Return to Transcripts main page


Prosecution Will Go Forward with New Jodi Arias Punishment Phase; Jodi`s Childhood Friend Speaks Out

Aired June 13, 2013 - 19:00   ET


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST: Tonight, breaking news in the Jodi Arias trial. The prosecution says it will go forward. It will retry Jodi Arias to try to convince the jury that she should be executed by lethal injection.

But also tonight, Jodi`s defense team saying it needs a six-month delay. That`s right. Half a year. Is this a stall tactic to try to save Jodi`s life?

Good evening. I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell coming to you live.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think she should be on Death Row until she dies.

JODI ARIAS, CONVICTED OF MURDER: If I`m found guilty, I don`t have a life.

I said years ago that I`d rather get death than life. And that still is true today.

DAVE HALL, FRIEND OF TRAVIS ALEXANDER: They`re all united and standing firm with the same position. They want Jodi Arias to have the death penalty.

ARIAS: If I killed Travis, I would beg for the death penalty.

STEPHEN ALEXANDER, TRAVIS`S BROTHER: I don`t want to have to see my brother`s murderer anymore.

ARIAS: Well, the worst outcome for me would be natural life. I would much rather die sooner than later.

I can`t in good conscious ask you to sentence me to death.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We all believe that she deserves the death penalty.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jodi, convicted of premeditated murder in the brutal killing of her ex-boyfriend, Travis Alexander. But she still doesn`t know if she`ll spend the rest of her life in prison or be executed. The jury hung on that crucial question, saying they couldn`t agree on that life or death question.

Tonight we`re learning Jodi will face a new jury in a mini trial to decide life or death.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That convicted murderer Jodi Arias, whom a jury also unanimously found committed her murder in an especially cruel manner, was found legally competent to both stand trial and face the death penalty.

At this point, we are still preparing to move forward to retry the penalty phase.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And within moments of learning that the prosecution still wants death for Jodi, her defense team came out swinging with a laundry list of reasons to postpone, claiming they want to wait -- are you sitting down, people -- until 2014 for the penalty phase retrial.

What do you think about a six-month delay? I want to hear from you. Call me: 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877-586-7297.

You may remember that the only person who spoke up for Jodi in the mitigation phase where you plea for the defendant`s life, was Jodi herself.

Straight out to my exclusive guest, Jodi`s best friend from grade school, Patti.

Patti, you were supposed to speak for Jodi in the mitigation phase, but you didn`t, and there`s been a lot of controversy as to why you didn`t. Tonight I understand you want to set the record straight as our exclusive guest. So Patti, tell us, what happened that made you not want to testify.

PATTI WOMACK, FRIEND OF JODI`S (via phone): Well, I was in fear of my life, my safety of my child`s life. The people who followed the Jodi Arias case aggressively were intimidating and made me scared. They posted my names on all kinds of support sites, Internet sites. They posted my address, my home address, the description of what my house looks like, with a map.

And there`s been so many cruel things to me. Hacking into my Facebook. Stealing pictures of me and my daughter. And just saying horrible, nasty things about my family and I. And, you know, that`s one of the reasons that I didn`t testify, you know.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Are you still sometimes just praying for your life?

WOMACK: Pardon?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Are you still sometimes afraid for your life?

WOMACK: I`m really worried, and I`m sad that the jury didn`t find -- come up with a verdict, because I`m worried that, you know, this is all going to start over again.

And I`m just now feeling better about my safety and, you know, just my mental health, because everything is dying down. And now that she wasn`t convicted [SIC], yes, I kind of do fear again.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, let`s try to understand where you`re coming from. Now Jodi spoke on the witness stand about how she had an idyllic childhood. Listen to what she told CBS.


ARIAS: My childhood was almost ideal. I have a big family. We`re all very close.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, Patti, you knew Jodi during the childhood years. She was your best friend from grade school. You`re upset, because you`re saying people are blaming you for knowing somebody who grew up to become a killer. But you`re not psychic. You had no idea that, when you were her friend in grade school, she would grow up to become a killer. Again, you want to set the record straight, so what are your thoughts in that regard?

WOMACK: You know, Jodi and I were childhood friends, and that`s nothing more than just childhood friends. And you know, I -- there`s nothing that I could have said to even persuade the jury in another direction or anybody else because, you know...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Patti? Patti, are you there? We lost her, but we`re going to get her back. I`ll tell you what, why don`t we do this? We`re going to go to our debate panel...

WOMACK: Hello.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hey, are you there still?

WOMACK: I am. I`m here.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We lost you for a second. We lost you for a second.

First of all, let me ask you: has this been difficult for you emotionally? You knew her as a child. You guys were friends in grade school. You had nice memories, and then this horror.

Again, you`re not a psychic. How would you know what somebody is going to do in the future?

How has this impacted you emotionally, Patti?

WOMACK: Well, of course, you know, being so close to somebody for so many years, and she was just a beautiful person. And you know, it`s just - - you never know what -- I never expected this, you know?

I don`t know. I mean, you could never tell. She was such a good person. And knowing that I shared so many good memories with her, it`s hard. It`s hard to know that, like, somebody could ever take somebody`s life. And you know, we have all lost somebody in this horrible situation.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What I`m hearing from you, Patti, is that you are not, in any way, shape or form, condoning or making excuses for what she did. Because I spoke to you leading up to this interview that we`re doing.

And you`re saying, "Hey, I`m not -- I`m horrified. But I knew somebody when I was a kid who was -- who was a nice kid. I don`t know what happened to make her this killer. And it hurts me, but I`m not defending the horrible things she did."

Is that -- am I characterizing your feelings correctly?

WOMACK: Yes, absolutely. In no way do I support what Jodi did. You know, I find it horrifying that she felt that she had to go that far, as in taking somebody`s precious life. But I do not support her.

I -- you know, at the beginning when everything all started, you know, I was confused and didn`t know what to believe, as a lot of people out there. And so as soon as I -- as soon as I found out that, you know, she really did take somebody -- take Travis`s life, I just -- my heart was broken for Jodi`s family, and Travis`s family. It`s a horrible thing. I do not condone it. I do not support what she did. And I do not support Jodi.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now you also want to set the record straight about something else, Patti. Reports are you were supposed to testify for Jodi, but you had a change of heart, and you`re explaining that.

But Prosecutor Martinez alluded to drug problems in reference to you. Let`s watch this. And I know you want to say somebody about that.


JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: I conducted an interview with Miss Womack. On two separate occasions, she failed to answer my questions. Specifically, the first occasion occurred when I started to talk about her drug use as it involved the witness and the defendant. At that point she deferred and chose not to answer.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: So Prosecutor Martinez mentions drugs. You want to set the record straight. This is your opportunity to do, so, Patti.

WOMACK: Well, I have never had a drug problem. I`ve never been convicted of any drugs, arrests. And, you know, I -- for Juan to say that about me, it actually not only disappointed me, because I had a lot of faith in him. I thought he was a great guy for going what he was doing.

And then here he is telling what seems like the whole entire world that I`m this drug addict, and I`m not. And I`ve never been arrested for these drugs.

And, you know, people just set off from what Martinez has said and made these horrible accusations of me, you know, telling me I should burn in hell and saying horrifying things about my family. And it`s just -- I`m sad that it came down to that.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I know that this is something you wanted to get off your chest. And I hope that we`ve done it in a way that is fair.

I know that, having researched you, you`re a soccer mom, as they say. I don`t know if it`s actually soccer. But that you`re constantly working with your child to get her to various events and that you`re a devoted mother.

And you know what? This case has destroyed so many lives. It has destroyed, obviously, the Alexander family; shattered. Not to mention, obviously, the man who was viciously killed.

Jodi Arias`s family, the family has done nothing wrong. They didn`t commit a crime. Their lives have been destroyed. Even a childhood friend who knew her in childhood. That`s all she knew. She knew her long before any of this happened. You can see the impact on her life.

So I hope that folks will leave you alone, Patti, and realize you`re not a psychic. You had no idea what this kid that you knew back in grade school would grow up to do, and so, that`s it. Leave her alone.

On the other side, we`re going to debate this whole issue of should this mini retrial be pushed back to 2014, and what do you think? Call me?


JUDGE SHERRY STEPHENS, PRESIDED OVER TRIAL: "Is Miss Arias taking medication to treat this terrible PTSD disorder?"

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She was a woman with low self-esteem.

ARIAS (via phone): Oh, my gosh. That is so debasing. I like it.

Before they book me, can I clean myself up a little bit?




ARIAS: I said years ago that I`d rather get death than life. That still is true today.

If a conviction happens, I know that I won`t be the first person to be wrongly convicted and possibly wrongly sentenced for either life in prison or the death penalty. And personally, if I had my choice, I would take the death penalty, because I don`t want to spend the rest of my life in prison.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, first of all, I want to go out to my expert panel and ask them what they thought of what Patti had to say. I just think it`s really unfair to attack somebody because they happened to know Jodi Arias as a child.

Dwayne Cates, you`re out there in Arizona, criminal defense attorney. What`s your thought on that?

DWAYNE CATES, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, I want to commend you, Jane. I think you did a wonderful thing.

This poor girl didn`t do anything wrong, and she was viciously attacked on the Internet and slandered. And they made pictures of her with devil horns, and you know, you helped her clear her name. I think it`s a wonderful thing that you did.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, thank you. You know, it`s something that I think is just unfair.

How will you -- how do you know what`s going to happen to somebody down the road? You don`t know that. It`s not like she`s been putting up Web sites. There`s other people who apparently are putting up, like, "free Jodi," "Jodi is innocent" Web sites. She`s not one of them; she`s not involved in any of that. And she makes it very clear that she condemns what Jodi Arias did.

And I`ll throw that to Jon Leiberman.

JON LEIBERMAN, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, well, look, I agree. I mean, the one thing that she said that struck me a little bit was she said the threats were one reason why she didn`t testify. So I was wondering what the other reasons were. And she didn`t really address why she didn`t answer Juan`s questions.

But that being said, you know, obviously she shouldn`t be attacked personally because, look, even she admitted in the interview with you Jane, a very good interview, that nothing she could have said could have mitigated any of this, in her opinion. That`s what she said, that nothing she could have said would have made a difference to the jury, she thinks.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, let me just say that, having talked to her in a pre-interview, the other reason she said is that she didn`t want to defend what Jodi did. That was the other reason she told me that she didn`t speak up. Because she had no -- she didn`t want to defend that.

I guess, you know, originally she might have thought, well, I could just say, "I liked her as a child," but this case got really complicated and when she realized what she had done she said, "No, I can`t -- I can`t defend that." So nobody spoke up for Jodi except Jodi.

Jodi`s team pulled up all the stops for her defense, including putting every nude or sexually graphic part of her relationship with Travis on display. Remember this?


KIRK NURMI, JODI`S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Do you remember seeing e-mails in which Mr. Alexander referred to Miss Arias as a, quote, (EXPLETIVE DELETED) wonder?

MARTINEZ: Objection. Hearsay.

NURMI: As a slut?


NURMI: As a whore?



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, one of the reasons for the delay is Jodi`s team says they need more time because their calendars are totally booked through July and August.

Now, some cynics may wonder if they purposefully stacked their calendar to push the retrial on life or death back. Let`s debate it with our expert panel. Do they really need six more months? Do we really have to wait until 2014, or is this a stall tactic?

Beginning with Jordan Rose for the prosecution.

JORDAN ROSE, ATTORNEY: Jane, this is such nonsense. They`ve had five years to prepare for this. They were very well-prepped and ready to go just a month ago. And to ask for more time and to push it into 2014 is a joke. It`s ridiculous.

I don`t know what end they`re attempting to achieve here, but it`s just -- it`s crazy. It`s a disservice to the system of justice, to our public, and we get on with it. How could they be more prepared? There`s no way. It`s not necessary.


ADAM SWICKLE, ATTORNEY: First of all, Jane, that interview that you just did was so powerful, so insightful. And what it does show is exactly why they need this kind of time, in order to give Jodi a fair opportunity, at a fair hearing.

The emotions of this case are boiled over. They`re so strong right now.

This is an individual who needs to be able to testify to the things they need her to testify to. It is very critical that not only witnesses be able to come forward, but also let the emotions die down so that an appropriate jury can be there.

ROSE: Oh my goodness. Are you kidding me? It`s out of our control.


SWICKLE: It -- I believe the question was addressed to me.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hold on a second.

SWICKLE: It`s out of control. It`s out of control.

ROSE: Can I respond?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jon Lieberman. First of all, the whole point of the interview is that she doesn`t want to testify for Jodi Arias. But continue on, Jon Leiberman.

LEIBERMAN: Right. Yes. She doesn`t want to testify. That`s her choice. And I believe that was her point in doing the interview. She doesn`t want to be a mitigating factor. She doesn`t want to be a mitigating witness.

SWICKLE: There`s a lot of people don`t.

LEIBERMAN: Jodi Arias has had such a fair trial. Adam, let me finish. Jodi Arias, this judge went out of her way to make sure that Jodi Arias had a supremely fair trial.

At this point it`s just stalling. It`s just keeping Jodi Arias relevant, which is all Jodi Arias really wants. We have to get through this next phase. The time is now.


SWICKLE: ... apple, and now they need time. They didn`t get the death penalty the first time around. There`s no need to rush. She`s not going anywhere. It`s not like they can`t give her the death penalty. We just want to rush to get the answers that we want to get.

LEIBERMAN: Yes, because the victim`s family deserves the answer. The victim`s family has been going through this for five years. The Alexanders have gone through this for five years. She got a fair trial. Now let`s get the resolution.

SWICKLE: And the jury didn`t put her to death! And the jury didn`t put her to death! And now you want to rush to phase two. Why? What`s the rush?

ROSE: Let me say this. Isn`t this really just about -- They just found out. The defense just figured out that their witness, their only witness to Jodi`s character, has gone sideways. She has no desire to testify on Jodi`s behalf.

And frankly, she hasn`t known her for some time. She knew her when she was a kid. It`s irrelevant. So now they have to go search for a Jodi friend. And they`ve had five years to come up with a Jodi friend, and they haven`t found one.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What about her mother? I still do not understand why her mother did not take the stand in her own defense.

I mean, look, if they want to have somebody to testify in the mitigation phase, the mother doesn`t need time to calm down or for things to cool down. She`s right there. There`s her sister. They did not testify. They chose not to speak on their daughter and sister`s behalf. OK. We`re going to take a short break. We have calls lined up. And there`s more controversy about the financial aspect of this, the emotional aspect of this. Stay right there.


ALEXANDER: If she gets the death penalty, unfortunately it will be about 17 to 20 years before that actually happens. But ultimately our family is in consensus that we all believe that she deserves the death penalty.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And being on Death Row, you`re by yourself and you don`t get to interact with the other inmates. And that`s what she deserves to be: by herself to think about what she did to my brother.

I think she should be on Death Row until she dies.




ARIAS (singing): O, holy night, the stars are brightly shining. It is the night...


VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`re going to talk about and debate whether Jodi Arias is insane in a second.

But first, let`s go to the phone lines. Patrice, Texas, your questions or thoughts. Patrice, Texas. Patrice, Texas! All right.

CALLER: Hi, Jane, and to the panel. I don`t think Jodi Arias is mentally ill. I think she should die the same way that Travis died, which is the 29 stab wounds, the cut to the throat, and the gunshot. She needs that. And that alone.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, OK, I understand your passion, but -- and I`ll throw this to Jordan Rose for the prosecution. Because even though you`re with the prosecution, I`m hoping that you would agree that lowering ourselves to the standard of criminality is not something that we should do as a society. That is becoming as bad as the person, in a sense, who committed the crime initially. That`s more about vengeance and retribution than it is about justice.

ROSE: Absolutely. I mean, we have the death penalty in America. And if you were to think about a textbook case, whether you agree with it or not, doesn`t matter. That`s what the law is. And here in Arizona, that`s what the law is.

If you -- you couldn`t have a more textbook case of a heinous, awful crime. And so I think this is what`s going on. This is not a retribution. This is the law is there is a death penalty. And if you wanted to look up why you should have this, I think this would be it. Somebody who plans a crime, premeditates it clearly, follows through and then covers it up this woman is...


SWICKLE: I don`t believe in the death penalty, but I do respect the fact that this is the way we`ve chosen to live as a society.

But going back to your original question, I don`t believe she`s insane. I don`t believe there`s been any evidence that suggests she`s insane. She definitely has mental illnesses that would be relevant towards whether they would put her to death. If you had to ask me if she was insane, pursuant to what the legal standards are, I don`t believe there`s anything there.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I think there`s a difference in the mitigation phase. We`re not saying she`s clinically insane to the point that she doesn`t understand right from wrong, that she`s hearing voices, a la Andrea Yates, who was sold by either the devil or God or whatever to kill her children. But there are people who believe.

And by the way, as the jury was deliberating whether to give her life or death, Jodi was giving a slew of interviews for hours.

And Amy Murphy from a local affiliate, KNXB, spoke to her one-on-one and told me afterwards she felt Jodi was insane. So listen to this clip of Jodi and then we`ll talk about it right, after the break.



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.




JODI ARIAS, CONVICTED MURDERER: I`m ready to meet my Maker, if that time should come.

CROWD: Justice for Travis. Justice for Travis.


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN HOST: Local affiliate reporter Amy Murphy from KNXB spoke to Jodi one-on-one and says she thinks she`s totally insane. Listen to this.


AMY MURPHY, REPORTER, KNXB: Every question that I asked her, it didn`t matter how severe the question was she was unfazed by it. She was that way in court as well so many times.

People, you know, felt that she was cold and she did appear that way. She appeared uncaring for a lot of the testimony. Seeing her one-on-one like that, I truly believe she was on meds. One of my contacts at the jail confirmed that she is but they wouldn`t be able to tell whether they were anti-depressants or anti-psychotic meds.

It`s almost as if her eyes are black when you`re looking into them. And it wasn`t necessarily a feel of evil that I got from her as insanity.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s debate it with our expert panel. In the penalty phase retrial, which prosecutors now say will happen, the question is when -- do you think that the defense is now going to take a new tact? Instead of fighting the prosecution`s contention that she has borderline personality disorder, which is a mental illness, haven`t they indicated they`re going to embrace that and try to use "crazy" as a mitigator? And I`ll start with Dwane Cates.

DWANE CATES, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Absolutely they`re going to use this as a mitigator. Three mental health professionals got on the stand and said that she has mental illness. I mean they have to use it.

Now number one, Jodi Arias can tell them not to use it. So, it`s going to be up to her. If she says "I don`t want you to tell people that I`m crazy," they can`t use that in her defense because she`s the client and they have to do what she says. I think that`s the only reason they didn`t use it in the first place.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know, I found it very odd, Jordan Rose, that they would argue with the prosecution when the prosecutor said she had borderline personality disorder and brought on Dr. Demarte to make that point. I thought, why aren`t you embracing this? This is a potential mitigator down the road.

And yet now they have changed their tune, and they are saying that. They are saying it`s wrong to send some mentally ill woman to death. Even though they argued against her being mentally ill in the case in chief -- in the main trial?

JORDAN ROSE, ATTORNEY: I agree, it`s fascinating. And it turns out that this may be the only mitigator given that they don`t have the mom, the sisters, they don`t have any friends. And so they have to embrace her craziness.

But the thing is, that everyone who kills someone we have to imagine is crazy but are they insane by definition of the law? Which means this crazy one couldn`t understand what she was doing.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wait, I have to -- I have to jump in Jordan --

JON LEIBERMAN, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: Jane, plenty of people --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: -- and I have to ask you this question, Jordan. Is there a different type of crazy? Obviously, you can`t plead not guilty by reason of insanity if you know right from wrong; the fact that she premeditated the case shows she knows right from wrong. She knew she was doing something wrong. She hid the evidence.

But is there a different standard? I`m asking a legal question -- a different definition of mental illness in the mitigation phase where yes, she knew right from wrong but her mental illness handicapped or crippled her decision-making power in some way? I`m just asking that as a point of law, Jordan.

ROSE: Yes, she can certainly talk -- they can talk about if this mental illness caused a mitigation and maybe they will show that it did. And it impaired her judgment so greatly. But the jury still has to buy in to the idea that this crazy person couldn`t understand what she was doing.

CATES: Right, the jury already bought into that. The jury already bought into that. It was 8-4.

ROSE: Absolutely. Absolutely.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jon Leiberman?

LEIBERMAN: Look, she wasn`t crazy enough to not be able to plan and carry out the execution of Travis Alexander. There are plenty of mentally ill people who have been given the death penalty. Being mentally ill or having a diagnosis like borderline personality disorder -- if that`s what it turns out to be or whatever -- that`s not a license to kill. That isn`t a get out of jail free card or get off the death row free card.


CATES: We`re not asking to let her get out of jail.

LEIBERMAN: There are plenty of mentally-ill defendants who had been put to death and on death row.

ADAM SWICKLE, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: This is a very different phase. This isn`t the guilt phase. This is the penalty phase. You absolutely have to use it as a mitigator and it`s absolutely (inaudible) --


LEIBERMAN: I`m saying they`re going to use it but I`m saying I don`t believe it`s going to work. Of course, they`re going to use.

CATES: It already worked once and they didn`t even use it.

SWICKLE: It already worked.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What did you say Dwane?

CATES: I said it already worked. It was 8-4. It wasn`t even close putting her to death. And that jury --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: If they do -- and they have announced they will. It`s official now they will go for this penalty phase retrial, how does the prosecution increase the odds? Ok, how does the prosecution increase the odds that they will get what they want, which is the death penalty?

CATES: I don`t know how they do that. I think they did a pretty darn good job during the trial, and everybody else was saying how great Juan Martinez was and how he tore everybody up. And I don`t know how the prosecution does better, but think of this, the defense gets a do-over.

And you keep saying it`s a mini trial, I don`t think it`s going to be a mini trial. I think they`re going to do most of this over again. I think the defense learned a lot the first time through. I don`t think -- it will be totally different the second time. And it will probably be hung again.

ROSE: It probably will be --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: My theory is that the unconscious bond -- my theory has always been that her being on the stand 18 days created in this trial dragging on for months created an unconscious bond with some of the jurors and that 90 percent of communication is nonverbal and most people make subconscious decisions and they try to find a conscious logic to hang her hat on. And I just think they got to know her too well and they couldn`t bring themselves to do that because they got to know her and the defense strategy of keeping her on the stand, even though she was talking nonsense and lying through her teeth, worked to that extent. That`s my theory.

Now on the retrial she may not be able to get on the stand for 18 days and yak and tell all sorts of stories. So this new jury may not bond with her in the same way.

Let`s go out to the phone lines, Stephanie New Jersey, your questions or thoughts -- Stephanie.

STEPHANIE, NEW JERSEY (via telephone): Did Travis Alexander have six months extra to live?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: No, he obviously did not. Continue on.

STEPHANIE: Why should she get six more months for a trial?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, let me ask you -- that`s an excellent point. And let me throw this at Dwayne Cates because you`re down there, and we stood outside that courthouse and talked about how you`ve done so many trials there. Do you think that the judge is going to say, "Oh, yes, ok. If we have the calendar we put up earlier, ok, defense counsel, you`re booked for July and August so forget it, we`ll do it in 2014."

Do you think the judge is going to say "Forget about it, you show up here we`re going to do this trial in August. And we`ll give other lawyers to handle your cases that you`re saying are preventing you from handling the case?"

CATES: First of all, they have a lot of other clients. Jodi Arias wasn`t their only client. There is no way that I could try this in July. I have vacations planned. I have other trials going on, I have clients. It`s not unusual for cases to get bumped because of conflict.

Number two is if the judge doesn`t give them the extra time, that`s a big issue on appeal.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So everybody last -- yes or no -- does everybody feel this retrial will start this summer or in 2004? Let`s see the panel. 2004? Raise your hands? 2014. 2014, I mean. I`m a little -- ok. You say -- I`m not raising my hand. I`m telling you. So most people think it will happen this summer. This summer, raise your hand.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jordan this summer? Ok. So we`re split.

ROSE: Absolutely.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Who knows? We don`t know.

Once again we spoke exclusively to Patti. Jodi Arias` child hood friend who wanted to set the record straight. She does not condone Jodi`s killing of Travis Alexander. She`s horrified by it. She wants people to leave her alone. She`s a mom. She hasn`t done anything wrong. She didn`t speak on Jodi`s behalf.

Listen to this and then we have an amazing story on the other side.


PATTI, FRIEND OF JODI ARIAS: I mean you could never tell. She was such a good person. And knowing that I shared so many good memories with her, it`s hard. It`s hard to know that like somebody could ever take somebody`s life.




UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This baby was last seen on this porch two weeks ago.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you know anything or if he`s alive or dead --

VINNIE POLITAN, HLN HOST: A shocking story out of Utica, New York that is starting to sound strangely similar to the Caylee Anthony disappearance.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nothing like this has ever happened around here, ever.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Very complicated case. They have a big job on their hands.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The further out we get from when it occurred, the harder it is.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: His son just vanished.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh my god. Waiting two weeks to call in a missing baby --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tonight, outrage over a precious baby`s mysterious disappearance. This beautiful, beautiful nine-month-old boy vanishes, and two weeks pass before anyone tells police. Think that`s suspicious? Well, so do I and so does law enforcement.

Little Levon Wameling`s father was the last to see him. He claims he took his son for a late night walk on May 29th and accidentally locked himself out of the house so left the boy on the front porch and went to go through a window and climbed through a window. And then he came back to get his son, and the child was gone.

Meanwhile, the little boy`s mother has been left at a rehab facility to help police find her baby.


AMY WAMELING, MOTHER OF MISSING BABY: I would like to ask anybody that`s out there, if you know where he is or if he`s alive or dead, just please call the Utica Police Station so I can put him to rest. Just please don`t be scared. If you know anything. Just please contact somebody.

The boy`s father wasn`t even the one to report Levon missing. His mother -- the father`s mother -- Levon`s grandmother kept asking where is the baby, where is the baby. He finally told her the baby is missing. Grandma is the one who got police involved.


CHIEF MARK WILLIAMS, UTICA POLICE CHIEF: Last I spoke with the father, he asked for an attorney and no longer wanted to speak with us. So at this point we`ve had no further communication with the father at this point. We find it hard to believe that a parent would wait two weeks to notify the police.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Police are not calling the father a suspect just yet. Obviously not reporting your child missing for two weeks makes you look like you`re hiding something.

Straight out to Utica Police Sergeant Steve Hauck -- thank you for joining us Sergeant, I know you`re very busy trying to find this child -- this innocent, precious little baby who obviously did not pick up and walk off on his own. Are you getting any leads? What do you know?

SGT. STEVE HAUCK, UTICA POLICE (via telephone): First, thanks for having me. We have been getting leads, you know. There`s been tremendous outcry from the public. Obviously it`s a nine-month-old baby. And people that normally necessarily wouldn`t cooperate with police have been calling in and offering to help in any way they can.

Unfortunately, you know, we`re two weeks behind here. So, you know, when you have a missing child, they`re always difficult cases. So you`re two weeks behind it`s nearly impossible.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I want to go to Guy Palmeri, the landlord of the home where the child went missing. Thank you for joining us, Guy. What have you observed about this father, whose name we`re not mentioning at this moment, and his behavior pattern that raised your eyebrows?

GUY PALMERI, LANDLORD OF MISSING BOY`S FATHER (via telephone): Well, I mean, like everybody I feel the same way and think the same why that, you know, why would anybody wait so long? So, you know, everybody is thinking the same way. But he is saying that as far as going to the back in order to get in because he locked himself out. That`s kind of typical for him. I don`t know how many times I`ve had to give him keys. I don`t know why. It seems like he had a tendency to lose keys, misplace them, whatever.

More than a few times I`ve had to give him keys. So I`m not surprised if he says that he had to go in through the window or whatever in order to, you know, open the door.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, thank you, sir. And Marc Klaas, you`re the father of Polly Klaas and you`re the founder of Klaas Kids Foundation. Your precious daughter was abducted and murdered and we thank you for joining us. What do you make of this case thus far?

MARC KLAAS, FOUNDER KLAAS KIDS FOUNDATION: Well, Jane, the only thing that makes any sense to me is the father is that flat out and absolutely and totally lying about what happened the night that the little baby disappeared. I think he`s completely and totally implicated in the baby`s disappearance. I hope this doesn`t turn into another manual on how to get rid of an unwanted baby and get away with it.

This is -- in my mind it`s very similar to the Susan Powell situation. Everybody knew that Josh Powell was lying but the authorities did nothing about it. They let him continue to walk the streets. I think we need some prosecutorial chutzpah here and they need to go after this guy and find out what really happened.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, you heard it from the sergeant. They`re doing everything they can. We`re going to have more on the other side. .



HAUCK: Please check your backyards, your sheds, your abandoned cars, abandoned buildings. Anything on your property that you think could hide something or someone.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Vinny Parco, private investigator, this dad has told two stories about how he lost his son. One, he was out there with a guy and when he locked himself out, he went around back, and then the child when he finally got back to the front was gone. And then the cops realized, no, he`s lying about the second person. It`s just him, and it`s the same story, except it`s him alone. What do you make of it, Vinny?

VINNY PARCO, PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR: First of all, he`s been arrested for drugs and guns. His wife is in a drug rehab. So they`re drug addicts -- very simple. They`re drug addicts. And drug addicts do weird and mysterious things to get money for their drugs.

And the only thing I can think of, and I really hope I`m wrong, but I would think that he might have sold the baby to somebody for money. And that`s been documented many times for junkies doing that. And, you know, he`s been carrying guns, been arrested for guns, who knows if he is involved with a gang. We don`t know that much about him, except that he has a criminal record.

And he`s -- he`s been losing his keys so he`s -- he`s an air head. You know, he`s probably stoned all of the time. But his story doesn`t make --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me just say this. I want to distinguish between the mother and the father. The mother`s alibi, she is in rehab and I commend people who go to rehab to deal with their problem. Very different from the father whose words don`t add up and the cops say that.

More on the other side.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`ve got a tip line if you know anything. Marc Klaas, what do you think law enforcement should do right now?

KLAAS: I think they need to aggressively investigate this character. I think that they should arrest him for child endangerment, for leaving the little boy on the front steps while he went around the back. Put this character in the jail cell and put the squeeze on him. Let`s see what`s going on here.

Do not tread lightly on this case. Do not allow this guy to get away with either selling or murdering his little child. It`s just not fair to the child or to society.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I appreciate you coming on, Marc. We love to have you. We have to emphasize, he has not been named a suspect or person of interest. But law enforcement has said they don`t understand it. He could not report his child missing for two weeks.

Nancy Grace is next.