabbing him but you remember this, you remember that, you remember that. When she answers, do they go, "mmm", or do they go like, "oh, God"? What`s the -- how is the jury responding to her answers?

DARKALSTANIAN: They are sitting back. They`re studying her face. As she`s answering, some jurors are arms crossed, leaning back, staring at her. Some are taking notes as she`s answering them. But most of them are studying her face. They`re studying her expressions. That is how this jury is reaction. They`re not -- you can`t see a lot of facial expression but you know that they`re studying her --


DARKALSTANIAN: -- their body language, they are looking at her.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Listen, Beth Karas, you have covered so many trials. I have never seen anything like this. By the way, 95 percent don`t think the jury`s buying Jodi`s story. But she`s on the stand 17 days; it`s now going to be 18, 19. They`re writing more questions. It`s like the Kafka novel, "The Trial" where the guy is going to trial but he never quite gets there. This is Kafka-esque. It`s surreal. It`s crazy. It`s out of control officially. I will declare it right now.

I mean you`ve covered so many trials. Have you ever seen anything like this?

BETH KARAS, CORRESPONDENT, "IN SESSION": Well, I`ve never seen anything like it with all of these elements: a beautiful young woman charged with a capital crime; a vicious murder that she`s charged with -- a vicious killing, I should say. And the state is facing -- they want to execute her. And the jury gets to ask questions and they`ve asked over 200 questions. All these elements together make it really fascinating. And of course all the sex and the salaciousness -- it`s just, you know, you can`t get away from it.

But regarding the jury questions, I`ve never seen anything like it. I`ve been doing research on states that do allow juror questions and the pros and cons. And it`s this kind of stuff that has been a con. It doesn`t happen very often that, you know, the trial can get delayed and bogged down with all these questions. But in the end, the pros win out because the questions are enlightening and it does help the jury understand, you know, probably will lessen the length of their deliberation.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Here`s my question. When you talk to somebody, you ask a question and they answer, you create a relationship of some kind. Now, 200 questions later, this jury, with more questions to come, has a relationship. Will that make it harder for them, despite their cynicism, to put her to death? We`re going to debate that on the other side.


STEPHENS: Did you ever voice any concern to Travis about being uncomfortable with some of his sexual fantasies?

ARIAS: Yes, there was one fantasy that he wanted to do which was pulling off on the side a freeway exit and having sex on the hood of a car. And I told him that that would be impossible. I couldn`t even think of an exit where that could be accomplished.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`re covering every moment of the Jodi Arias trial. More debate on the other side.

But we`re also working on the other stories you care about. So we`re closely following the searches for Baby Lisa, little Ayla and Isabel Celis. We are going to keep you posted on every single development of all those missing children cases right here, every weeknight 7:00 p.m. Eastern. This is the place to come because we care about missing children.

More Jodi Arias on the other side.



ARIAS: Sometimes we would argue and if sex followed that immediately after the argument, it signaled the end of the argument. There were times, like the fight where he wouldn`t let me leave, I left finally, and he called me to come back, and I came back and we had sex and we were done fighting. So it changed the mood, the atmosphere, the energy. And it put him in a better mood.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow that gives a whole new meaning to makeup sex -- such intimate and personal details. Of course the prosecutor thinks a lot of these are made up. But nonetheless, when you`re talking about sex with people, you develop a relationship, whether you want to or not.

200 plus questions with more to come -- I want to debate it with our expert panel. Has she forged some kind of relationship, however dysfunctional, with these jurors? And will it make it harder for them despite their skepticism to kill her in essence?

Let`s start with Jordan Rose, attorney, out of phoenix.

ROSE: She certainly struck a relationship. I think because of the jury questions, we know what that relationship is. It is a relationship of resentment. These jurors are resentful that they`ve had to sit here and listen to her lies and baloney coming out of this woman`s mouth.

And every single question that they asked was bad for her. It said, do you think we`re stupid? And do you think that we buy all this? Could you lie anymore? I mean, there was not one good question in the bunch. (inaudible) I don`t think it helps.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Rene Sandler for the defense.

SANDLER: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. These jurors clearly are taking their oath very, very seriously. And they dug in and are invested in this case.

Now, one thing I think is crystal clear from these juror questions is that Juan Martinez got a clear message and that is you better focus your redirect, your questions, your cross, on premeditation and intentional first degree murder. Or guess what, acquittal across the board.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I don`t know about acquittal. But I will say this, Tanya Young Williams, I was surprised. There were plenty of questions about her fog, which the jurors did not buy clearly. But they didn`t ask a lot about the premeditation aspect which is why Juan Martinez is coming back and hammering on the gas cans and all of this other stuff. Your thoughts Tanya.

YOUNG WILLIAMS: Well, I will say that -- I mean at the end of the day, the two elements that will either save her or kill her premeditation and domestic violence. I do think they`ve touched on premeditation and he`s working on that.

But I think it`s very strange that they`ve asked very few questions about domestic violence. That is her defense. Her only defense is self- defense using the battered woman`s syndrome. It sort of suggests to me they don`t buy it. If she doesn`t have this defense, then you`re looking at first degree or second degree -- but they`re not really believing that this woman was a battered woman. And that`s a big, big problem for her defense team.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s go to the phones. Jan, Kansas. Jan Kansas, your question or thought?

JAN, KANSAS (via telephone): Hi, hi, Jane. I`m going to be quick about this. But my God, is this Norma Desmond in "Sunset Boulevard" with this?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: "I`m ready for my close-up".

JAN: She`s -- yes, really. Then I got to thinking, you know, Truman Capote, you know, if he were alive, he`d be in his heyday. One thing is I haven`t heard any body experts so I kind of want to know what their take is on her performance. And one last thing that I want to know --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Well, guess what Jan -- I`m going to cut you off because you raise a good point. Susan Constantine, body language expert, what do you say about her demeanor on the stand?

SUSAN CONSTANTINE, BODY LANGUAGE EXPERT: Well, today, you know, when she was asked the question about why should we believe you now, you may have noticed that this fear came over her. She started to take a deep breath. It`s like the color just kind of washed out of her face and her mouth became dry. She had a hard time swallowing. She started to look down and she was feeding with her hand gestures.

And that`s all telling me, what, she`s very fearful, she`s losing control. She feels defeated. She at this point in time she feels she`s losing the battle.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Very interesting. I kind of got the same sensation. I think she`s finally beaten down. And these questions, it`s starting to dawn on her, OMG. The lady`s reference to Truman Capote, obviously "In Cold Blood", another heinous, heinous killing that he wrote; a true crime novel about that became like really the first true crime novel and a classic.

On the other side, we`ll continue to debate it.


STEPHENS: Why did you put the camera in the washer?

ARIAS: I don`t have memory of that. I don`t know why I would do that.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Time for Pet o` the Day. Send your pet pics to Tessa Lola, you are absolutely fabulous. And Misty -- sitting on a chair taking in the sun and nature. Isis -- glamorous, gorgeous, keep that fur. We don`t want anybody wearing it. Duvall, you are marvelous.



STEPHENS: Regarding shaking, memory, foggy reaction, number one, if you -- do you always have a reaction as you described when someone corrects or challenges you?

ARIAS: I do now. I`ve gotten a little bit better and a little bit stronger. It`s a condition that started, again in, November 2007 and continued. It continues to this day.

STEPHENS: How is it possible you remember such details from those days if you had a foggy memory?

ARIAS: The fog or the confusion only begins when he starts screaming.

STEPHENS: Did you do anything to the gun such as cock it, slip off the safety, manipulate a slide or anything prior to it going off?

ARIAS: I don`t know. Probably not. I just grabbed it and pointed it is what I remember.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: The largest number of questions of one thing were about this one thing, the so-called fog that Jodi Arias went into after she shot Travis, and she can`t remember, she says, the 29 times she stabbed him and how she slit his throat. Clearly, it would appear, the jurors are not buying this fog.

Let`s debate it. Rene Sandler, you`re for the defense. You got to admit, that`s bad for Jodi Arias.

SANDLER: It is. And conceding that that lapse of memory on very, very critical facts is difficult for the defense to overcome but it`s setting up testimony of experts which I do disagree with your other expert. I think the jurors have bought into the defense theory of domestic violence, hence their questions about how did she feel after sex, how did she feel in these other relationships.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, Tanya, you disagree. I see you shaking your head.

YOUNG WILLIAMS: I disagree because if you`re not a victim of domestic violence, you would want to ask more questions. They`re not going down that path with her. They`re spending a lot of time on what happened. This isn`t a whodunit case and I think it`s very interesting that they keep asking her questions. How did you do this? Why did you do this? Which in some way, must correlate to them what she did afterwards and her state of mind. And that has nothing to do with domestic violence.


SANDLER: What about the sex questions though?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`ll continue this debate on the other side.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Quick round robin, given these juror questions, what do you think the verdict will be starting with Jordan Rose?

ROSE: In life, you tend to get what you deserve. And she is going to be put to death.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tanya Young Williams.

YOUNG WILLIAMS: She will not be put to death -- murder in the first degree.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And Rene Sandler.

SANDLER: Second degree.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And Beth Karas, we have about ten seconds. Well, my understanding, I`ll answer this question myself. Second degree is something like 10 to 22. She`s done four years behind bars. That`s something to think about, too. That could be potentially a short sentence.

So we have the gamut. It`s not just guilty or innocent or guilty or not guilty. It`s potentially the death penalty and then as you go down, life but maybe even 10 to 20.

Nancy next.