Return to Transcripts main page


Jodi Arias Trial Week 13 Recap

Aired March 29, 2013 - 20:00   ET




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jealousy, anger, fear, fear of being alone. You`re angry at him for not keeping you in his life. I don`t know. That`s why I`m trying to figure it out. There are so many motives with you.

ALYCE LAVIOLETTE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EXPERT: There was reference to a particular woman and his manipulation of that woman. There was information about Mr. Alexander calling Ms. Arias a skank and then acting like it was a joke. There was information about the way he ignored her in public places and would not allow her to put pictures of them up in places where other people could see them, just basic ways that he treated her, or they felt he mistreated her, that they actually said -- well, that they indicated were abusive, that he called rough around the edges, and they called abusive.


NANCY GRACE, HOST: Week 13 of the Jodi Arias murder one trial, in my mind, was a real shift in the trial for the defense. Granted, it started off with the end of Richard Samuels`s testimony, Dr. Dick Samuels, the psychologist that was essentially decimated on cross-examination by prosecutor Juan Martinez.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You don`t have any memory problems, do you?


Hold on a second. I guess the actual test is not here. And -- I had it (INAUDIBLE) together. Ah! Wait. No. I`ll have to look at my -- my notes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Take it out of your folder so that I can mark the PDS (ph) test along with the raw data.

SAMUELS: I`m sorry? Oh, OK. I don`t have that with me here. I apologize. I`m afraid I left it home.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why don`t have you it with you?

SAMUELS: I must have left it on my desk. That is the hand scoring sheet.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why was there a six there present at first, and then you changed it?

SAMUELS: I added them up incorrectly.

I don`t remember. So (INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So are you confessing or saying that you were wrong in writing that down?

SAMUELS: I don`t know. It would have been helpful to corroborate, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And that wasn`t done in this case, correct?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That was a mistake, then?

SAMUELS: Hold on a second.


GRACE: It could really not have been any worse than it was. It was - - that was the defense`s fault for bringing him on. I mean, he was accused of everything from an inappropriate relationship or feelings, romantic feelings toward Arias...


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, you said with regard to that, the trauma doesn`t matter, right?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With regard to this, by its own definition, it says "affects (ph) to avoid thoughts, feelings or conversations association with trauma," right?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It doesn`t say first or second story, does it?

SAMUELS: No, it doesn`t. It talks about the trauma of being either at one point an observer to the killing or being the actor in the killing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. So when you start trying to make this distinction with me about, She doesn`t know whether or not she killed him, it`s just trauma that we`re talking about, whether or not it was her that killed him or somebody else, right?

SAMUELS: That`s the point that (INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So we get back to the "48 Hours" interview, when you`re saying -- you -- I told -- we discussed this, and the question was, Well, isn`t it true that she discussed thoughts, feelings, conversations associated with the trauma in the "48 Hours" interview?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So again, that speaks against what`s in number one, doesn`t it.

SAMUELS: I`m sorry. I don`t see it that way.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. You wouldn`t see it that way because you have feelings for the defendant, right?

SAMUELS: I beg your pardon, sir!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Objection, argumentative (INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: May we approach, your honor?



GRACE: ... to basically fudging test results.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Am I asking you anything about whether or not these numbers are relevant to your finding that -- or diagnosis of PTSD? I`m not asking you that you, am I.

SAMUELS: No, you`re not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you decided to rescore it, and on one, the later one, you -- the number of the symptoms, you get 15, right?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: While in the earlier one, the number of the symptoms -- number of symptoms is 17, right?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You got it wrong both times, didn`t you.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And in fact, had you rescored it again, you would have found that you would have gotten a third number, right?

SAMUELS: That`s correct, which I have here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Am I asking you if you have it there?

SAMUELS: No, you`re not asking me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So as it turns out, you -- when you do the first one, which is exhibit number 550, so that we`re clear, you got a score of 17, right?

SAMUELS: Sir, the numbers had nothing to do with what I reported.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, am I asking you if the numbers are important?



SAMUELS: May I answer?


SAMUELS: OK. I`m sorry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, I`m not asking if the numbers are important, I`m just asking you if the numbers match here.

SAMUELS: No, they do not -- they do not match.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so on exhibit 150, you have a 17, and at that time, when you calculated that, you had everything you needed in front of you, right?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You had -- you had the raw data, which is in exhibit number 534, and you sat down and you started to do this hand scoring, right?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You were not pressured by time, right?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So then when you went on vacation, you decided to rescore it again, and that`s 535. And at that time, you said, Well, I didn`t have all of the data, and so I came up with a score of 15, right?

SAMUELS: I had all of data.


GRACE: So you see that at the beginning of the week, and mercifully, his testimony came to an end.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You weren`t successful with the records and the reports, were you. You weren`t accurate.

SAMUELS: A typographical error is not equivalent to being a neutral and passive listener.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m not asking about that. I`m asking, although you had training, you still failed in being accurate.


GRACE: But then there was the sea change with Alyce LaViolette.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Someone who starts to blames themselves, their own character -- what does that do to them and their ability to leave?

LAVIOLETTE: It makes it very difficult to leave because you don`t even think you`re worthy. You don`t think you`re worthy. And I think the other part that`s tough is that when you blame yourself, it`s harder to ask for help because you`re so ashamed. What it does is add to the shame and humiliation, and shame and humiliation will keep people stuck.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In the same place?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The hostage syndrome.



LAVIOLETTE: Well, the hostage syndrome was named after a bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden, and it was -- there was a bank robbery. Tellers were held hostage over a period of time, and over this period of time, they developed some characteristics, and later I think it was two out of the three tellers, testified on behalf of the hostage takers. And they found this to be true in skyjacking and they found it to be true for men and women, both, that they sort of fell into these categories, where they started identifying with the aggressor.


GRACE: Now, when I try cases, I had two theories, and it depended really on the facts of the case. But I would either start off with my best witness, or end with my best witness. And if I couldn`t do it one way or the other, I would put the second best first and the best last.

You want to start with a great impact and get off on the right foot with the jury. You want to end with something stunning, something resounding, something that will make an impact on the jury that they will live with for the rest of their lives, or at least through jury deliberations.


LAVIOLETTE: When they go up to bed, after everybody`s in bed, Mr. Alexander sneaks into Ms. Arias`s room and starts to kiss her. She says that she has felt very uncomfortable, but she also is very attracted to him and doesn`t want him to lose interest in her. And he begins to take her clothes off, which he does, and performs oral sex, and so they have oral sex.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right. And at this point in time, she`s -- she`s certainly not of the Mormon faith, right, at this point?

LAVIOLETTE: She`s not Mormon, no.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. And did -- did she speak to you about her being uncomfortable with that type of sex?

LAVIOLETTE: She said she was uncomfortable because she thought it was too fast, too soon, but she didn`t exactly know how to stop it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right. And she ultimately went through with it, obviously, right?

LAVIOLETTE: She did. She did go through with it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The fact that she was uncomfortable with it, too fast, too soon, but goes through with it, what does -- does that -- is that important to you?

LAVIOLETTE: Well, the way it would be important to me is to look at it in a broader context. But certainly, I think one of the things that happens is that for many young women, it is very difficult to say no, especially if they`re attracted to someone.


GRACE: And that is what the defense, we think, is doing, that they are ending with the testimony, the very solid and believable, credible witness, and likable, Alyce LaViolette.



ARIAS: You should have at least done your makeup, Jodi girl! (SINGING) It might change my memory -- goodness.


ARIAS: (SINGING) And I can`t breathe until you`re resting here with me...


GRACE: Now, as a crime victim and a former felony prosecutor, I -- I don`t enjoy saying that I like a witness for the defense, but LaViolette is likable. She`s smart. She`s articulate.


LAVIOLETTE: She met Mr. Alexander at a Starbucks, and he gave her the book of Mormon at that time and challenged her to read it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let me ask you this, Ms. LaViolette. Time-wise, she had just met him how long ago?

LAVIOLETTE: I think within a two-week period, I believe, at this point.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. So within a two-week period, they had oral sex, is that right?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And then he is stopping by the Starbucks. Is that where she lives?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. So he`s meeting her in her town and giving her the book of Mormon?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right. And what does he do? After he gives her the book of Mormon, he does -- he said -- he challenges her?

LAVIOLETTE: He challenges her to read the book of Mormon.


LAVIOLETTE: And then he tells her that he`s horny, and they have oral sex. She performs oral sex on him.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Where does this happen?

LAVIOLETTE: In a parking lot.


LAVIOLETTE: Oh, yes, in a car in a parking lot.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. And after she performs or gives him oral sex, does he leave?

LAVIOLETTE: He does. He gets in his car and he leaves.


GRACE: She uses a -- a tool that I often use and used in front of juries, and that is, as I call them, parables. They`re examples, they`re anecdotes, stories to explain a point because it`s easier for anybody to grasp. And I see her doing that.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In what ways did you read about Jodi`s father being controlling?

LAVIOLETTE: That he was jealous and didn`t want her to spend time with her family members, particularly with her sisters.


LAVIOLETTE: I`m sorry. Didn`t want Jodi`s mother to spend time with the sisters, that he`s on dialysis and there`s a schedule for going to the hospital, and that he would sometimes manipulate and wait until the last minute so that she couldn`t go, for instance, to hear Jodi sing the national anthem when she went to sing the national anthem, to attend her -- I believe her mother`s funeral or grandmother`s funeral.


GRACE: I see LaViolette as a sea change in the defense case. Many of the jurors have put down their pens and pencils and they are totally listening to her.

Here`s the problem with LaViolette. As educated and as experienced as she is, much as I may like her, she`s basing her analysis on everything that Jodi Arias has told her. That`s like building your house on the sand instead of on solid rock. It falls. It cannot withstand cross- examination.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And when she`s doubting herself and feeling like she did something dumb because she was used, does that speak to self-blame?

LAVIOLETTE: It speaks to self-blame. It speaks to self-doubt, as well.


GRACE: What do I expect prosecutor Juan Martinez to do to LaViolette? Now, after what he has done to every other defense witness, I would expect a slice and dice. However, since LaViolette is likable and has a certain degree of integrity, he may approach her differently on cross-exam. He may be more respectful to her. He could go either way, and either way would be acceptable to cross-examine her because this is not about her. It`s not about any other witness. This is about a murder. And he`s got to do what he`s got to do. And whether that includes decimating LaViolette -- he may have to do that, depending on what headway she makes with that jury. That`s what I anticipate.

But this week, all in all, has been a good week for the defense because of LaViolette.



ARIAS: I don`t know, but if I am -- if I go to trial for this and if I`m convicted for this, whoever did this is going to be sitting very pretty somewhere, glad that it wasn`t them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And it`s my job to make sure that an innocent person does not go to jail. But I don`t see an innocent person sitting in front of me.




ARIAS: I know it`s obvious I was there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, it`s obvious that you committed a crime, that you hurt Travis.

ARIAS: There`s no reason...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, I know that you did this, and you refuse to tell me why.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I thought you were asleep.

ARIAS: I went home and crashed. I had been crying and had a migraine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So when did you go to sleep? And you don`t say, I`m upset, we need to talk or anything like that, do you.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You say you have a really bad headache, that you can barely move, right?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it`s interesting that she was on the stand for something like 18 days and never had a migraine, but has migraines now. I don`t know. She tells so many lies that the problem is, I think a lot of people don`t believe anything she says now.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You know, it`s possible she has a headache. I know that she -- well, I`ve heard that she does have to be courtroom every day because she is on medication for migraines. You know, I`ve had migraines. It`s very possible.


GRACE: Then this week, week 13, which is typically bad luck, brought about Arias having the entire courtroom cleared because she claims she has a headache because the defense claims she needs a power bar and a nap.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ms. Arias has not, throughout the course of this trial, had access to lunches. The sheriff`s office has not provided them to her. And my first request is that this court order that they do so.


GRACE: Well, I was stunned, stunned! I have seen witnesses and defendants and lawyers limp into the courtroom -- limp into the courtroom. I have seen people come from their grandmother`s funeral and come to court! And they cancel the entire court day, sending home witnesses, bailiffs, jurors, the judge, the court reporter, you name it, because she has a headache?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... related to the migraines she`s having and the feeding...


GRACE: That -- that`s disturbing to me when you compare his gunshot wound to the head to her headache because she needs a power bar? I mean, she danced to the music. It`s time to pay the piper.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... therein that we -- and I misspoke a little bit earlier, about 4:20, but as long as we`re out of here, done by 4:30, as opposed to letting it go past, we should be fine in that regard, as long as we do make 4:30 a drop dead time.


GRACE: To me, it was a tactical maneuver. We saw it happen in tot mom, Casey Anthony.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ms. Anthony is ill. We are recessing for the day. Neither the state nor the defense has any comments concerning her illness, nor do they want to be interviewed. I would ask that you preserve their privacy as they leave the courthouse today.


GRACE: We`ve seen it in many, many cases when either side -- typically the defense -- doesn`t like the way something`s going or they want to buy some time for whatever reason, they cancel court, this time because Arias had a headache.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you mean by change in victim`s personality?

LAVIOLETTE: Depending where the victim is when they get in the relationship and how vulnerable they are when they get in the relationship, to intimidate, and you know, change their personality.

ARIAS: I had a nervous breakdown once.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Taking any medication or anything?



LAVIOLETTE: People who are abused feel worse about themselves. Their apprehension is also going up. So as your self-esteem goes down, you become another person.

ARIAS: No memory of stabbing him.

I just couldn`t believe what had happened and that I couldn`t take anything back, I couldn`t rewind the clock.

I would like to say something to his family. (INAUDIBLE) write them a letter.

I wrote them a letter. I don`t know if it`ll ever make it them. I don`t know if they`ll even read it. But that`s the only attempt that I`ve made.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You actually sent Ms. Sarvey (ph) irises, right?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you, as her (ph) killer, then, are sending these items to them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why is everybody saying that you are capable of hurting him? Everybody says that.

ARIAS: I don`t know why...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So don`t tell me that you`re not capable.

ARIAS: I don`t even hurt spiders.


GRACE: Part of the defense, as we learn through Dick Samuels, was that Arias behaved the way she did because she did not want to confront what had happened. She did not want to confront the fact that she killed Travis Alexander. She didn`t want to think about it. She didn`t want to think of him dead, nothing.


SAMUELS: She would remember details of the beginning of the trauma, but -- and I don`t know how much details you`ve heard in terms of her recollection in other testimony because of the rule of exclusion. I`m not aware of what others have testified to. But what she told me was that she snapped back into reality when she was near the Hoover Dam and discovered herself covered with blood.

That`s the end of the incident that I`m referring to, when the chemicals in the brain drop down to a level where her hippocampus and her conscious awareness were able to kick back into normal. That`s the end of the event, not the fact that the -- the stabbings may have been over. She was still in an acute stress reaction at that time.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: "Can the acute stress occur if someone plans to kill, versus defending themselves when in danger?"

SAMUELS: Possible, but not probable.


GRACE: However, a pattern of behavior following his murder shows she did confront it. She embraced it, thoughts of Travis. While she was in her fog, wandering in the desert, she thought to -- she wasn`t thinking about the murder, then why would she have gotten rid of the murder weapon?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you do this, you have the water, cleaning the blood off yourself, and you`re -- do you know -- did you stop and clean yourself up before you disposed of the weapons or after you disposed of the weapons, or is it all one stop?

ARIAS: Well, I don`t remember what I -- what happened to the knife, so -- it wasn`t in the car with me. The gun was when I stopped, and the rope was after that, another stop.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you got to this point in time, then...


GRACE: Why would she have thrown out the gun?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did you do with the gun?

ARIAS: I never had it in my possession.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tell me. You did.

ARIAS: Never. I don`t have it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You don`t have it. People say that when they know of the gun. They`ve seen the gun, they`ve touched the gun. You don`t have it.

ARIAS: I saw the gun.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. But you had it before. You`ve touched it. You`ve used it. I know you have.

ARIAS: I don`t think I`ve ever even fired a gun. I`ve done bows and arrows but not guns, and water guns, not a real gun. The gun that I got on Friday was never used.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you`re going to continue to tell me that you didn`t do this to him.

ARIAS: I did not kill Travis.


GRACE: And got rid of the rope.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I asked you, Well, did the knife go in the bedroom? And you said, I don`t know. Do you remember telling me that?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I asked you if it went into the closet, and you said you didn`t know, right?

ARIAS: That`s right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You said you didn`t know where that knife had gone, right?

ARIAS: I said that I didn`t remember where it ended up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right, which means you don`t know where it was, right? After the first time, you don`t know where it was, right? That`s what you said.

ARIAS: Yes, I can`t remember where it was placed after we cut the rope.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right, which is the point. You don`t remember where the knife was after it was used to cut the rope, right?



GRACE: If she wasn`t thinking, I`ve done a horrible thing, how can I cover it up, why would she have discarded the murder weapons and the accoutrements? Why?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: "Can you tell us where Jodi said she was when she was coming out of her fog after the killing?"

SAMUELS: She recalled going through a police or a border patrol checkpoint near the Hoover Dam. That`s when she came to, so to speak, and she was covered with blood. And then she said that she suddenly realized something terrible had happened.


GRACE: Why, if she didn`t want -- if she couldn`t think clearly that she had just murdered her lover, who she allegedly wanted to marry -- she couldn`t think about it, she mentally, physically could not think of what she had done, why could she think of cleaning up after the murder? If she couldn`t accept the murder, then how could she accept the cleanup? It`s a non sequitur. It does not follow.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: "You stated Jodi did not have control of what her mind was doing during the killing. If that is true, how do you explain her dragging Travis`s body and trying to clean up the crime scene?"

SAMUELS: The attempts to clean up the crime scene appear to be rather frenzied, disorganized, impulsive and not well planned or thought out. These are characteristics seen when someone is in a state of acute stress. You would predict that if someone had planned this terrible deed, that plans would have included cleaning up the crime scene in order to get away and reduce the risk of apprehension, but that was not the case in this particular incident.


GRACE: Why would she take all the bed sheets, the bloody bed sheets clearly full of DNA, and wash them? Why would she go through a three or five-step process to delete each photo? For each photo, there were three to five steps you had to go through -- I guess find the photo, hit the button, then hit delete, then get out of the trash can and then do the next -- I mean, it was a process to delete all of those photos, which are now state`s exhibits.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When he was in the shower, you began to snap photographs of him, correct?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you wanted to get the Calvin Klein look, right?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And before this time that you were taking photographs of him in the shower, you had not, based on your belief, ever deleted any images from that photograph -- from that camera, correct?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s not correct?

ARIAS: That`s not correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. Tell me when you deleted any images from that photograph between the time that he deleted the sex pictures and after he deleted the sex pictures and you began to take the photographs of him in the shower? Between that period of time, when did you delete photographs from that camera?

ARIAS: I can`t say definitively when, or even if, but I can`t say whether Travis did, either.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When? When did you delete anything from that camera?

ARIAS: Either of us could have deleted it.


GRACE: To drag him back into the shower, where the moisture and the cleanup would go unnoticed. She strategically picked the shower to do this, and then not using her fingertips, but using a cup to wash his body off with water, to then get rid of everything she saw that connected her to the killing, to actually put the knife possibly in the dishwasher or throw it out of the car, which is what I think she did with it because DNA would have shown up on that knife, if it were the murder weapon, in the dishwasher.


ARIAS: I have a vague memory of putting a knife in the dish washer. I`m just not sure if that`s the memory from June 4th or if I`m confusing that with a prior incident because I have done dishes in that house many times. And have mentioned that I do have a vague memory of doing that. So it`s been -- we did use his knife to cut the rope. So it`s possible that that knife went back into the dishwasher.



GRACE: Then on her sojourn through the desert, where she is still unable to accept or even think of the murder, she thinks to get rid of the murder weapon, the accoutrements, and then make multiple phone calls to Travis Alexander`s phone, leaving phony voicemails as if nothing`s wrong, distancing herself from the murder, acting as if everything was status quo, everything`s normal, leaving very normal, mundane messages about, Did you deposit this check, and so forth so on, and doing it over and over until she got it just right, knowing that Travis couldn`t pick (INAUDIBLE) knowing he was dead, rotting in the shower.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One of the other things that you did -- and you know, we were talking about protecting yourself. One of the other things that you did is that you immediately -- almost immediately -- when you say you come out of this fog, one of the first things that you do is you try to divert attention away from you, so that the police won`t think that you had anything to do with this killing, right?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And this fog that you were under, that you`re telling us about, is not so deep that it stops you from fabricating or attempting to fabricate evidence, right?

ARIAS: That would be correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And it`s not so deep that, according to you, you can stay on the telephone and know the prompt so that you can get the telephone message just right, according to you, right?

ARIAS: Well, just so that I wasn`t crying in the message, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. But you want the message to be just so, so that it sounds natural, right?

ARIAS: Yes, natural as possible.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. And you went to great lengths to do that, according to you, right?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the reason that you went to great lengths to do that was that so that if there was any suspicion, it wouldn`t be drawn to you, correct?

ARIAS: Not immediately, but that was the point, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. You wanted the police to look elsewhere, right?

ARIAS: I guess.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, no. You made the call knowing the reason why you made the call, right?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you really weren`t wanting to fabricate evidence, you would have just left whatever message instead of worrying about crying or whatever it was that you were worried about, right?

ARIAS: That`s right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so you called Mr. Alexander and you left him a message, right?



GRACE: Not only that, passing through a police checkpoint, calling friends and her next boyfriend, making up lies about where she was, why she didn`t show up on time. She knew she had done a horrible thing, that she had violated the number one rule, I`m sure amongst the Mormon religion, and that is, Thou shalt not kill.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have something to tell me, but you`re just so resistant. I know you`re afraid, but you`re already going through it right now. There`s no backing up. There`s no backing up to yesterday. There`s no backing up to that day. It`s already happened. And unfortunately, you`re going to have to face the consequences.

ARIAS: You know, if I did that, I would be fully ready to face the consequences. I`m not really for things like -- you know, I`m all for the 10 Commandments, Thou shall not kill, OK, but...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There`s no evidence to show anybody else did this. None.


GRACE: That had to be ringing, reverberating in her mind. Then to go to Ryan Byrnes`s home, act as if going was wrong, continue her lie, and literally hop on top of him in a sexual manner and straddle him -- I mean, all of this is with full consciousness, going to his memorial, writing an on-line tribute to him, talking to their mutual friends and acquaintances as if nothing had happened, clearly distancing herself from her lover`s murder.








UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He made observations of a juror seeing Mr. Martinez outside the courtroom, right?

JEAN CASAREZ, "IN SESSION": I did not. If I could explain, I will tell you the question posed to me and my answer that I gave.


CASAREZ: They were doing a segment on Mr. Martinez and the public wanting to shake his hand, wanting autographs, wanting pictures. And so I was asked as a correspondent and as an attorney, I believe, my thoughts on that. And I said that -- I see the video, and I said I have seen a juror just sitting outside the front door of the courthouse. I`ve seen them walk through the front doors. To me, jurors are sacred, but I can look because I have eyes.


CASAREZ: And I said my concern would be if a juror would see that. That would be my concern.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And based on your telling us that, you didn`t observe any jurors seeing that.

CASAREZ: No. But I have seen at least one juror outside, and I saw the video. I did not witness the video of Mr. Martinez with my own eyes. But I just said that, because many people were saying it was great and it was wonderful, and my thought was, legally speaking, my concern would be if a juror would see that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. These instances of Mr. Martinez and the people desiring to shake his hand or what have you, is that something you saw once or more than once?

CASAREZ: I never saw it personally.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You never saw it personally. You were...

CASAREZ: I saw video on the air. I never personally saw it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. So what you saw was what was on line, what was posted on line? Is that what you`re...

CASAREZ: On HLN, when they were doing a segment and they showed some video and then asked me a question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. So you were commenting on the video, not your personal observations.

CASAREZ: Correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. That`s all the questions I have.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Apart from the video that you were shown, you said you were shown a video and then you commentated on it yesterday. Have you seen any other videos of this taking place?

CASAREZ: Not that I can remember, no.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Thank you, your honor.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You may step down.



GRACE: Very often, jurors do not like experts because, typically, they have a superiority complex because they`ve got a ton of degrees. And nobody likes to be talked down to. Boom (ph). But there are exceptions to that. Juries, in my experience, love doctors, medical doctors, not shrinks so much, medical doctors. They love crime scene techs. They love detectives. They love fingerprint experts, anybody that`s doing any type of scientific comparison or analysis, DNA, because jurors are naturally curious and inquisitive, and they have, as all people, a huge capacity to learn and absorb information.

And when they`re hearing something new, like all of us, intriguing, like DNA -- deoxyribonucleic acid evidence -- or fingerprint evidence, like touch DNA, it`s all exciting. It`s interesting. They`ve seen some of it on "CSI" and other programs. And they really absorb that type of an expert much more than an expert that simply is a talking expert that goes -- drones on and on and on.

Also, exceptions are if the expert actually is likable, a likable doctor, shrink even, like LaViolette. She`s likable.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The question with regard to whether or not the Hugheses thought that Mr. Alexander had previously been abusive with women, is that important to you?

LAVIOLETTE: Yes, it is.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And does that help you to formulate an opinion, ultimately, about the type of relationship that this ended up to be?

LAVIOLETTE: Yes, it does.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And so in this e-mail, is there information contained in the e-mail about whether or not Mr. Alexander`s closest friends thought that he had issues with women?

LAVIOLETTE: Yes, there is.



GRACE: Sadly, she`s based her opinion on what Arias told her. But I don`t think that this -- I don`t think this jury`s going to turn away from LaViolette because of her personality as they do with Dick Samuels. I think in the end, they will turn from LaViolette because her testimony will not ring true.