Return to Transcripts main page


Defense, Prosecutor Making Same Point with Witness?

Aired April 24, 2013 - 19:00   ET


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST: All right. We`ve got so much to bring you tonight, because this case is nearing its 11th hour. Shocker after shocker after shocker.

And I`ve got to tell you, that is the grandmother right there of Jodi Arias. You are seeing her in court for the very first time. Look at her face. Look at her agony. You know, when somebody does something violent, they destroy so much. They destroy their own family. People who are innocent who haven`t done anything wrong. So now, Jodi Arias` grandmother in court for the very first time. Jodi was actually living with this woman at the time she killed Travis Alexander.

There you see, of course, Jodi Arias during her famous or infamous singing contest behind bars.

And I`ve got to tell you, this was a crazy day. But the chatter in court today was all about what happened in court yesterday. When Travis Alexander`s ex-girlfriend takes the stand, Deanna Reid, and the prosecution and the defense are both going at her, grilling her. But guess what? Both sides are making the very same point: that Travis Alexander did not treat Deanna Reid, his ex, the way he treated Jodi Arias.

Let`s watch both sides make the same point, and then we`re going to debate it. Why on earth is the prosecution and the defense making the very same point?


KIRK NURMI, JODI ARIAS`S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Did he ever call you a whore?


NURMI: A slut?




NURMI: Did he call you a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) wonder?


NURMI: And a slut?


NURMI: And a whore?

JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: Was your relationship based on sex mostly?

REID: No, it was not.

NURMI: Did he talk to you about blowing (EXPLETIVE DELETED) every time?


ARIAS: When he (EXPLETIVE DELETED) on my face without a word, it kind of felt like I was a prostitute.

MARTINEZ: Did he become physical, throwing you down, put his hands on you in any way shape or form?

REID: Absolutely not.

ARIAS: He had his hands around my neck and was banging my head on the carpet.

REID: Our relationship wasn`t like that.

ARIAS: I felt like a used piece of toilet paper.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Call me, 1-877-JVM-SAYS. I want to hear from you: 1- 877-586-7297.

Let`s debate it with our panel. You just heard the prosecutor and the defense attorney go after Deanna Reid in different ways, but they`re asking her the same question. They`re both saying, "Hey, Travis didn`t do this to you," what he may have done or the defense claims he did to Jodi. And so why are both guys asking the same questions, trying to make the same point with the same witness? Yes, they had two different relationships. And this woman`s relationship with Travis Alexander was very different than Jodi`s relationship with Travis Alexander. Big whoop.

And I`ll start with the prosecutor, Stacey Honowitz.

STACEY HONOWITZ, FLORIDA PROSECUTOR: Listen, sometimes the defense and the prosecutions contingently, there`s a reason why they are asking the questions, so that the jury -- they want the jury to see it their way.

The prosecutor is making his point to say there`s no battered woman syndrome here. That`s not his personality. That`s not what he does. That`s not his demeanor. Look how he treated her.

The defense, on the flip side, is trying to say, listen, look how he treated -- everyone treats everybody differently. Just because he treated you nicely and depicts (ph) love doesn`t mean he had a loving, great relationship. So although the questions appear to be the same, and they`re trying to get out the same evidence, it`s a matter of interpretation for the prosecutor and a matter of interpretation for the defense.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Anahita Sedaghatfar, for the defense.

ANAHITA SEDAGHATFAR, ATTORNEY: I`m wondering why the prosecutor called this witness. Because this witness made the point that the defense is trying to prove all along, that this girl, Travis` ex-girlfriend, had a different relationship than Jodi had with Travis. And unfortunately, he had to use Travis Alexander`s own words to drive that point home that, just because he didn`t call you a slut, he didn`t call you a whore, he didn`t call you a three-hole wonder, it doesn`t mean that he didn`t use those words towards Jodi Arias.

People treat different relationships differently. And that`s the point that the defense was trying to make. And a lot has been made as to why the defense used those words. And so let`s not beat around the bush, Jane...

JON LEIBERMAN, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: All right. Let`s not -- let`s not beat around the bush. The prosecution called her because she is painting an accurate picture of Travis Alexander. He didn`t abuse her. He didn`t force her into having sex. He didn`t speak to her in a negative way. That`s why the prosecutor called her. Because here you have a credible woman, Deanna, who`s very truthful about everything. She says, look, yes, we had sex, we violated the law of chastity, and she`s a very credible witness.

Juxtapose that with...

SEDAGHATFAR: Jon, she could be telling the truth.

LEIBERMAN: Let me finish.

SEDAGHATFAR: She could be telling the truth...

LEIBERMAN: Who could be telling the truth?

SEDAGHATFAR: ... but that does not mean he treated both girls the same.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Here`s the point, though. Do you have to sanitize a case in order to prove a case? I think not. I think there could be a danger when the prosecutor tries to sanitize a case.

Now, here`s another example. Prosecutor Juan Martinez, who I think is doing an incredible job -- don`t get me wrong -- but he keeps disputing the defense claim that Travis and Jodi had a secret relationship in the months leading up to her killing him.

But Detective Flores way back in 2008 when he`s interrogating Jodi agrees that her relationship with Travis was secret. Watch this.


ARIAS: Why do you kiss Jodi in the dark and then act like you guys aren`t even together in the daytime? Things like that.

DETECTIVE ESTEBAN FLORES, INVESTIGATED MURDER: That`s a good statement, because that kind of sums up the relationship that you have with him. It seems like he liked you, he loved you, he wanted to be with you but he was reluctant to make a commitment first off, and truly, he didn`t think that you were marriage material.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: So right there, he said yes, your relationship was secretive and, honey, you weren`t marriage material. He sets up the motive.

Jodi resented having sex in secret with Travis and not being considered marriage material. And then he doesn`t take her to Cancun either. He takes another girl or wanted to before he was killed.

Now, did the detective get to the root of why Jodi wanted to kill Travis? If so, should the prosecutor embrace it? Jodi resented their secret relationship, and that was the motive for murder. And I start with Stacey Honowitz on that.

HONOWITZ: You know what, Jane? It`s very interesting. You know, he knows this case better than anybody. He`s a veteran trial lawyer, and he`s been living, eating and breathing this case. Strategically, he makes certain decisions. It doesn`t make a difference. That could be a factor in why she did it. We all know that the stalking came in. The idea that she didn`t get to go to Cancun with him, that she was having sex.

But then she tries these other excuses: I`m a battered woman. I didn`t have that kind of relationship with him. So that one little issue of whether or not the prosecutor didn`t want to bring out that it was secretive isn`t going to do anything to determine this verdict. I really don`t think it really means anything.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, here`s the thing -- here`s a comparison. OK. This reminds me -- and I`m going to bring Jean Casarez, who`s a correspondent, "In Session," who`s there in Arizona, just left court. I want to bring you in, because this reminds me of the Casey Anthony case, in this sense.

We all had gotten word that Cindy and Casey had reportedly -- allegedly, purportedly -- had a huge fight the night before little Caylee disappeared. The prosecution in this case never mentioned that. And I think it was because they didn`t want to really drag Cindy into it any more than she`d already been dragged in, and they thought maybe she would deny it to protect her daughter.

But for whatever reason, they didn`t mention it. And in the end, they lost the case.

And so my concern is, you know, I say lay out the facts. As messy and as awful as they are, lay it out because in this case, I think the fact that Travis and Jodi had a secretive relationship is the motive for murder. Why deny it?

JEAN CASAREZ, CORRESPONDENT, TRUTV`S "IN SESSION": You know, I think -- I think the truth, no matter what form or fashion it is, is the most important thing of all.

My understanding with Cindy Anthony was that she denied it, just as you said. And if they put her on the stand and she denied it, then I guess they felt they couldn`t get anywhere.

But in this case, yes. I mean, there was a secret aspect to this relationship, no question about it. And I think the texts, the e-mails, instant messages, and all that, I think that`s a critical part of this case.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, so, again, I`m not -- don`t confuse what I`m saying, Jon Leiberman. I`m not saying she`s innocent. I`m saying she`s admitted to doing it. And we need to come up with the motive for murder. That`s what the prosecution is trying to establish.

What better motive than somebody wants to have sex with you, but they don`t consider you marriage material. They are keeping you in secret to a certain degree after they broke up, when she moved to Mesa. She`s cleaning his house. She`s coming over after work, having sex with him on occasion. But he`s seeking other relationships. He wants to get married to somebody else. He wants to take Mimi Hall to Cancun.

Isn`t that a recipe for somebody deciding "I`m going to kill you?"

LEIBERMAN: Sure. That`s part of it. I agree with Stacey. That`s absolutely part of the motive here. But somebody said, you know, let the facts speak. I mean, the facts are for the prosecution in this case. I mean, the prosecution has wonderful facts to deal with.

So you sprinkle in the motive and clearly, in my opinion, at least, you have premeditated murder.

I mean, look at some of the jury questions today, Jane. This jury did not believe that Travis had a gun there. This jury believes, according to their own question, that Jodi brought this gun to Travis`s house to kill him. If that`s not premeditation, I don`t know what is.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Exactly. That`s what I`m saying. Stick to the facts. Stick to, OK, she -- there`s plenty of evidence that she took the gun from her grandparents` house, staged a robbery, took that gun to Arizona and that he didn`t own a gun. We`re going to get to that on the other side. And then she killed him. But the reason is why?

The prosecutor said in the opening statement, this is not a whodunit, and we really need to give that jury a really good "why." So to try to sanitize We need to give that jury a good watch. To try to sanitize the situation, I don`t know if that`s counterproductive for the prosecution. That`s my point.

And I`m happy to hear from you at home. Let`s continue debating it. We`ve got so much more. We`ve got some breaking news from court. We`re going to tell you on the other side.


NURMI: Did he ever call you a whore?


NURMI: A slut?




NURMI: Did he ever tell you how he wanted to tie you to a tree and, quote, (EXPLETIVE DELETED)?





ARIAS: He was very uplifting. Very uplifting person. He had -- knew every one of my buttons. He could bring me up or down at the drop of a hat but mostly up.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: For the first time since her death-penalty trial began, we saw Jodi Arias`s grandmother in court today. She was sitting in the front row right next to Jodi`s mother. And remember, Jodi lived with her grandparents on and off again during her adult years when she wasn`t living with a boyfriend. And her grandparents have been a hot topic at this trial. They reported a gun missing -- we were just talking about it - - from their home after a break-in just about a week before the killing. The same caliber gun that was used to kill Travis Alexander.

Look at that poor woman. Jean Casarez, correspondent, "In Session," you can see that this grandmother is in agony. You know, violent crimes destroy so many lives. They destroy obviously, and impact the family of the victim. We see Travis Alexander`s devastated family in court day after day, and now we see this elderly woman who obviously is very upset.

CASAREZ: You know, Jane, it was very difficult to see her in court. You know, you and I have a soft heart for animals and for elderly people. And it`s just so hard for me to watch this woman, who had nothing to do with this, probably never dreamed in her life that she`d be sitting in courtroom while her daughter is facing the death penalty. And remember, this is who she lived with.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Granddaughter.

CASAREZ: Jodi lived with this grandma -- yes, Jodi lived with this grandma and grandpa. And it`s her husband`s gun that was stolen on May 28.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And that means that police believe that it was her husband`s gun that was used to kill Travis Alexander.

Let`s go to the phone lines. Shelley, Arizona, your question or thought. Shelly, Arizona.

CALLER: My thought. In a nutshell, just go back to the original 911 call. The very first 911 call. His friends there in the house, they just found the dead body. The 911 operator asked the girl on the phone, "Do you know of anybody who might have wanted him dead? Does he have anybody stalking him or upset with him?"

And the answer was, "Yes, his ex-girlfriend Jodi. She`s been stalking him, and two weeks ago, she slashed his tires." Nutshell, done deal.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I agree that that is very, very powerful evidence. And we all heard that 911 call.

Let`s debate it with our expert panel. I have to start with Stacey Honowitz. You`re a prosecutor. These closing arguments that are coming up, and we`re going to tell you about the -- the time line for those are crucial. Because this case has dragged on since January. And a lot of times, it`s hard to remember what the heck either side said in the opening statement. It`s been so very long.

Should the prosecutor play that 911 call? Should he do a multimedia presentation, prosecutor Juan Martinez, to really bring home the crucial factors, play the sex tape, play the 911 call, play the -- show the photographs and the horrible, gruesome crime scene photos?

HONOWITZ: I`m not going to tell him how to do his job. But certainly, he knows that this case has gone on for so long there are certain aspects of it that the jury has probably forgotten. It`s embedded in their head but how crucial that evidence is.

So certainly, he`s going to do everything in his power to tie up all of the evidence that`s been going on for this amount of time. And that does include -- we do it all the time in closing arguments, we play our most precious evidence. That would be the 911 tapes, any of the interviews she did where she`s giving different statements and conflicting statements. All of the photographs, everything that`s going to bring home the premeditation of this case. Juan Martinez is going to show that jury.

And that is going to be the most crucial day, the most critical day. Because you have to bring those jurors back out of the realm of the doctors, talking about battered women and personality disorder and scales and numbers. They`re not concerned with that. They`re concerned with the hard, factual evidence.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Anahita Sedaghatfar for the defense. How on earth does the defense handle these gruesome autopsy photos? I can tell you -- we cannot show them, but they are horrifying. They are the stuff of nightmares of Travis Alexander, his throat slit ear-to-ear. He`s almost decapitated. What on earth can the defense say to counter that image?

SEDAGHATFAR: It`s going to be very difficult. I mean, the photos are gruesome; they are. This is a very, very sad situation, Jane.

But I think at the end of the day, the defense is going to have to tie everything up in closing. And again, sadly, point out to the jurors that Travis Alexander was not this innocent, church-going devout Mormon guy that the prosecutor was pointing him out -- or portraying him to be. That he actually lived a double life, that he was abusive to Jodi Arias. That this Travis Alexander beat her physically. He abused her sexually.

LEIBERMAN: There`s no evidence of that! Come on now!

SEDAGHATFAR: Her testimony is evidence. I don`t know why everyone keeps saying there`s no evidence. Her testimony is evidence.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: She`s a liar, that`s why. She`s a pathological liar.

SEDAGHATFAR: That`s going to up for the jury to determine how much credence they`re going to give her. But let`s not forget: We have two experts testify that Jodi was a victim of domestic violence. She was a battered woman. Alyce LaViolette, like her or not, she has over 30 years` experience in this field.

And, you know, all this back and forth about how she subjective, she somehow had such strong feelings for Jodi that she would ignore facts that would, you know, possibly affect her conclusion just to set Jodi free, I think that`s preposterous. And I think...


VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`ve got to take a break. But I`ve got to tell you, there`s so much to tell you about. Jodi is tweeting again. Her art for sale and other things that are definitely going to get your blood boiling.

Stay right there. We`ve got more on the other side.


ARIAS: If Travis were here today, he would tell you that it wasn`t me.

FLORES: My job is to speak for Travis right now, and everything Travis is telling me is that "you did this to me."




TRAVIS ALEXANDER, MURDER VICTIM: To think, "This is how you die, this is it." I started weighing the odds. I`m like, you know, "Well, he may not kill me. He may." And you wonder, like, will I be one of those tough people that`s like, "Pull the trigger." Or will you be one of these people who talks like they`re tough, just to see how you`d react. You learn a lot about yourself.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, that -- the jury saw that video, but they did not hear what Travis Alexander had to say. Ironically, he was talking about being the victim of some attempted robbery and having a gun put to his face, which is just, you know, a tragic irony, considering what ultimately happened to him, that he was shot in the course of being killed or maybe shortly after he was already dead. Shot by Jodi Arias.

All right, let`s go to Selin Darkalstanian, our producer on the ground in Arizona. You have just raced out of the court with some breaking news. What`s the latest, Selin?

SELIN DARKALSTANIAN, HLN PRODUCER: Jane, today the judge just told us that next Thursday and Friday are going to be closing arguments and that the jury is going to get this case next Friday. So, we can possibly have a verdict next Friday. We could have a verdict a few days after that. The jury is getting the case Friday.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow! So, this case finally, we are seeing a light at the end of a tunnel, a very, very long, long case, drawn out.

Now, do we know about the defense attempt to present a surrebuttal? Because it would seem that, given that that`s the deadline, the end point, how are they going to fit that in? Do we know what`s going to happen with any gambits by the defense to put on yet another witness?

DARKALSTANIAN: The judge didn`t say anything about that on the record in court today, but there is a full day of court Wednesday of next week. So we are guessing that that day might be the chance that the defense gets to state their surrebuttal case. So that might be Wednesday right before closing.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And we`re still in the state case. Yes, we`re still in the state`s case. And so we do have testimony tomorrow, right? They`re back tomorrow.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And we`ll bring you the very latest tomorrow.

DARKALSTANIAN: Tomorrow there is...


Let`s go to the phone lines. Stacy, Missouri. Your question or thoughts. Stacy, Missouri.

CALLER: Hi, Jane. I just noticed that when Jodi was doing -- telling the police about the ninjas story, that she kept saying that Travis just wouldn`t die. And usually, when you`re witnessing your friend being slaughtered, that isn`t on your mind.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now you said she kept saying Travis what?

CALLER: Just wouldn`t die. When she was trying to place the ninjas story she said Travis just would not die. And usually when you`re watching your friend being slaughtered that`s not even on your mind.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. Well, you know, what`s so interesting about pathological liars who I`ve had the dubious honor of studying. And you know, I`ll talk to Jean Casarez about this. Because you and I, Jane, have covered so many cases that involve pathological liars. Look at the Casey Anthony case. Is that they are brilliant in their ability to weave the truth in with lies. And they`re also brilliant in their ability to speak as if they`re telling the truth. They`re incredible actors.

Now, one of the reasons I think that they are able to speak with such conviction, and maybe we could show some interrogation tape. I mean, she talked hours -- hours -- to Detective Flores. First saying she wasn`t there: "Oh, I wouldn`t hurt Travis. I wasn`t there. I haven`t seen him since April."

And then, the second time around, when she`s in these orange jailhouse clothes, she says, "Well, these ninjas, they came in. These masked individuals, a man and a woman, and they attacked Travis, and they debated whether to kill me. And then one of them put a gun to my head, pulled the gun and the trigger. And there was a miracle: it didn`t go off."

And I think the detective says, "Yes, that would be kind of miraculous, wouldn`t it?"

But in my opinion, Jean, the reason they`re able to lie so brilliantly is that to them truth, it does not exist. Truth is irrelevant. It`s like people who are color blind. They are truth blind.

Whatever they say, they process in their brain as the truth. It is their truth. And therefore, they speak with tremendous justification, because they interpret it as their truth. Something gets messed up in their brains, and they do a weird calculation that enables them to feel justified -- Jean.

CASAREZ: But you know, let me ask you this. A lot of people have theorized -- and this goes towards the caller`s question -- that her description of Travis in that bathroom, and I don`t remember her saying he just wouldn`t die. But I remember her saying he was down, and then he was struggling to get up, and he was collapsing. A lot of people have thought that was the truth, because it appears as though, with the blood splatter and where it`s laid out, that that`s definitely what could have happened. Do you think that could be the truth?


CASAREZ: Whether this is her reality?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jean, I think you`re absolutely right. I think that very good liars or habitual liars, pathological liars weave in the truth with the lies. They take elements of the truth, and they weave lies in. And they blend it all together so it`s very hard to extrapolate what`s real, what`s not real. What`s a lie, what`s the truth.

So it`s very difficult. It`s a difficult case. The police, Detective Flores has done an extraordinary job on this case.

A short break. We`re taking more of your calls and more testimony from today. Up next.


ARIAS: He bent me over his bed. He lifted up my skirt and pulled down my underwear. He unzipped his pants. He began to have anal sex with me.





JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: So who is this individual to the upper left corner that seems to be doing most of the talking?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Travis Alexander.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And there appears to be something blondish or white on his lap. Who is that?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How often would you see that they were affectionate?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just about every time that they were together.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And during that time, you and he are dating exclusively, right?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would he ever curse at you?

REID: No, never.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would he ever call you names?

REID: No he did not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he ever strike you?

REID: No, never.


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN HOST: As this case barrels toward judgment day, the prosecutor, Juan Martinez in the final stages of his rebuttal case hammering down some key points, trying to really lock in the facts of this case. Prosecutor Martinez called into question Jodi`s claim that she jumped up on the shelves of Travis` closet and grabbed the gun that she claims he has there and that she used, she says, in self-defense to kill him. Listen to this.


JODI ARIAS, ON TRIAL FOR MURDER OF TRAVIS ALEXANDER: I ran into the closet and I slammed the door. I remembered where he kept the gun. So I grabbed it. I jumped up on the shelf.

The top of the shelf, like right here.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Today, prosecutor Juan questioned the lead investigator, Detective Flores to show what would happen if you put pressure on those shelves that rest on four little pins. Jodi says she`s 5`6 tall. Detective Flores measured the shelves in Travis` closet to be seven feet tall. So Prosecutor Martinez is pointing out she can`t just fly up there like Tinker Bell and grab that gun without stepping on the shelf. And if she stepped on the shelf, it would overturn, it would collapse.

I thought this was a kind of clear point that really locks in the prosecution`s claim that Jodi is lying about how this killing went down starting with Jon Leiberman.

JON LEIBERMAN, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: This is not a complicated case. People keep saying it`s complicated. This is a case that`s only complicated by Jodi`s lies and this was another one. The prosecution clearly hammered home with Detective Flores that this stepping on the closet story is complete bunk.

In the past 24 hours, the prosecution has gone in and they`ve diabolically dissected these lies from the gas can not being returned to Wal-Mart to no gun being in Travis` house, to the shelf story. This is not a complicated case.


LEIBERMAN: Again it`s only complicated because you have to figure out what comes out of her mouth is truth. And I would argue zero.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Anahita Sedaghatfar.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: I would argue that there`s truth mixed in with lies which makes it even more complicated. Anahita Sedaghatfar, you represent the defense here on the show tonight.

This is a common sense point. We have all had these shelves. We`ve all knocked over these shelves in frustration because they have four little pins. And we`re always leaning on them and then they collapse. I mean it`s happened to all of us -- anybody that hasn`t happened to raise their hand right now.

Ok. Did you raise your hand? It`s happened to all of us. So this is one of those great common sense points that really punctured a hole in this idea that she flew up in what I call the Tinker Bell move and grabbed this gun which the prosecution says doesn`t exist.

SEDAGHATFAR: Well, you know what; I think the bottom line with this testimony is, again the prosecution is trying to show premeditation. And I just simply don`t think they have proven that she premeditated this murder and the defense is going to focus on this fact in their closing -- the manner of killing, Jane, the manner of killing.

If this was premeditated, if Jodi indeed had the gun and it wasn`t up on that shelf at Travis` home like she claims, why didn`t she just walk in and shoot Travis Alexander. We all know --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Maybe she wanted to have sex with him first one last time.


SEDAGHATFAR: By all accounts, hold on, by all accounts -- by all accounts there was a physical struggle that occurred between Jodi and Travis.

LEIBERMAN: By all accounts? By her account. Wait a second -- wait a second. No, no, no, no, no -- by all accounts, by Jodi`s count.

SEDAGHATFAR: Let me finish my point. Let me finish my point. Why would Jodi Arias engage in a physical struggle with somebody so much bigger than her with a knife? If she had a gun, if she stole the gun from her grandparents` home, why didn`t she walk into his house and just shoot him. Even if she wanted to have sex with him first as Jane claims, she still could have shot him. Why did she engage in a physical struggle with somebody bigger than her?

That is what defense --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, you`re asking a question. Now, let`s give our other panelists a chance to answer it.

LEIBERMAN: Let us answer.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok. Stacey I`m going to give --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, Stacey, go for it.

STACEY HONOWITZ, FLORIDA PROSECUTOR: I don`t know if we are watching a complete different trial. How do you discount the premeditation? How do you discount the gas cans? How do you discount her traveling? How do you discount the stalking, the breaking in to the e-mails, the stealing of the gun, the having a knife present?

All of those things match up to premeditation. So if you want to take the one little thing that she has to say, she has no credibility at all. The judge is going to give an instruction -- you can believe all of the testimony, none of the testimony, some of the testimony, you cannot believe one word she has to say.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right --

LEIBERMAN: And one other thing, Anahita, wait.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ten seconds.

LEIBERMAN: This revictimizing of Travis is such complete and utter nonsense. There`s no proof that he abused her and there is no proof that he was a pedophile as you asserted earlier.

SEDAGHATFAR: It`s a self -- no, no, actually I never asserted that. What I`m saying is that because this is a self-defense case, what is the defense going to have to do? They`re going to have to show that Jodi had a reasonable fear of Travis Alexander when she claims that he lunged at her. And in order to do that, sadly in these cases, you are to a certain extent going to have to put the victim on trial. The defense is doing their job and that`s basically --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hold up. Side bar, please. Ok, we are going to take a break.

On the other side, we are going to continue this debate, talk about the hair color, talk about the gun. So much testimony, so crucial to this case in court today. We are taking your call. Stay there.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he ever become verbally abusive to you?


ARIAS: And he`s just screaming angry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would he ever -- in any of those disagreements -- would he ever curse at you?

REID: No. Never.

ARIAS: He said (EXPLETIVE DELETED) kill you bitch.




ARIAS: There`s no reason to be upset over this in my mind. Everything -- I have faith and in the end everything will be made known, everything will come out and in the meantime, smile and say "cheese".


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. There`s the infamous mug shot where she is smiling and she said that at one point she said, "Well, Travis would have smiled." Very, very strange stuff coming out of this woman`s mouth in many TV interviews coming back to haunt her.

We have some hair color to tell you about. But let`s go to the phone lines first. Lisa, Wisconsin -- your question or thought -- Lisa, Wisconsin.

LISA, WISCONSIN (via telephone): Hi Jane, I just wanted to know if Kurt Nurmi could be fined for the way he talked to the witness, yesterday. You know, like contempt of court kind of thing?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, that`s an excellent question. Jean Casarez, everybody was -- there was a lot of upset over Kurt Nurmi -- we played the sound byte -- the defense attorney sort of grilling this ex-girlfriend of Travis Alexander, Deanna Reid, and saying you know, did he ever call you a bleep, blah-blah-blah, bleep, bleep, bleep, bleep, bleep. And it felt assaultive and a lot of people were upset about it.

Could he be censored for that? Ok, I don`t think we are hearing her. Let me throw it to Stacey Honowitz -- same question.

HONOWITZ: No, Jane. I mean listen, when you are a witness in a case -- and she knew the questions were coming to her because I`m sure, you know, the prosecutor warned her about it if he calls her in rebuttal what it`s going to be. But unless he was extremely nasty, if he attacked the witness, if he did something physical toward the witness, there`s no grounds to hold him in contempt.

Those are questions. Those are questions the prosecutor did not jump up and object to and therefore he cannot be held in contempt for asking her questions that she probably expected.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Jean Casarez, we have you back from Arizona now. What was it like in the courtroom during that very awkward exchange? You have to feel like sort of like oh, this is so awkward when you are sitting there in person.

JEAN CASAREZ, CORRESPONDENT, IN SESSION: I just looked at the jury. And I saw this lovely classy, juror, lady -- and I could tell she didn`t like the questioning. She was offended by it as a woman watching another woman having to take it. But you know, I will say, I think that the witness -- I think she was so proud to be able to tell what Travis` character was really like and she probably didn`t care, I think, about the questions. It was more important to her to get out there who Travis Alexander really was.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: She handled a difficult situation with aplomb. And I want to mention this lady has also taken Travis Alexander`s dog, Napoleon, and is taking care of Napoleon. So that shows how much love was between the two of them and how much she cared for Travis and his dog. She`s caring for that dog right now as we speak.

So much of this trial has been about Jodi`s changing hair color. The prosecution claims Jodi dyed her hair from platinum blond to brunette at some point during her killer road trip. A rental car agent testified Jodi had blond hair when she rented the car on June 2nd in Reading, California. But today, prosecutor Martinez showed this new photo. This is a brand-new photo that was recovered from Jodi`s phone taken on June 3rd and she clearly has dark brown hair.

So the road trip starts on June 2nd, she rents the car on June 2nd. June 3rd, she`s got very dark hair. And as a woman I can say that looks like hair that was just dyed. You know, it`s got the perfect, you know when you color your hair, ladies, that first day it always looks perfect. That looks like it`s just dyed to me.

Did Jodi go from blond to brunette knowing she was about to kill her ex-boyfriend and essentially wanting to be able to get in and out of that house without being recognized and, I`ll throw it to Jon Leiberman.

LEIBERMAN: Absolutely. It`s more proof of premeditation. I mean Juan brought out this photo today. It`s clear as day the time frame. It`s clear as day that the hair color is different. And again, it speaks to that premeditation. It speaks to not wanting to be noticed either before, during or after the crime, not being able to be connected to the crime scene. Absolutely.

I think this is one major element of the past 24 hours of what the prosecution has been able to do.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Do we still have Selin? Yes, Selin you would have been making a great point about the killer road trip and the hair dyeing and the nail excuse. Tell us about it.

SELIN DARKALSTANIAN, HLN SENIOR PRODUCER: Well, Jodi has testified that on her way down from northern California to drive to Utah, which we know she really drove to Arizona and stopped at Travis Alexander`s house. She testified that she stopped and got her nails done. And the amount of time that she was there was three hours.

Well, to begin with, who stops and gets their nails done on a road trip? You have a place to get to. You have a destination. You`re trying to get there, especially if you are traveling so many miles. And she testified that she got her nails done. Well, nails don`t take three hours. Why was she in that hair salon for three hours? Could she have gotten her hair dyed during that time right before she got to Travis` house?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: See those are the little points that really, really stand out to me. We all know, we women know, if we have ever had our nails done, it doesn`t take three hours. And you are not going to be driving from state-to-state and suddenly go, you know what; I want to get a manicure. I want a mani/pedi. I want a mani/pedi right now. Oh, no you don`t.

We are going to take a short break. On the other side, we have more. The gun holster -- remember that? Oh, yes.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You said you were afraid or you nodded at least that you were afraid but I`m not sure what you were afraid of.

ARIAS: It`s trivial.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Time for pet of the day. Send your pet pics to Mac -- wow, you are ruggedly handsome, Mac. And Coquette -- she says I`m very flirtatious and I`ve got a flirtatious attitude. Lincoln and Cuddles -- they say we don`t care what you think of us we like to hang out all day. We`re buddies. Different species can be friends, people. And Lola says look at my crib. Oh my gosh, I got it going on. Let`s party.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you know of him having any weapons at all in the house?

ARIAS: His two fists.


ARIAS: Really.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No hand guns or rifles or --

ARIAS: No. He wasn`t one to keep any of that.

I remembered where he kept the gun, so I grabbed it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was there ever a holster that was found?

ESTEBAN FLORES, DETECTIVE: No. There was no holster found.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was there ever a gun case that was found?

FLORES: No. There was no gun case found.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: A key issue in this case, did Travis Alexander have a gun or not. Jodi claims in her testimony yes, he had a gun. Well, his good friend, Dave Hall, said Travis -- and this is video that he provided us -- Travis did not have a gun because every time we went target practice he would always borrow my gun. He didn`t own a gun. I would have known if he`d owned a gun.

So this is another one of those really clear cut little points that the prosecution can make. She claims that she grabbed Travis` gun up there at the top of the shelf but she had told the investigator, Detective Flores, a long time before this, "Oh, no, Travis didn`t have a gun." He just used his fists to go boxing against the boxing whatever they call that, the people that box at home.

Let`s debate that. Anahita Sedaghatfar, for the defense, I mean really? It`s not believable that Travis had a gun up there at the top of that shelf that he secretly owned that Jodi said he didn`t own when she was interrogated by cops, that his friend Dave Hall said he didn`t have a gun. And that she flew up there and grabbed it and used it against him when he attacked her. How do you make that case?

SEDAGHATFAR: Well, I have already explained my opinion on what I think the deal is with this gun. But I think the important point to note here is that Jane, the jurors were still asking questions. They still have questions in this rebuttal of this witness.

And if I`m the defense I`m thankful that they are still asking questions. Why? Because if the jurors have already made up their mind that Jodi Arias is guilty as a lot of people are predicting why are they continuing to ask questions? Even if the questions are skeptical. So I`m glad. I`m glad it shows me that the jurors possibly have not made up their mind yet. So I think that`s a good thing.

LEIBERMAN: No, let`s read these questions. I can`t -- just can`t believe you are saying that. The questions are so skeptical. The questions are just --

SEDAGHATFAR: Why are they still asking questions? Wouldn`t they want to go home after months sitting in the jury box? Why are they still asking questions?


LEIBERMAN: Let me tell you why? You know why they`re asking questions? Because they take it seriously that they have a woman`s life or death in their hands. That is commendable.

But the jury`s questions, they don`t believe this gun story. And furthermore Jodi`s gun story just like all of her other stories have evolved over time. It was oh the gun was in a holster. Oh, I don`t remember if it was in a holster. It was up there.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I see Stacey Honowitz, with a Mona Lisa smile. She has got something to say and she is going to say it on the other side of the break.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Stacey Honowitz wins the raffle. You get the final word, Stacey.

HONOWITZ: Listen, all they have to argue is, is it coincidence that the gun from the grandparents` house is missing and it matches what he was shot with? Is it reasonable to think that someone that`s a gun owner has no ammunition in the house, no holster, no case and that the closet was not messed up at all from someone who was lunging and trying to get a weapon?

They will never get around the gun evidence. It will never happen. He did not own a weapon and that came from Jodi herself.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: She said it initially and then she changed her story. And one of the reasons everything is so confusing in this case is that she has changed her story so many times. Sometimes when a case drags on this long there is confusion. Could confusion be reasonable doubt? We didn`t think so with Casey. We don`t know until judgment day.

Nancy is next.