Return to Transcripts main page


Jodi`s Trial Coverage

Aired April 22, 2013 - 21:00   ET


DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST: Good evening, everybody.

My co-host this week, psychologist Michelle Ward. She`s the host of "Stalked" on Discovery ID.

And tonight, we`ll answer this question: who warned Jodi Arias about Juan Martinez, and why did he warn her -- a little hint, he.

And we`ll talk about July 9th, and why that date is important to Jodi and other notorious criminals.

But, first, what is the jury thinking after hearing all of this? Take a look.


JENNIFER WILLMOTT, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So when somebody`s not alive, you can`t get any information from them. Is that what you mean?

WITNESS: From them directly, that`s correct, because they`re not alive.

WILLMOTT: And we see low dominance, right?


WILLMOTT: And low dominance means passiveness, doesn`t it?

WITNESS: I would have to look at exactly how the MMPI defines it. Would you like me to do that?

WILLMOTT: No. Dominance means that you dominate over somebody. Can you agree with that?


WILLMOTT: OK. So the fact that she was not elevated in things like aggression and dominance and hostility, that was not important to you?

WITNESS: Research doesn`t support low elevations --

WILLMOTT: I`m asking you a question Dr. DeMarte.

I just want you to answer the question.

JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: Ma`am, I`m asking you, yes or no? Yes or no? Did you consider the issue a secondary gain in this case?

WILLMOTT: You`re telling me that abuse is a pattern. So if it`s just one instant, is that not abuse?

WITNESS: I`d like to clarify. Can I speak?

WILLMOTT: It`s a yes or no question.

WITNESS: I don`t believe I can answer yes or no.

MARTINEZ: Do you remember being asked whether or not when you conducted these evaluations involving kids and women, whether or not you felt compassion? You remember that?


MARTINEZ: And as a result of this compassion that you may feel involving kids, did you bring them lollipops and presents?


MARTINEZ: Why not? You felt compassion.

WITNESS: That crosses the ethical guidelines. It`s inappropriate.

WILLMOTT: Do you still think that it was appropriate to purchase a gift for Jodi?

DR. RICHARD SAMUELS: There is no ethical guideline regarding purchasing a self-help book for a client that just met for the first time. I just happen to be a compassionate person.

WITNESS: She would engage in behaviors that again, to an outsider may be questionable as to how this would keep someone from abandoning them. For example she was found hiding behind a Christmas tree. She would --

WILLMOTT: Objection. Beyond the scope.

MARTINEZ: Whose Christmas tree?

WITNESS: At Mr. Alexander`s house.

MARTINEZ: Does the fact that she became a member of the LDS faith after two months, is that indicative of an identity disturbance issue or not?

WITNESS: It`s another data point.

JODI ARIAS, MURDER DEFENDANT: When a person is baptized into the church, they generally are able to choose the person to baptize them. And the reason I chose Travis was because he was very instrumental in bringing me into the church.

MARTINEZ: She talks about wanting to be married and then she says Travis is awesome, no doubt. Then she says, something about that.

WITNESS: After the memorial service, the records indicated that on the plane ride home, Ms. Arias exchanged phone numbers with another male, who she then called right when she came home after Mr. Alexander`s memorial service.


PINSKY: And joining us, attorney and Sirius XM Radio host, Jenny Hutt, attorney Mark Eiglarsh from, former prosecutor Loni Coombs, author of "You`re Perfect: And Other Lies Parents Tell."

Mark, breaking news, Jodi`s defense team is requesting another round of questioning. That`s right, everybody, this thing ain`t over, another round of questioning they want a -- what they call it, a surrebuttal, which I don`t think they often give in Arizona, do they?

MICHELLE WARD, CO-HOST: Well, I think in the rebuttal, I think if the prosecution brought up information that the defense hadn`t had an opportunity to deal with. I mean, it`s not uncommon. And actually, it`s their right to have one.

PINSKY: OK. All right. So, Mark, you`re saying that`s right.

Also they want manslaughter in the jury instructions. So tell me what they`re thinking.

MARK EIGLARSH, ATTORNEY: Well, they`re thinking that they have to get every lesser included offense. And a lesser included offense is, OK, if you don`t find for first degree murder, you go down the ladder. Second degree, OK, maybe you don`t have proof beyond reasonable doubt of that. Not that I think the jury is going to do that.

But then they want other options. Maybe they compromise. Jurors won`t agree, let`s say, on one charge, but they`ll all agree to some lesser charge. That`s what they`re hoping for.

I do not predict that`s what`s going to happen.

PINSKY: Loni, do you agree with that?

LONI COOMBS, AUTHOR: Yes, absolutely. A lot of people don`t realize that the jury instructions can be a very crucial part of the trial strategy because jurors have to do two things in the room. First, they have to decide what facts they believe and then they have to see how those facts apply to the jury instructions because it`s the jury instructions that tell them what the verdict is supposed to be.

I mean, it can be as simple as the defense wants to have enough options there. So, when they do compromise, if they do, which they`re not supposed to do, but Mark was alluding to this, they have more options to choose from to get them down from the first degree to something lower than that.

PINSKY: Jenny, any thoughts on whether this trial will ever end?


But, wait, Mark, I have a question for you. In terms of the surrebuttal thing. So, in other words, when the defense brought up that they said she had post-traumatic stress disorder, that didn`t open the door to her potential mental issues and that didn`t make it OK for the prosecution to bring up in a prosecution expert to then say it`s borderline personality?

EIGLARSH: Well, no, excellent question. It did bring up the right to have a rebuttal witness say, no, there is no post-traumatic stress disorder. What she did was she came over the top and she said, well, I think it`s borderline personality. The defense is saying, wait a second, we didn`t bring that up.

And let me say this. The only thing I want less than root canal and more kidney stones would be to hear this case go to trial again. I don`t want it. But that be being said, you want to give them an extra couple days or hours so we don`t have appellate issues that have merit and send this case back on appeal.

PINSKY: Right. And it seems like this judge is saying, yes to everything, specifically to avoid that sort of thing.

Interestingly, Michelle on PTSD and borderline, they are related. Do you think they`re going to get into that? It`s a little bit much for a program like this. But PTSD and borderline are very closely aligned.

WARD: I don`t think they`ll do that for this, no. I mean --

PINSKY: Well, if they start getting into this, that could be the weeds we dig into on the stand. Then somebody will need to rebut the differences --

WARD: Right.

PINSKY: -- and all the theoretical.

WARD: And we`ll be here all summer.

PINSKY: And we`ll be here all summer. Fantastic.

Now, another point here, Jodi Arias shares a July 9th birthday with two other murder defendants, O.J. Simpson and Amanda Knox.

EIGLARSH: So what?

PINSKY: Well, hold on a second, Mark --

HUTT: Foxy Knoxy.

PINSKY: By the way, I think she is not guilty, Knox that is. But O.J. acquitted, later convicted of armed robbery. Amanda accused, I think people are aware of killing her roommate and exonerated. They are both born in or all of them born in months under the sign of cancer.

Now, my producer has found a ton of information from surprisingly reputable sources that a lot of -- Michelle, you back me on this, or go after me -- they claim more criminals born under the sign of cancer or virtually, particularly violent criminals. Michelle, yes or no? No. That`s fine. That`s all good.

Who else, Jenny, you want to say something?

HUTT: Dr. Drew, first of all, my sister is a cancer and my daughter is a cancer.

PINSKY: Be careful, Jenny, you never know.

HUTT: Neither of them, right. And B, I can`t believe that you`re going to buy into this astrological baloney.

WARD: OK. But what did you guys say, I mean, for me, all Virgos are exactly the same. I`m a neuroscientist. I believe nothing of a zodiac. But aren`t --

PINSKY: Are you married to one or something?

WARD: No. By choice though.

EIGLARSH: Are we really doing this?

PINSKY: No, we`re not. We`re stopping it.

EIGLARSH: Are we really doing this?

PINSKY: I`m going to stop it right there.


HUTT: That`s conditioning and the power of suggestion.

PINSKY: Let`s go on. Thank you, panel. Let`s go on.

Next, who warned Jodi that she shouldn`t tangle with Juan Martinez? Were there, is she trying or was though person trying to intimidate a psychopath and is that even possible?

And later, we are grading Kirk Nurmi. How is he doing now that he`s no longer center stage?

Be right back.



ARIAS: I -- I have to maintain my innocence. I can`t admit to doing something that I haven`t done.

INVESTIGATOR: But without the truth, I can`t paint another picture. And it`s going to be up to the prosecutor to paint that picture.

MARTINEZ: Not only do you see her foot, but you see Mr. Alexander`s head. You see his arm. You see him bleeding profusely.

ARIAS: It looks like you don`t even need a good prosecutor any way.

MARTINEZ: And you remember specifically saying you wanted a facial, do you remember saying that?


MARTINEZ: So you were enjoying the sex, won`t you?


INVESTIGATOR: And if you want that prosecutor and I`ve met him --

MARTINEZ: And you can bang on it all you want, and it`s still your judgment, isn`t it?

INVESTIGATOR: And you don`t want him painting that picture.

MARTINEZ: Do you have a problem understanding the question? Do you want to spar with me? Is that -- will that affect the way you view the testimony?

WILLMOTT: Argumentative.

INVESTIGATOR: Because he is good at what he does.

MARTINEZ: Ma`am, were you crying when you were shooting him?

ARIAS: I don`t remember.

MARTINEZ: Were you crying when you were stabbing him?

INVESTIGATOR: I`ve worked with him before. And you allow him to paint that picture for you, it`s not going to be good.

MARTINEZ: How about when you cut his throat, were you crying then?

ARIAS: I don`t know.

MARTINEZ: You`re the one who did this, right?


MARTINEZ: And you`re the same individual that lied about all this, right?


MARTINEZ: So then take a look at it.


PINSKY: We are back with our behavior bureau and my co-host Michelle Ward.

All right, Michelle -- the detective was trying to warn Jodi. But my question to you is, can you intimidate a psychopath? Are they so slick and slippery that it`s impossible?

WARD: Right. Well, the thing with a psychopath is -- she in this case has her goal so in mind and she`s so directed toward that goal. And she knows the interrogator has his goal in mind, which is to get her to confess.

So, the way I look at it is she`s saying I know what you want, but I have to save my own skin. So, no, she can`t be intimidated and also she can`t be diverted from her goal to save her own skin.

PINSKY: That`s psychopathy, as opposed to borderline, which we heard a lot about in the courtroom. We`ll talk about that.

Joining us, clinical and forensic psychologist Cheryl Arutt, psychologist Eris Huemer, star of "L.A. Shrinks" on Bravo, and attorney and Sirius XM m radio host Jenny Hutt.

All right, Jenny -- Jodi was warned. Do you think it affected her behavior in the courtroom at all?

HUTT: No. I think very little effects her behavior. I think she does what she wants to do. But my theory is the reason that Flores did this was wasn`t she already calling him prior to be being interrogated?

PINSKY: Which is bizarre.


PINSKY: I`m going -- to what Jenny is referring to, is that she was calling the interrogator three and four times a day before she was ever, apparently in the next block, we`re going to get into it a little bit, but before she was ever accused of this murder. That`s psychopathy, right?

WARD: Well, I don`t know, because that`s anxiety. And the anxiety, does she -- oh, I better figure out how long they are in this investigation.

PINSKY: Keep an eye on these guys.

WARD: Keep your enemies closer.


HUTT: But I think Flores took it is that she felt safe enough around him that she was reaching out to him. And so, he was trying to work with that and saying, and by the way, you called me. We have a thing. Listen, you don`t want this prosecutor going after you.

PINSKY: I see.

HUTT: Did that work? Of course not.

PINSKY: Eris, again, Michelle and I were talking during the commercial break about borderline versus psychopathy. These are terms, very complicated for some people to hear these terminologies. Borderline is what`s being discussed in court, and that`s about unregulated emotions which certainly we saw in a lot of her interrogation tapes, no?

ERIS HUEMER, PSYCHOLOGIST: Absolutely. And I think she`s a poster child for both of these disorders, borderline personality and psychopathy.

PINSKY: Eris, I want to interrupt. I want to interrupt you. Isn`t that -- this is the first time we have you on the program, so I want to dig in with you a little bit.


PINSKY: Isn`t that bizarre? Because a psychopath is cold-blooded and systematic and goal-directed. But the borderline is emotional and disregulated. They go out of control and chaotic.

How do we reconcile these two things?

HUEMER: Well, she`s very calculating, isn`t she?


HUEMER: Everything is premeditated with her. So I think that, not only might have the murder been premeditated, but also everything, her whole story, no matter what the story was. Because she had so many, was absolutely premeditated.

PINSKY: I agree with you.

Cheryl, do you agree with that?

CHERYL ARUTT, FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST: I do agree with that. And I think that Jodi`s psychopathy, we have to remember, is the thrill of the con -- the thrill of putting one over on somebody. So if she`s calling the prosecutor, and I think it was something like three times a week that she was calling, there`s that -- you know, there`s this sense of being right under their noses, but thinking she could get away with it.

I think that she stayed calm. It was very calculated. But I think she was almost taunting them.

PINSKY: And, Michelle, you deal with psychopaths. You`re actually intrigued by them. I`m mystified by them. You like them.

I`m a little bit -- that scares me itself.

WARD: I don`t like them like them.

PINSKY: You don`t like like them. You like to study them.

Yes, does that sound like a psychopath, what Cheryl was just talking about?

WARD: You know, like we keep saying, Jodi`s a mixed bag. And part of me looks at here, she presents perfectly like a person with this borderline personality that we heard, that psychologist is talking about on the stand. But then once she committed the murder, she behaved very differently. And it`s confusing because she became more collected, more regulated, like you were talking about.


PINSKY: Who`s that?

HUTT: Yes, but you guys are giving her -- excuse me.

PINSKY: Jenny, go ahead.

HUTT: Sorry to interrupt.


HUTT: But I think you guys are giving her too much credit. I don`t think she planned the whole cleanup. I think she planned the murder, but I don`t think she`s that, that brilliant that she`s so crafty. I think she`s just completely loco in the cocoa.



WARD: But typically, those people don`t try to cover up their crime afterward. I mean, in our stalking research, once they have killed the victim, they either kill themselves or they just fall apart. It`s so rare for them to do such a messy crime and then actually try to protect themselves and get out of it for these borderline personality features, which are these are unrelated super emotional people.

ARUTT: And, Michelle, don`t you think that the sociopath kind of things were things like calling him and leaving him messages and writing him e-mails after she knew she killed him or being able to go and hook up with Ryan, this other man without showing any sign of upset.

PINSKY: And that is the stuff that drives people who are watching this trial to distraction. It drives everybody insane.

So, Eris, what do you think it is that makes us unable to look away from this woman who`s behaving in such a heinous manner?

HUEMER: Well, that`s the thing with her is that she`s so beautiful that you can`t figure out how she could commit such a heinous crime. That she is so gorgeous that we don`t want her to be that evil. We don`t want her to have killed him.

But we are hooked. We`re addicted to figuring out what she really. And she`s completely --

HUTT: -- Also right.

HUEMER: -- like I said, had this whole thing thought out and calculating which makes it more intriguing because what is going to come out of her mouth next.

PINSKY: Go, Jenny.

HUTT: And like you said, she is so gorgeous to look at that we want to look at her. It`s even beyond that we can`t conceive that she did this. She draws us in. She does.

PINSKY: And that`s how she had wove her web, the black widow, whatever she is, and I think again, is that our bodies expect one thing and we see another. We go oh, we can`t look away from something.

Eris, you want to say something?

HUEMER: Yes, I call it the praying mantis syndrome. You know that beautiful insect that goes in and has sex with their mate and slaughters and kills it? That`s exactly what she is.

PINSKY: You guys are using a little enthusiastic of a language in describing that. You guys are freaking me out. Michelle likes psychopaths, Eris is enthusiastic endorsing this praying mantis.

Let`s take a break here. Next up, Jodi was calling police before she was named a suspect as we said.

And later, do you have a child who lies and manipulates and may be dangerous like Jodi Arias? We`ll talk about that and more after the break.



INVESTIGATOR: Well, I talked to her for over an hour and a half, and I left with more questions than I had answers for. I still don`t know why. She just refuses to tell me why.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She won`t talk to us either.

INVESTIGATOR: Yes, she won`t talk to me. And I`ve been talking to her since the day after Travis was found. I talked to her on the phone, and she called me three times that week, a couple times the following week. Every week she calls me.

I just sense there`s something there. And from day one, ever since we found our first piece of evidence linking her to it, I knew there was something there.


PINSKY: Back with the behavior bureau and my co-host Michelle Ward.

So what motivated Jodi to call the detective repeatedly before she was even linked to the crime?

Michelle, you first.

WARD: I`m thinking it`s anxiety. I mean, I know she`s super psychopathic so she`s very goal-driven. I think this incessant calling, I think she was trying to --

PINSKY: Anxious, staying on top of it.


PINSKY: And, by the way, I think that`s why she wanted to see the crime photos, too. She wanted to know what they knew so she could adjust her story accordingly.

Jenny, you had a question about this?

HUTT: Well, yes, couldn`t it be that she was trying to woo Flores? Couldn`t it be that what she was trying to do would make him love her and want to protect her?

PINSKY: Absolutely, 100 percent.

Eris is shaking her head vigorously. Yes?

HUEMER: Yes, because she` the queen of deception.


HUEMER: So, she`s going to keep her enemies closer, and she`s going to try to manipulate him into thinking she did nothing wrong.

PINSKY: All right. Let me throw some chum into the tank here a little bit. I`ve got Twitter @teeny333 (ph). And this is what our viewers are thinking, guys so we`ll go around the horn what they think is going on. I think it`s a little extreme.

Jodi Arias` cruelty knows no bounds. She derives pleasure and satisfaction from hurting others.

Cheryl, do you agree with that? Are we getting off track a little bit?

ARUTT: Well, I think she may, but that more describes sadism that psychopathy.

PINSKY: Right.

ARUTT: It`s instrumental. She may not feel anything.

PINSKY: Jenny -- rather, Eris, do you agree with that?

HUEMER: Absolutely.

PINSKY: Yes. Michelle, agree?

WARD: Yes. I think she`s more goal-driven, and her goal happened to be Travis and she ended up killing him.

PINSKY: Jenny, do you agree with that?

HUTT: Yes, I don`t think she`s just mine. I think it was a premeditated murder. I think the step before the premeditation of the murder was her -- it was inconceivable to her that he didn`t still love her. He didn`t still want her. So she went a little bunkers and then decided to kill him.

PINSKY: I like how Jenny just distills it, what did you say, cuckoo for cocoa puffs or something?

HUTT: I said, tonight, it was loco in the cocoa.

PINSKY: Just bunkers. The four of us spend our whole career sorting these things out and making them more complicated than that. But, yes. There was a real -- by the way, one of the concerns I have is, you know, people could be concerned with the fact that she was a sick person. And that she didn`t get proper care.

And my thing is, yes, you could have sympathy, but she should have gotten the care and she didn`t. Once you cross the line, sympathy goes away at that point.

Jennifer in West Virginia has a question for the behavior bureau. Jennifer, go ahead.


I have a question for the behavior bureau. I and my family testified against my sister in law in a court case. And I see the same behavior in Jodi where she is blaming her parents, going back to the eighth grade when they turned her in to the police. Can that be what she`s doing is blaming everybody else?

PINSKY: Jennifer, what did your sister-in-law do?

JENNIFER: She was involved in a vehicular homicide and then when she was out on probation she continued to drink.

PINSKY: Hmm, OK. Alcoholic.

JENNIFER: So we turned her in for drinks on a non-alcohol probation.

PINSKY: I got it. Let me get the opinion first, then we`ll go around the horn.

Yes. There can be -- first of all, I`m not into blaming. If you blame the environment, you`ve got more victims that you`re bringing into their mess. But there can be experiences in childhood that can help us understand what happened to an adult, you know, why they did what they did.

And parents absolutely could have something to do with that. But in this case, I don`t see any evidence of that. The dad says, Michelle, that he found her pot on the roof and calls the cops. And she was never the same afterwards.

No way. No way. She was already very sick before that.

WARD: And that`s another thing. A lot of disorders have those roots, psychopathy not so much.

PINSKY: It`s more brain.

WARD: It`s more of a brain, it`s more of an inherited problem.

PINSKY: Jenny, you agree?

HUTT: Yes. Again, you`re saying I distill it down to layman`s terms.

PINSKY: Yes. Please help me.

HUTT: I do, just because I kind of feel that`s what it is. She`s not right. She`s not OK. And she did a horrible, horrible thing. Frankly, I don`t care why.

PINSKY: Well, you could if it was a ritualistic abuse and you can feel sympathy. But this is not that.

Cheryl, help me make this point again.

ARUTT: Well, I think when you have somebody who is as disregulated, who can`t control herself, like a borderline, but doesn`t --

PINSKY: That borderline stuff earlier in childhood, long before this business with the pot and the cops and the parents thinking that was -- that`s when her symptoms first emerged, but she was sick long before that.

ARUTT: Yes, Dr. Drew, and if she doesn`t have a conscience, which is the other piece we`re talking about, those two things together are kind of the perfect storm of the craziness that we`re talking about.

PINSKY: Yes, and, Eris, take us home.

HUEMER: But the problem here is when you find children or young adults with borderline personality disorder, that their emotions are so disregulated that a lot of times the parents get so annoyed and want nothing to do with them, and that becomes a problem because they aren`t able to get help because they can`t take accountability. So, she`s a victim of her childhood and can`t take responsibility.

PINSKY: Yes. Again, there`s a message I keep driving home, guys. If you -- and we`ll talk about this later on the show -- but if you or somebody you love or you have a child or the teachers are telling you there`s a problem, please get help. Every day -- the Boston thing is different I got to say, by the way, but the Newtown, the Aurora situation, these are all treatable situations that were not kept on top of and should have been. And people colluded in preventing the care from being properly provided.

I`m taking a break here. Thank you to the panel.

Next up, we are grading Jodi Arias` lead defense attorney Kirk Nurmi.

And later, do you see similarities between your child and Jodi? That`s right. We`re going to talk more about that stuff a little bit later. We`ll be right back after this.


PINSKY: It is time for our trial report card. Back with my co-host, Michelle Ward. And tonight, we are grading the lead defense attorney, Kirk Nurmi. Take a look at this tape.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And between the time you grabbed the gun and what we see here, what happened?

JODI ARIAS, ACCUSED OF KILLING EX-BOYFRIEND: As he was lunging at me, the gun went off. I didn`t mean to shoot him or anything. I didn`t even think I was holding the trigger.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you imagine how much it must have hurt Mr. Alexander when you stuck that knife right into his chest? That really must have hurt, right?



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You were hot. You are, seriously, honey, I want to (EXPLETIVE DELETED) (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

ARIAS: I am already.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You just don`t walk in and apologize. That would make me biased.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And with regard to apologizing, giving gifts and this sort of thing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It does not change the game. You have to keep the eye on the ball, judge. We`re not talking about blind people. We`re not talking about dogs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you believe that those injuries were your fault?

ARIAS: Well, I was afraid that I would be perceived that way. And sometimes, I did feel like I did things that provoked him.


PINSKY: Nurmi`s role in the trial seems to have been diminished for the time being now that Jennifer Wilmot is out in front. The question is, though, is he really just sitting passively? Is the demeanor in court misleading? Back to discuss, Jenny Hutt, Mark Eiglarsh, and Loni coombs. Ladies and gentlemen, hold your grades until the end. I`m going to get your thoughts on Nurmi starting with Jenny. Go ahead.

JENNY HUTT, ATTORNEY: So, listen, I don`t think he`s a superstar. I think he`s just satisfactory, Dr. Drew. I think he`s going to make the jury question things and maybe he`ll find Juan, maybe, probably unlikely. I don`t think she`ll end up with the death penalty. And in that way, perhaps, he`s doing his job.

PINSKY: It`s funny you mentioned Juan. Juan Martinez, I was hearing similar reviews of him, Mark, if you remember that when he was doing his thing, and yet, she got off.

MARK EIGLARSH, SPEAKTOMARK.COM: Yes. I agree with Jenny. You know, it`s kind of like when people ask me what I think of tofu. You know, it`s just kind of there.


PINSKY: It`s not like a kidney stone or a gallstone, as you were saying earlier?

EIGLARSH: Exactly. Yes. Listen, he`s doing a competent job, which is what you want him to do because when she`s convicted, she, like most of the defendants, will argue that she did not get effective assistance of counsel. And he goes way above that. But where he`s lacking is in passion.

Before I left the house, I was telling my wife and my kid that I`m going to say tonight that his litigation style is the perfect cure for insomnia. And they said too cruel.


EIGLARSH: Don`t say that. So, I`m not going to say that. I won`t say that. I will say that he falls short of dynamic.

PINSKY: Fair enough. I only heard Mark say short of dynamic.

EIGLARSH: That`s all I said.

PINSKY: Loni, he wanted to get off the case early on. I really don`t know what that history was all about. He was someone who didn`t want to see this through, I guess. So, are we seeing remnants of that now?

LONI COOMBS, FORMER PROSECUTOR: You know, I don`t think so. One, I think, he`s a reserved understated person. I also think he has a very arm`s length relationship with Jodi, which is interesting, because nobody else on the defense team does. Everyone else kind of caters to her and babies her. He`s just kind of like, you`re the client, I`m the attorney. Don`t bug me. I`m doing my job.

HUTT (ph): And he doesn`t want to die.


COOMBS: But I`ll tell you, I think he`s a good attorney and that he`s not just sitting there during this time when he`s not doing the question. He`s thinking of issues to, you know, to make objections, to reserve issues for appeal. He`s working on the jury instructions. He`s doing everything that he needs to do to make sure that this case is tried effectively. And he`s also maintaining his cool with Jodi as a client.

And I`ll tell you, she gets under almost everybody`s skin. He`s the only one that`s kind of maintained this, you know, detachment from her. And, I mean, when you see the way she goes with Juan Martinez. And this guy never got upset with her. Maybe just a little bit, you know, like on the 18th day when she was on the stand, but other than that, he has really maintained his cool. So, I`ll give him credit for that because there`s very few people who I think could do that.

PINSKY: And Michelle, she`s probably a tough client. I mean --


MICHELLE WARD, PH.D., PSYCHOLOGIST: She has to be -- because she`s going to think she`s always right and she knows what`s best. And obviously, she doesn`t. But I think something else that he did or I`m not sure it was his decision, if I was advising this trial, I would say put her on the stand. I`ve never said that on the criminal trial. So, you thought it was a good idea. I did, and this is why. It is so hard to put to death a person who is actually speaking to you from the stand.

PINSKY: You have a relationship with them.

WARD: Right. And so, I mean, it`s a risky move, but I think in this case that it do it. So --

PINSKY: Let`s get a call from our viewership. Nick in Kansas, you`ve actually got a grade for the defense. Go ahead, Nick.

NICK, KANSAS: Yes. Hi, Dr. Drew. I`ll go ahead and give Kurt a D-.

PINSKY: D-. Why?

NICK: He`s very forgettable. Very forgettable. No personality. He just sits there. The most action I see of this guy is when he stands up, he`ll jerk his wrist around so that everybody gets a look at his nice big watch. But other than that, he`s just kind of sits in his chair and fades into the background. Very forgettable performance --

PINSKY: You agree with Mark Eiglarsh. I just wonder what he`s doing behind the scenes, though, in terms of making decisions that might really be guiding this case in a way that we`ll help Jodi. Loni, your grade first. What`s the grade for the defense -- lead defense?

COOMBS: You know, I think he`s doing a pretty good job. Remember, the case he has to work with is a tough case. So, I give him a B.

PINSKY: There you go. 3.0 for the young man. Jenny, your grade.

HUTT: Yes. I give a c, because like in Mark`s words, he is short of dynamic.

PINSKY: Is that important for a case like this to have dynamism? Jenny, yes?

HUTT: I think it`s -- yes, because you have to win over that jury. Sure.

PINSKY: All right. Fair enough. Mark, what do you say?

EIGLARSH: The answer is yes, Drew. When you`re in there, the person who should care and believe that your client is innocent, even if you don`t, is the attorney. Jurors know that I believe in my client`s innocence even if I don`t when I`m litigating a case. That`s missing, but I do believe that he and Wilmot are working their butts off.

They`re working very hard with a very difficult case. So, if he gets a little bit of passion, I`ll raise the grade. Right now, it`s at a C-.

PINSKY: C-. Wow. My goodness. Very harsh. Michelle, are you going to be as harsh?

WARD: No. I disagree a little bit. You know, I`m a trial consultant, and you`re absolutely right. We do need to win over this jury, but jurors don`t love it when you`re over the top either. Sometimes, they just want to be taught. They want to know the information, make a decision for themselves. So, in this case, I give him a B. I don`t think he`s that bad.

PINSKY: Another 3.0 --

EIGLARSH: I don`t say over the top, by the way. There`s a way to do it in a controlled way, controlled passion. They`ll see it in his eyes. His body language, it looks like he`s hanging out, whatever.

COOMBS: He still has his closing argument. And that closing argument where you really connect with that jury.

EIGLARSH: That`s true.

COOMBS: So, you`ll have to --


EIGLARSH: I`ll raise the grade then.

PINSKY: And that`s where he can be like Mark and make quips about kidney stones and things like that. And then, his grade goes way up.

EIGLARSH: Those are very painful, by the way. Don`t joke about it. Those are very painful. You have to drink a lot of water. Seriously.

PINSKY: Yes, you do. We`ll talk about it, Mark, after that (inaudible) prevent that, too. C and a C-, that is a GPA of 2.44. That is a C+. Something my producers are calling a C ++. Yes, not a great grade. Not a great grade. But as we`re all leaving the door open to improvements.

Next up -- thank you guys -- Jodi has famously said no jury will convict me. The question is, will she live to regret those words? We`ve heard it come up again and again in the questions from the jury. My jury will sound off about that next.

And later, do you recognize Jodi`s behavior in anyone you love, your own child, neighbor`s kids? We`ll talk about it after this.

VINNIE POLITAN, HLN ANCHOR: Coming up tonight on "HLN After Dark," our bold accusation. Jodi shot last. She stabbed Travis first and shot him last. We`ve got 12 jurors here in studio and you, our online jury at home, will render a verdict by the end of the program, guilty or not guilty. Again, our bold accusation, Jodi shot last.



ARIAS: No jury is going to convict me.

Yes, I did say that.


ARIAS: At the time, I had plans to commit suicide.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Whether you had plan does commit suicide or not, why even mention no jury will ever convict me.

ARIAS: By the time it came along, it came out more, I thought, more eloquently and more forcefully and more assuredly.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you consider someone who says no jury will ever convict me to be a person with low self-esteem?

ARIAS: I was very confident that no jury would convict me, because I planned to be dead.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mark my words, no jury will ever convict me. Do you feel that is part of a borderline personality disorder, especially since she is smiling when she said it?

ARIAS: You can mark my words on that one. No jury will convict me.


PINSKY: Welcome back. It is time for Drew`s jurors. You can mark my words on that. With my co-host, Michelle Ward. No jury will convict me, so said Jodi Arias. And those words have seriously come back to haunt her. My jurors, Katie Wick and Stacey Fairrington have been in the courtroom throughout the trial.

Katie, let me ask you this, the jury has brought this up in kind of a snarky way seems like a half-dozen times. Is that different members of the jury, do you think, raising that question and bringing it up that quote or is there just one person on that jury that will not let go of this?

KATIE WICK, DR. DREW "JUROR": It`s hard to tell, Dr. Drew, but I can see there`s a few jurors that sort of when Jodi was on the stand, they were giving her this look of disgust. A female juror in the front -- a couple there, a younger guy in the back, we were discussing kind of playing the guessing game who might have submitted those questions, perhaps them.

But, you know Jodi always smiles, Dr. Drew, when it`s inappropriate. She did it when Detective Flores was questioning her. She did it Juan was on the stand -- or when she was on the stand with Juan Martinez. She did it here. She did it in her mug shot. I think she get this is sick pleasure. And I don`t know what your thoughts are on that, but maybe --

PINSKY: I`ll tell you. And Michelle, let`s talk about this because the inappropriate smiling is sort of a defense or a disconnectedness which borderlines have.

WARD: Right. And there`s also -- you would have a guest here called duper`s delight.


WARD: Something like that. It`s fascinating that that`s their response. It`s so unnatural.

PINSKY: So, it could be either Duper`s delight or disconnect. Stacey, what do you feel about this?

STACEY FAIRRINGTON, DR. DREW "JUROR": You know, I agree, and I think Demarte was really point on when she said that Jodi really does a lot of immature behavior. And I think it all comes into, you know, her no jury will convict me. It`s kind of like a teenager telling her parents, I know everything, you know? I also think, you know, she is just so immature, and I think she`s very self-centered and focused on herself.

I think most of us, women, can understand we`ve probably all used the headache excuse a million times for things we want to get out of. And I think she`s parlaying that into this case as well. When she wants out of something, she does it in her way, in Jodi`s way. I have a headache. You`re never going to convict me. It`s all about Jodi. It`s all about Jodi.

PINSKY: She is what we call --

WICK: And you think that her attorneys would tell her to stop doing this, Dr. Drew. I don`t know if they are counseling her and saying, you need to stop with these shenanigans in the courtroom because the jury -- I saw the jury when the headache deal went down for like the 30th time, and they were not happy. They looks so frustrated.

PINSKY: You guys, really good job today. We`re going to take a break.

Could Jodi have been stopped before she killed? Drew`s views after the break.


PINSKY: It is time for Drew`s views. Back with my co-host, Michelle Ward. This is where my guests get to ask me tough questions as though I were on the stand. The big sort of frame here tonight is, were there warning signs about Jodi that were missed by friends and family when she was growing up. Back to discuss, Jenny Hutt, Mark Eiglarsh, and Loni Coombs. Loni, your question.

COOMBS: Dr. Drew, what struck me when I heard these parents interrogations is when talked about these bursts of anger.


COOMBS: I hear a lot of kids now, all ages, saying to their parents, I hate you. I want to kill you. They`re verbalizing this to their friends. When does this go from just being angry language to something dangerous? And who, specifically, are the parents supposed to get help from when they are in danger?

PINSKY: Well, listen, it is not -- it is a sign of a mental health issue, not necessarily a sign of danger. And if a kid is having outburst of any type, and if by the way, not just you at home, but people out in the world, other parents, teachers are reporting this, the teachers on exceedingly an important part of the game, a part of your team to get information, and they will tell you when it is getting excessive, when it`s getting to the point when they`re concerned. Michelle, you want to ring in on this?

WARD: Well, it`s true, but it`s very difficult to consider that your child might have these major problems.

PINSKY: Listen, I understand that people are in denial about it all the time. And I`m advocating drop denial. I think everyone on this panel is a parent. And I`m telling you, you stay in denial at your own risk. Jenny, your question.

HUTT: Yes. So, my question is more about romantic entanglements. At what point is a mourning period sort of inappropriate or over the top? How do you know when someone`s to super attached, super fast and it`s sort of inappropriate, the level at which they can`t detach?

PINSKY: I look at it as -- and this is sort of my own experience with it as a clinician. I look at it as six months. If somebody is really still -- and particularly if they get depressive symptoms where they have difficulty functioning or they having actually clinical symptoms, even if that occurs after two weeks, you might want to get somebody help with that.

It`s a challenging issue. There`s no absolute rule of thumb with it, but Jenny, it`s an interesting thing for parents to be aware of. Mark, your question.

EIGLARSH: Drew, through the prosecution rebuttal witness, we heard that Jodi allegedly dated a guy, then immediately dated another guy, then went into another one, and into another one. What does that mean for Jodi and also for parents if they see their teenagers, let`s say, kind of serial dating with no breaks in between.


EIGLARSH: What does that mean?

PINSKY: It`s called serial monogamy. And most parents are relieved when they see their kids engaged in serial monogamy, but the reality is, that sometimes it`s OK, but you have to assess your own child. If that child can`t survive without a relationship, if they feel empty, if they`ve got a hole inside and they`re filling it with somebody, and they have to be around that person, and it`s an addictive sticky quality in that relationship, I would get that kid help.

Next up, the last call and some thoughts about Boston back after this.


PINSKY: All right. It`s time for the last call. And we are literally going to take a last call here before we go into the final moments of our program. Duane in Texas.

DUANE, TEXAS: Hi, Dr. Drew. Have you ever noticed the defense, or a lot of times in her questioning, will attack the counsel prosecutor, but the prosecutor when he`s up never attacks the counsel in his questions.

PINSKY: As a -- you`re a jury consultant -- you`re a court consultant, right?

WARD: Trial consultant.

PINSKY: Trial consultant. You look at these sorts of things all the time.

WARD: Right.

PINSKY: Is that common? Is that something unusual?

WARD: It`s style. You know, it`s style.

PINSKY: Style.

WARD: Yes, it`s style. That`s what he`s going for. I mean, I don`t know. I saw Juan Martinez kind of make fun of the way that Nurmi was standing on the podium when he was doing this rebuttal with the psychologist up there. So, he`s getting his little jabs in there.

PINSKY: Subtle. He`s getting subtle jabs. He`s so excitable. Is that what we should call him and that sort of -- how could you also be that excitable and be focusing on other sort of --

WARD: Absolutely. Right.

PINSKY: All right, everybody. Thank you for that call, Duane. And I want to say, I got a couple thoughts about Boston. We`ve not had much time to discuss what went on there. I went to college in New England. I`ve got kids back in the east. And, first of all, just know that our thoughts are with you. The city of Boston too back to its streets -- got back its streets today after being gripped for almost a week.

I know I was glued to the television on Friday night. I was exhilarated and proud of the way the different agencies came together in Boston. I`ve lived in Boston. I love Boston. And it was a very emotional experience to see people suffer so needlessly.

Thankfully, we hopefully will have some answers, though, I`m sure Michelle, you and I will be talking about what leads to somebody going from what seems to be a normal kid in high school on the wrestling team and be being radicalized. Not so much a mental health issue --

WARD: right. I was going to say, the viewers should know that this is a different thing. We`re talking about something very different when it comes to the Boston situation.

PINSKY: Yes. This as you noticed it with the Aurora, Colorado, that`s a mental health issue. Newtown Connecticut, mental health issue. This one, this is an international issue. This is about radical behaviors, and yes, there may be certain proclivities or experiences (INAUDIBLE) people up for this, but we will be (INAUDIBLE) on this for some time. But first, just hats off to Boston. Go Sox.

Thank you to Michelle Ward. Thank you. You`ve done a great job, and you`ll be with me here all this week. I want to thank you all for watching and those of you that called in tonight, I appreciate the calls. Thanks to my guests as well. And I`ll see you next time. "HLN After Dark" starts right now.