Return to Transcripts main page
Dr. Drew
Groom Was "Terrified of Heights"; Hiccup Girl, Guilty Of Murder
Aired September 23, 2013 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DREW PINSKY, HOST: She put her baby in a microwave, turned it on, and walked away. What drove the mother to murder her infant daughter in this way. Our behavior girl looks at the possible causes. Plus the bride who pushed her groom off a cliff. Her childhood friends are finally speaking out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She was crying hysterically before she even got the altar.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: And, the so-called hiccup girl gets life in prison for murder. Her attorney is here for an exclusive interview. Let`s get started. Good evening. Welcome. My co-host, attorney at SiriusXM Radio, Jenny Hutt, and coming up the newlywed bride who pushed her husband off a cliff to his death. We`re going to hear from friends who say the groom in fact, Jenny, was terrified of heights. But first,
JENNIFER HUTT, ATTORNEY AT SIRIUSXM RADIO: Great.
PINSKY: I know, it`s sad story. But first the women - the woman - who killed her 28-day-old baby by cooking her in a microwave. She`s already had three trials, now she wants a fourth. Take a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you put her in microwave?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Grown over and neglected, Paris Talley`s grave marker explains only a fraction of the baby`s short and tragic life. Homicide by hyperthermia and thermal injury. Arnold microwaved her infant daughter.
JUDGE YOUNG: You see this gavel -
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Wow.
YOUNG FROM VIDEO CLIP: -- (Inaudible) want to jump over the bench and smack the living `bajeezies` out of her.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Judge Mary Wiseman sentenced Arnold to life in prison without parole.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
YOUNG FROM VIDEO CLIP: She deserves the death penalty. This is the type of crime that the death penalty was meant for.
PINSKY: Mark Gokavi is the court`s reporter for the Dayton Daily News. Mark, tell us what the latest is.
MARK GOKAVI, COURT REPORT FOR THE DAYTON DAILY NEWS: Yes, Dr. Drew, it`s been eight years and three trials since this gruesome trial took place. Now China Arnold is seeking a fourth trial. The Court of Appeals could rule on that as early as this Friday. The first trial was a mistrial after a little boy said he saw somebody else do it. The second, she was found guilty but that was later overturned on appeal when one of the witnesses recanted her testimony. And then the third trial she was found guilty. The jury did not decide on the death penalty and sent her to life without - in prison without parole where she`s been the last two years.
PINSKY: So she wants this based on - what - what technicality or something in the court proceedings? It`s an appeal, right?
GOKAVI: Yes, it`s an - it`s an appeal and, again, she`s won one time on appeal in this case. There`s five errors that the lawyer used, and his main points are that - she`s always maintained her innocence and that she didn`t dare go up on the stand during a death penalty case because that`s too risky to put your defendant up there. So now he`s taking it again to trial without the death penalty specifications, she may take the stand in her own defense and tell her side of the story.
PINSKY: Oh, that would be very, very interesting. Thank you, Mark. Joining us to discuss -- Attorney Mark Eiglarsh, from Speaktomark.com. Attorney Anahita Sedaghatfar, HLN`s Lynn Berry and attorney and CNN legal analyst, Danny Cevallos. So, with you, Mark, you have heard those issues. I don`t know if they`re valid or not that the attorney is raising, do you think she should get a new trial?
MARK EIGLARSH, ATTORNEY WITH SPEAKTOMARK.COM: No, not based on what he just said. The concept that she would testify if the stakes were lower, meaning she wasn`t facing death but just facing life, that makes no sense. The stakes are extraordinarily high when you`re just facing life anyway. The appellate court will not disturb this conviction if that`s her best argument.
PINSKY: Anahita, you`re looking at me like you maybe disagree with that.
ANAHITA SEDAGHATFAR, ATTORNEY: Well, Dr. Drew, before everyone starts attacking me on Twitter and even on this show, let me say that I get the fact that she`s had three trials already. She was convicted in two and now she`s asking for a fourth trial. This all on the taxpayer`s dime. But news flash - the Constitution applies to everybody. Even people we hate. And so, she has a constitutional right to a fair trial and if the defense can find facts or evidence to show that she didn`t get a fair trial, then I think she - the court -- should grant the motion.
(CROSS TALK)
EIGLARSH: That`s generic, though. Wait, wait, wait. That`s generic. What are the grounds in this case that you have found that would warrant a new trial?
SEDAGHATFAR: If the defense can show there was some sort of juror misconduct, some prosecutorial misconduct, if there`s some new evidence that the defense wasn`t aware of at the time of the initial trial. I don`t think it`s clear you know what other grounds the defense is raising here, Mark, but I think you would agree that if - that they have an ethical and even a legal duty here. I mean, their client is convicted of murder.
(CROSS TALK)
PINSKY: Absolutely. Wait a minute, though. Hang on. Lynn, I want to go to Lynn. This is what drives us all that are not legal people insane. Because it sounds insane that you`re willing to - Lynn, is there anything you want to argue the same? Lynn.
LYNN BERRY, HOST ON CNN HEADLINE NEWS: Anahita, I appreciate you acknowledging the fact that this is on taxpayers` dime because this is becoming a circus, a circus. One trial, to trials, three trials, now you want a fourth trial? She`s been convicted twice and at a certain point, it`s almost as absurd as the fact that she cooked her baby in the microwave. That takes it to a completely different level and the fact that this is even being discussed is (inaudible).
PINSKY: And I want to get Danny in here because apparently you can tell me something about the baby`s father. He maybe was part of the scenario that we don`t know, tell me.
DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, that`s been part of the defense in at least one trial - that the father was at least pointed to as a potential real-doer, I guess we would call him. And that was at least part of the defense. Whether or not there`s sufficient evidence as to that, that`s not really the - the appeals court won`t really look so much at that, but that will be part of their defense. The other thing that we need to talk about is that everyone acts like multiple trials are like she`s had too many pieces of cake at a party. That`s not the way it works. I mean, for each of those new trials, that means an appellate judge or multiple judges looked at the case and said there was some fatal error below.
SEDAGHATFAR: Exactly.
CEVALLOS: It`s not like someone`s spinning a roulette wheel and one of the slots is -- `hooray for you, new trial.`
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Danny, a technicality - but, Danny, a technicality is not a reason - it`s all the way back in there when she has a cellmate that has come forward as a witness saying that she told her that the baby sit right in the microwave.
PINSKY: Wow.
(CROSSTALK)
CEVALLOS: You know, we used the word technicality. I`d like to respond to that. We use the word technicality fairly often, and you know the reality is we don`t use the word technicality in the law because the real word for technicality is usually a constitutional or some other violation. Look, it is true that constitutional violations often let a guilty person go free, but we`ve made a contract - with ourselves and society - it`s called the Constitution, and if you don`t like it, there are plenty of other countries that don`t go through fair trials, pick up your bags and move.
BERRY: But, Dr. Drew, you make a good point. Dr. Drew, you make a good point that people that are not legal eagles sitting at home are going to be shaking their heads, saying I cannot believe any of (inaudible).
PINSKY: Yes, absolutely, but my friend Mark Eiglarsh wants to set me straight. Go ahead, Mark.
EIGLARSH: Well, I just want to add to what Danny was saying. Look, I`m a citizen, I think this woman should absolutely rot or something worse. However, the minute that we relax the rules and we don`t afford her due process as Danny talked about that`s guaranteed in the Constitution, then if either any of us or family members of anyone we care about --
PINSKY: All right, here, OK --
EIGLARSH: -- if ever in a court of law - then somehow they don`t get the (inaudible).
PINSKY: -- but here`s where I`m going crazy, and Jenny I`m going to bring you in on this one. It has to come from her. She has to be maintaining the- and maybe she is innocent - I mean this is always a possibility (inaudible).
(CROSS TALK)
PINSKY: Well, but the fact is, Jenny, she claims to have been blackout drunk. If she was blackout drunk, she may not know who did it and therefore is claiming innocent even though she in fact did it.
HUTT: I think she`s been claiming innocent all along, Dr. Drew. But to go back to what Lynn was saying, Lynn, I`m a lawyer and a mother and a person and it grosses me out, it`s disgusting and I want her never to see the light of day. So, and I know constitutionally -
BERRY: There you go.
HUTT: -- she`s allowed to have a trial if in fact there was like they were saying a real issue that came up (inaudible) the court.
PINSKY: You know what, time to heat up, hey, J, apparently we`re going to talk to the attorney who spent a lot of time with her, and I think he`s going to say she has other kids and is a good mom. But, Anahita --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (Inaudible).
PINSKY: Well, we`ll see. Anahita, what do you want to say?
SEDAGHATFAR: Well, I think that we`re all just rushing to convict this woman, and we want to sentence her to death, Dr. Drew.
EIGLARSH: The jury did.
(CROSS TALK)
EIGLARSH: Two juries!
(CROSS TALK)
EIGLARSH: Twice.
SEDAGHATFAR: If you would let me finish, I would make my point.
PINSKY: Please.
SEDAGHATFAR: Quick, Ma, slow down. Look, two juries did convict her. There was a mistrial in one, but guess what, Dr. Drew? None of the juries were able to sentence her to death. So obviously, I mean, this kind of reminds me of a small little case, the Jodi Arias case, but clearly there was some mitigating factor that those jurors considered - either they believed the fact that she had no prior criminal record --
(CROSS TALK)
PINSKY: I just want to stop - I just want to stop bleeding taxpayer dollars for this case. That`s all I`m saying, guys, hold on a second. Next up, what could have driven this woman to kill her baby in such a gruesome manner. The behavior girl is going to look at some possible causes, and later on, the bride who pushed her groom off a cliff - childhood friends of hers are speaking out about her. I think it`s both of them, and the groom`s fear of heights. Back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Male, VIDEO CLIP: Three-week-old baby that is burned to death like that? Come on!
Female, VIDEO CLIP OF 911 CALL: We have just pronounced it. This baby is covered with burns.
Male, VIDEO CLIP: She was suffering from severe burns and she was dead when she got to the hospital.
Female REPORTER FROM VIDEO CLIP: It goes to the core of just evil to me. Absolutely evil.
Male, VIDEO CLIP: What were you doing, Mom?
PINSKY: Time for the `Behavior Bureau", and I`m back with my co-host, Jenny. Jenny, I got a really interesting cryptic Tweet here, it`s from (Debra Sweet 1959). "China Arnold was not a good mother to her other child either real issues going on there not at liberty to discuss." I will discuss that with the attorney when he comes and joins us here. And we are of course discussing the woman who put her baby in a microwave oven and then cooked the child to death. She wants her fourth trial. Joining us, psychotherapist and HLN contributor, Tiffanie Davis Henry, clinical psychologist Judy Ho, psychotherapist Eris Huemer, and Janine Driver, the human lie detector and author of You Can`t Lie to Me. Now, days after her baby`s death, mom had this to say to the reporters. Janine, I want you to watch carefully because I want you to see if you see anything here. Let`s take a look.
CHINA ARNOLD, DEFENDANT IN ALLEGED MURDER, ON VIDEO CLIP: They told me that it looked like somebody had cooked her. I don`t know. I don`t know why anybody would do that to her.
PINSKY: All right, Janine, that`s a very short clip, but I had a weird feeling in my gut - I don`t know about you.
JANINE DRIVER, THE HUMAN LIE DETECTOR AND AUTHOR OF YOU CAN`T LIE TO ME: Yes, well, Dr. Drew, what you`re seeing is fake sadness, and you`re picking up probably, Dr. Drew, on what we call statement analysis. And I confirmed this with my lead instructor at the Body Language Institute - Blanca Cobb and I had this big conversation today -- (inaudible) statement --
PINSKY: Hang on, Janine, Janine.
DRIVER: Yes.
PINSKY: About this particular footage you talked about, or something else?
DRIVER: Yes. This particular footage. We talked about the actual words she used, Dr. Drew, because she said someone cooked her. She never said `my child,` `my baby,` we don`t hear the baby`s name. When we say `my,` it`s ownership. So she`s not owning the child. She also doesn`t say this, Dr. Drew - someone murdered my child. Someone murdered my baby. So, we don`t hear murder, we don`t hear kill, so this is what we often hear when people are holding back the truth. I don`t think she was so drunk she doesn`t remember. I think it`s the opposite. I think she does remember and that`s why we get what`s called distancing language. She`s not taking responsibility and ownership, and she repeats the same statement a couple of times. She said "I don`t know why, I don`t know why anybody would do this." When we repeat statements, Dr. Drew, like that, it`s often a stalling technique to buy us time on what we say next. Fake emotions, fake language, distancing language. I say, she needs the death penalty - my opinion.
PINSKY: Eris, I look at my panel here and I`m looking at you, Eris, you seem stricken by this story. What are - what are you reacting to?
ERIS HUEMER, PSYCHOTHERAPIST: I`m so stricken by this because you know, more women experience post - different levels of part-partum depression and I think this is a case of post-partum psychosis. This is where a person has totally cut themselves from reality and this woman is coming up with every excuse now and not taking responsibility for what she did when she cooked her baby. This is absolutely mortifying and I also heard you say in the first block that she wants to have more children? That`s what she --
PINSKY: She has other children.
HUEMER: She has two other children, but then she wants another one?
PINSKY: No, no, I don`t know that, but I know - what I know is that the attorney, and we`re going to talk to him in a minute, is going to say, `I think you get a claim that she did well with the other children.` But, Jenny, you try to react here too. Go ahead.
HUTT: Yes, I just - listen - I read something earlier that maybe there was an issue with paternity with the baby and the guy you mentioned earlier might be in question. So to me it feels more like a Susan Smith kind of situation rather than a post-partum psychosis, but I`m not a psychologist, so, what you think?
PINSKY: Let me pull my psychologist. Eris has proposed something interesting here, and for the viewers, let me just talk about this for just a quick second. Post-partum depression I think people are aware about. Any severe mood disturbance in the year after the delivery is a post-partum depression if it persists more than a couple of weeks and has major symptoms associated with it. But a much more devastating phenomenon is post-partum psychosis and they are wild. I`ve seen a lot of those cases and they are wildly psychotic. Judy, you first. Any probability that`s something to do with this.
JUDY HO, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: I absolutely think that there`s a probability that this is what`s happening. And you know, when people get into a very stressful situation, even if they`re the ones inflicting that stress - like murderers - don`t they sometimes forget because they have that break from reality - they don`t forget on purpose - they literally split from reality because they can`t come to terms with what they did.
PINSKY: Well, but the - Judy, Janine`s raised her hand here. Go ahead Janine. But she also was supposed to have been blacked out drunk.
DRIVER: She had this momentary break.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
DRIVER: I`m not a psychologist, but she had this momentary break. It`s murder. When you come out of that break, someone murdered your - I had a baby --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right
DRIVER: -- seven weeks ago, a little baby, Charlie, and if, God forbid, he ended up baked - I would never say baked - if someone murdered my child, so when he comes out of this psychosis or whatever the depression BS that she`s saying --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
DRIVER: -- or claiming, guess what? At that time, it`s murder. She`s not saying murder, Dr. Drew. Why? Because she is creating distance, she`s not accepting responsibility.
PINSKY: Yes.
DRIVER: If someone else did it, it is murder. Isn`t that (inaudible) your kid.
PINSKY: I`m like what you`re saying, Janine, but I got to get to Tiffanie here, and, Tiffanie, not only what Janine`s saying and that Eris is proposing that same theory, but she herself, this woman, has said that she was blackout drunk. I`ve treated a lot of patients that are blacked-out drinkers. They don`t go do horrible things in the blackout. They just sort of go about their business and don`t remember anything.
TIFFANIE DAVIS HENRY, PSYCHOTHERAPIST AND HEADLINE NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, typically they don`t, and I don`t know that I`m buying that either. It`s a very - if that is what happened - she was neglecting her child, she endangered her child.
PINSKY: Yes, yes.
HENRY: If she was so drunk that she can`t remember what happened and you have a 28-day-old baby sitting there, you can`t get that drunk unless you got childcare or someone that you know and trust to take care of your child. So at the very least, she endangered the life of her child and this is what happened, thus, making her responsible for the baby`s death.
PINSKY: And, Eris, you`re nodding your head. Does she even know - even if she didn`t do it, even if the kid next door came and put the kid in the oven -
HENRY: What neighborhood do you live in, Dr. Drew? What neighborhood do you live in where kids come in the house? I don`t know what neighborhood that is.
PINSKY: You know what, I`ve been infected by the attorneys we have here that propose all kinds of crazy things and they got it in my head. I`m really sorry about that. Eris, go ahead.
HUEMER: Yes, but even if she was living in a complex where other people were coming in, this child was totally neglected and not cared for.
PINSKY: Yes.
HUEMER: And so, if she was drunk, if she was drinking, then who was taking care of this child? She neglected it.
PINSKY: That`s the point. That`s Tiffanie`s point.
HUEMER: So that`s the whole point -- either way, she murdered the child.
PINSKY: Either way, she directly, or indirectly, is responsible for that.
HUEMER: Exactly.
PINSKY: And there`s some technicalities in the courtroom apparently that - well, I want us to hear from Jenny as we go home. What do you got to take me out?
HUTT: It almost doesn`t matter what - why at this point. The point is, she took the baby, she put the baby in the microwave and she pressed `on.` It`s more than just putting a baby in a microwave. She closed it and pressed `on.` Come on, you guys.
PINSKY: When -- if you imagine that`s in fact what she did, she can`t imagine it, all five of you, I challenge you not to get nauseated when you think about that. It`s - reprehensible. Now, we are going to talk however to the lawyer who had represented this mom in her first trial. He`s going to join us to talk about her mental state, her parenting, who she is, and the panel will stay with me, and later, I`ve got the teenage girl who made headlines when he couldn`t stop hiccuping. She gets life in prison for murder. Her attorney is here with an exclusive interview. Back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
RUSSELL TALLEY, BABY PARIS TALLEY`S FATHER ON VIDEO CLIP: I fell asleep on the couch next to her. She got up, went upstairs, and I just looked at my baby and I recognized all the burn marks. I asked her if she was safe. She don`t remember nothing that happened that night. The Lord blessed us with a little girl and for something like that to happen, you know, it`s unexplainable. I think about my daughter a lot, she`s supposed to be, you know, one years old right now.
PINSKY: Back to the `Behavior Bureau` and my co-host Jenny Hutt. And Jenny, I`ve got a Tweet here - the panel in fact - it`s from Kyle Muzz. "Why are we wasting time and money. This woman microwaved a baby. Just put her in jail.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right on!
PINSKY: Well, why did this woman microwave her daughter? Joining us by phone - if she did - Ron - John Paul Ryan, I beg your pardon - John Paul Ryan is the mother`s former attorney. And, John, you spent a lot of time with this woman, so maybe you can shed some light on this for us or help us understand it in maybe even a different way.
JON PAUL RION, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT CHINA ARNOLD: Well, sure. The only way you can understand this is by the proposition that she did not do this. And if you know China - years and years we spent with China. There were three qualities she had. She was considerate, she was compassionate, she was kind. She`s one of those people that would make sure that you were OK before she asked herself whether or not she was OK.
PINSKY: And, Jon -
RION: It just makes no sense that she would do something like that.
PINSKY: -- well and you have said that she cared for - she has one other child or two? And how was she as a mother to that child or children?
RION: Oh, she had three very well-mannered young boys.
PINSKY: What do they think about this? What do those boys think?
RION: They were there in the house that night. They were shocked. When they woke up that morning and saw this tragedy, they didn`t know what to think. It came as a complete surprise.
PINSKY: Isn`t it possible that she was so blacked out, which everyone - I think even she says, I believe, that she had a blackout drug, that she did something and just doesn`t - has no awareness of it?
RION: That would have been a different crime if that`s what happened. The crime they charged was that she purposely did this. And she has asserted from the beginning that it just didn`t happen like that.
PINSKY: Mr. Rion, hang on, I want to give my panel a chance to ask you some questions. Jenny, you first.
HUTT: OK, so how do you - how can you say that she was a terrific mother if she is asserting that she was blacked out drunk?
RION: And she will live her entire life with that on her mind. The one thing that she regrets is that she left her child unprotected. This was the first night that she had gone out after the child had been born. She and the father of the child went out together. The father had bought something that she wasn`t accustomed to drinking and that opened all sorts of doors here. China has asserted that it just didn`t happen. If it did, you know, she just can`t imagine that she would be in any way involved.
PINSKY: Tiffanie, you seem to be thinking real hard about this. Go ahead.
HENRY: Yes, I actually have two questions. I know, Mr. Rion, I know you -- this is not the China that you know. Someone that could`ve done this because of her disposition and the manner that you know her - but , my first question is, have you ever been in her presence while she`s intoxicated to know what that China is like? And then my second question actually has to do with her mental status at the time of this incident. I`ve heard some grumblings of a history of mental illness, but I`m wondering specifically if her mental illness predates this trial and specifically the three and a half weeks prior to Baby Paris` death. Had she had any mental health evaluations? Had she talked to her doctor? Was she on any kind of medication? Is there anything that would make sense here in regards to that?
RION: We spoke - to your first question - I spoke to a lot of people that have spent a lot of time with her. Obviously I`ve never been with her in that condition. But in speaking to other people, she was always kind. She`s not a person that changed her personality -
HENRY: So she was a kind drunk?
RION: She was always a person that was compassion, quiet and kind. That was just China in any state. As to your second question, we had psychological evaluations done by the top people that we could find.
HENRY: Right.
RION: We wanted to find out who China was on the inside, both for the case to make sure that what we were seeing was accurate and then also obviously for the trial as well.
PINSKY: And, Mr. Rion, wasn`t that though done quite a bit later after she had been incarcerated for a while?
HENRY: Right.
PINSKY: I mean, she had had something -
HENRY: I`m asking specifically about that three and a half week -
PINSKY: Right - the before.
HENRY: -- period after she was born and before she was killed.
PINSKY: Was there anything going on?
HENRY: Was there any kind of psychiatric evaluation or did she talk to her doctor about post-partum psychosis or depression or anything?
RION: No, she didn`t because she didn`t have it. I mean, you speak to everyone in the neighborhood, they said that China was -
HENRY: All right, then. OK.
(CROSS TALK)
HENRY: (Inaudible) who did it? Who microwaved the baby?
PINSKY: Jon, can you answer that?
RION: Well, there we have two - look, this was a very close community with a lot of people living very, very close to her. Her doors were not locked, there were people with severe psychological problems that lived in the community. There were people that were angry that night. Her own - the father of the child - had thrown her down earlier that night. He was clearly upset about things. There`s a lot of theories out there. I mean, I`m not in the business -
HUEMER: Who was babysitting the baby?
PINSKY: Yes, Eris is asking an important question - if she was blacked out and they were drinking -
HUEMER: Yes, they were drinking, they went out --
PINSKY: -- who was responsible for the child?
HUEMER: -- who was babysitting the baby that night?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.
RION: The father`s sister was babysitting when they went out. When China returned, China passed out while still - while the baby was still in the care of the babysitter. And that`s the last thing China knows until she woke up. So when China went to sleep, the child was in the care of the babysitter who was the sister of the father of the child.
PINSKY: Well, that I`m afraid is the last thing we will know for the moment. Thank you very much, Mr. Rion, for joining us and helping us try to wrap our heads around this. We`re all still shaking our heads --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Whew!
PINSKY: -- it`s complicated. We`ll keep at this and next we are talking about the young bride who pushed her husband off a cliff just eight days into their marriage. Her childhood friends are talking about the red flags they saw before and during the wedding.
And then later, a teenage girl who made headlines when she couldn`t stop hiccuping now has received life behind bars. Her own attorney is here for an exclusive interview. Do not go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PINSKY (voice-over): Investigators say Jordan Graham had second thoughts about this marriage. And during a scenic Montana hike, she pushed her new groom, Cody Johnson, over a cliff.
The newlywed bride accused of pushing her husband off a cliff. She`s out of jail.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The judge released Graham, ordering her to electronic monitoring in her parents` home, saying she has no criminal history whatsoever and never exhibited tendencies for violence or even anger.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Maybe there was a fight that night. Why the hell they were walking on a trail in the national park in the middle of the night, I don`t know.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This was an accident, says Graham`s lawyer.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If this was an accident, the first thing you would do is call 911.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Prosecutors paint a very different picture of this young bride.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She`s also posting pictures on Facebook saying how much she will always love him.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: From what I`ve read she just seems like she`s just mean and nasty with a jacked-up attitude.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, she`s the only one just like Jody Arias who can say what happened.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PINSKY (on-camera): Back with my co-host, Jenny Hutt. We`ve also got Mark Eiglarsh, Anahita Sedaghatfar, Lynn Berry, Danny Cevallos.
Now, newlywed widow, Jordan Graham, remains under house arrest and has been ordered to go mental health evaluation. Mark, you say it`s like Jodi Arias, because only she knows what happened.
MARK EIGLARSH, SPEAKTOMARK.COM: That`s probably the only main similarity. Jodi Arias is in a completely different category than what this woman did. This woman, two hands to the back, throws him over the cliff. I don`t think can be plausibly analogized to a Jodi Arias who planned out, who stabbed, who brutalized Travis.
I find it different. But the similarity is that only the words flowing from her lips is what prosecutors will do to prove what happened on top of that mountain.
PINSKY: Anahita, you`re nodding your head. You agree?
ANAHITA SEDAGHATFAR, ATTORNEY: I agree, Dr. Drew. I think Jodi Arias is in a league of her own. I think she`s like a level of psychoness that is beyond. Is psychoness even a medical term? I don`t know.
PINSKY: I will adopt it for the sake of this conversation.
SEDAGHATFAR: Thank you. Yes. I mean, she stabbed her boyfriend 29 times, slit his throat from ear to ear, shoots him in the head, and then drives to another state to have sex with another guy? I mean, I would venture to say that that is definitely 100 on the psychoness meter, Dr. Drew.
PINSKY: Not something you would do, Anahita?
(CROSSTALK)
SEDAGHATFAR: I don`t think so.
PINSKY: Now, CNN spoke recently to friends of both Jordan Graham and the newlywed husband, Cody Johnson. Take a look at this. And then, Danny, I want you to comment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When we heard that he was missing, and you know, everybody was searching, she seemed to live life just like normal. I mean, the rest of us were beside ourselves, searching, and then, you know, we were doing everything we possibly could to do something, you know, to help find him. We knew that he was probably died but it was something that it was hard for us to still have that realization.
And whenever I saw her, she was just herself. Nothing happened. No emotion, nothing, it was her same old life. It`s very difficult to look at this confession and say, yes, that`s 100 percent what happened. Cody was terrified of heights. He`s not going to go on that incredibly dangerous trail at, you know, what, 10:00, eleven o`clock at night.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: So, Danny, this is what bothers everybody. He`s not likely to go on a trail on his own like to choose to go out of trail where there`s heights, because he`s terrified. And then, she doesn`t seem to be reacting to this, and she left him there maybe to die?
DANNY CEVALLOS, ATTORNEY: Yes. Doctor, you have to be asking the right person. I, too, suffer from a fear of heights. And fortunately, there`s a cure, stay away from heights.
PINSKY: Right.
CEVALLOS: That`s it. Don`t go near them, which I do. The other problem with the case like this. Yes, he may have a well-documented fear of heights, but the other difference, and I want to relate this briefly back to Jodi Arias is that cases like this, falls off cliffs can be analogized to when people fall off both (ph).
They`re completely unlike Jodi Arias, because Jodi Arias had a jubilee, and that`s a medical term, a jubilee of forensic evidence at the apartment, in these fall cases and both cases (ph) where people just fall off, there`s very little. This case will come down to a lot of high school physics. Someone will tell us that the distance or place that the body landed is so inconsistent with either side, whenever side that`s taking, which is either a push or an accidental fall.
Someone will take either side and this case will come down to what expert the jury believes. And it will come down to a form of high school physics. There is a dearth of evidence here.
PINSKY: I want Lynn to comment, but hang on. But before I do, Jenny, I want to just double check my high school vocabulary -- a jubilee of psychoness? Did I get it right, Anahita?
SEDAGHATFAR: Perfect. We should add that to the Webster`s dictionary just like twerking?
PINSKY: Lynn, you have something more important to say.
LYNN BERRY, HLN HOST: Yes. That sounds straight out of the yearbook. Well, you know, I actually didn`t think what the friends said were significant the fact that he was terrified of heights because there`s not going to be an argument that she dragged a dead body up there and threw it off there. Somehow, she talked him into going up there or they both decided to go up there together regardless of the fact that he was afraid of heights.
What I think is significant is what they don`t say which is that there was any sort of domestic situation between the two, because I think the defense is really going to go for some sort of abuse argument. He was abusive to her, and therefore, she had to defend herself this happened, and she covered it up.
That may be criminal, but it`s not murder. And the friends didn`t say that there was anything in this relationship that would lead to abuse. I think that`s going to be difficult.
PINSKY: Not yet. We`ll keep our eye on this. Thank you, panel.
Coming up next, the hiccup girl having been found guilty of murder, even though she didn`t pull the trigger herself. Her attorney is here to discuss this exclusively. Don`t go away.
VINNIE POLITAN, HLN ANCHOR: Coming up top of the hour on "HLN After Dark," we`ve got our in-studio jury who will hear for the first time new details about new evidence in the case of Baby Ayla (ph). It involves a lot of -- our bold question for our jury, -- does this new evidence provide that Babe Ayla (ph) was murdered? We`ll have a verdict by the end of the show. "HLN After Dark."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PINSKY: Welcome back. Co-host, Jenny Hutt, is still with me. And we are talking about Jennifer Mee, better known, at least at one time, as the hiccup girl. She`s now been convicted of first degree murder even though she, herself, did not pull the trigger. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The murder took place here behind this vacant St. Petersburg home. Mee said that it was her idea to contact Griffin. They planned on selling marijuana for $55 as a ruse to rob him. Mee told detectives she saw Newton grabbed the victim`s neck from behind while Raford (ph) placed the gun to his head. The three men began to tussle. As Mee ran away, she heard some shots ring out.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: State of Florida versus Jennifer Mee, murder in the first degree. We, the jury, find this (INAUDIBLE) guilty of murder in the first degree as charged.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She cried as the judge read the verdict in court, and she`s been sentenced to life in prison without parole.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PINSKY: Back with me Mark Eiglarsh, Tiffanie Davis Henry, and Lynn Berry. Hiccup girl guilty, life without parole. Mark, most stuff goes down in Florida. Help us understand and connect the dots in this case.
EIGLARSH: Well, she`s guilty. I mean --
PINSKY: Oh, OK.
EIGLARSH: I think the sentence was a bit harsh, but I mean, it`s that simple. If you play a role in a felony murder, you go to jail for life, which is why I want to ask the attorney what happened in terms of plea negotiations? Why didn`t they cut their losses before putting this in the hands of 12 people who, with this evidence, had to find her guilty?
PINSKY: OK. Well, joining us by phone, in fact, is Jennifer Mee`s attorney, John Trevena. John, so let me -- I don`t know if you heard -- did you hear that question Mark asked?
VOICE OF JOHN TREVENA, ATTORNEY FOR JENNIFER MEE: I did.
PINSKY: Let me -- have you answered that question. And let me add a little tale to that which is that, also my understanding is the judge provided some very specific directions to the jury that kind of sealed the deal, also throw that in there if we could help us understand that as well.
TREVENA: Certainly. First of all, this was not an open-and-shut case with the state (ph). There were factual issues in dispute. There were plea negotiations. In fact, my client had offered 15 years in prison, and that was rejected by the state of Florida. So, we thought that anything above that, you know, measuring the risk of the trial itself, she was willing to go ahead and go forward.
But the case, itself, hinged upon a fourth person, because there was another Jennifer with different last name who was also residing with the group. So, there`s a total of four in the apartment. And, she had given conflicting accounts. Her initial account, this other Jennifer, put her at the scene and this was part of a love triangle.
There was forensic evidence at the scene that suggested there may have been some sexual component. There was a condom wrapper on the ground with the DNA of the actual shooter on the DNA on the wrapper.
So, there were certainly factual issues there, as you mentioned, Dr. Drew, that as this case made its way through the trial, it looked like the jury was really fighting with what to do with it. Their first question had to do with the definition of what is an abiding conviction.
BERRY: But John, actually, the jury only deliberated for four hours, and she basically incriminated herself in a jailhouse interview with her parents when she said I did it. Basically, she said it just went wrong. I planned it. I didn`t pull the trigger, but it went wrong.
TREVENA: Right. Well, the question becomes planned what? There was no specific explanation as to what was planned. And that`s what we were trying to convince the jury that there was more to this case than just appeared on the surface of it. Arrests were made within 48 hours, all the (ph) arrests were made in this case.
PINSKY: John, I got to interrupt you. We`re going to have more with Jennifer Mee`s attorney right after this. We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PINSKY: Back with my co-host, Jenny Hutt. We`re discussing Jennifer Mee better known as hiccup girl, which is one of the things that drives me crazy about this case. She probably didn`t even have hiccups. She probably, as the attorney has suggested, had Tourette`s and it was a tick. She`s now been convicted of first-degree murder, even though she didn`t pull the trigger.
And as I said, we have her attorney exclusively with us. And Tiffanie, you wanted to ask something of Jennifer Mee`s attorney about these mental health issues.
TIFFANIE DAVIS HENRY, PH.D., PSYCHOTHERAPIST: Yes, I did. And quite honestly, Dr. Drew, I don`t think that, you know, the law shouldn`t and doesn`t really excuse someone because of their age and, quite frankly, as my mama used to tell me, you`re old enough to know better. So, I think that she got convicted of the crime, and that`s what should have happened.
My question in terms of her mental status at this point is, are we taking the necessary steps. She has a history of schizophrenia. She has a history Tourette. How is she processing the sentence? How is she doing in jail? And are there supports in place to make sure that her mental health needs are being taken care of and followed up one, because we certainly wouldn`t want something bad to happen while she`s in jail?
PINSKY: Mr. Trevena.
TREVENA: Well, to answer that, I don`t believe that they`re doing more than what they`re already doing, which is they have her in confinement. They have her under suicide watch. She has nothing but a paper gown in a cell with, you know, no other accessories. Nothing there. So, I`m sure they`ll be keeping an eye on her.
One thing about Florida, unfortunately, in terms of sentencing, it does not recognize diminished capacity as mitigation on a murder case. So, it`s an automatic, you know, sentence.
PINSKY: I`m going to give Mark a chance to ask some question here. But Mark, one thing I`ve learned is it`s not just one thing about Florida. We seem to be visiting Florida a lot.
HENRY: A lot.
EIGLARSH: Right. John, I practiced down here in South Florida. I`ve handled case like this. I`m still troubled by the plea bargain, because I`m bothered that she got a life sentence for this, the same way as if she had pulled the trigger. And while legally that`s the case, in terms of sentencing, I think it`s too harsh. So, let`s go back to the plea. You offered 15. They said no. What about 18 or 20 just to avoid a life sentence?
TREVENA: Well, they were looking at probably 20 to 25, although, you know, they won`t commit until you formally make that offer. But I think you have to look, too, that this is a young girl. I mean, she was 19 when this happened. She`s 22 now. And, you know, she was looking at that kind of double-digit sentence as being --
PINSKY: So, she didn`t want it. Jenny, you`re reacting?
JENNY HUTT, ATTORNEY: I am, because --
(CROSSTALK)
HUTT: If we take the facts as truth, she lured a guy under false pretenses and he wound up dead. Lock her up. That`s it.
HENRY: I`m going to go back to what I said before. She was old enough to know better. If that`s all she thought she was doing, she still knew better.
EIGLARSH: But a life sentence, guys? Life, everybody?
(CROSSTALK)
PINSKY: Hang on, though. I have just less than a minute left, but there was something about the judge`s instructions that put that life sentence on the table. Is that not true?
TREVENA: I believe it is true. After the first question, the jury came back with another question about essentially accessory, aiding, and abetting. And, they wanted to know if that applied in a robbery situation, and the instructions for robbery still apply. So, we know the jury was struggling with the definition and we know that they were having trouble with understanding the concept that someone could be found guilty of almost pulling the trigger.
PINSKY: Tiffanie, real quick. I have 20 seconds, go.
HENRY: Who me?
PINSKY: Yes.
HENRY: Are we questioning this because she`s 22? If this girl was 45 or 50, would we still be questioning the life sentence?
PINSKY: You`re going to have to hold that thought, because I`m out of time. Mr. Trevena, thank you very much for joining us. "Last Call" is next. We`re going to preview Lauren Lake`s new show.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAUREN LAKE, ATTORNEY: You`re sitting up there with a cute face, but you`ve got ugly ways.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I cut the cord. I`ve been there since day one taking care of this baby and this woman.
LAKE: You allow him to believe that he was the father of this child, knowing in your mind that maybe he was (ph).
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
LAKE: That`s correct.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Correct.
LAKE: I can`t even look at you no more. Jerome, escort her out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: It is time for the "Last Call." Back with my co-host, Jenny Hutt. And Lauren Lake, that is Lauren`s new show, "Paternity Court" premiered across the country today. So, check your local listings. Lauren, congratulation. It looks awesome.
LAKE: Thank you so much.
PINSKY: What is it you`re judging on?
LAKE: We`re talking with families in crisis that are dealing with issues surrounding paternity. And they come into our courtroom and they`re looking for the obvious answer, the DNA results, which we do provide, but they`re also looking for a word of empowerment and also the legal ramifications surrounding the result that they`ll receive in our courtroom. So, we`re helping families deal with their secrets and their shame.
HUTT: Are you surprised, Lauren, about how many people question who the father of their baby is?
PINSKY: And not only that, Jenny, but what people are willing to do and come on TV and talk about.
HUTT: Well, nuts.
LAKE: You know what? Listen, I could be surprised, but the truth is, I`ve been empowering people for probably 20 years now, and I`ve talked to all kinds of people. This issue is running rampant in our society, and we`re just not talking about it.
PINSKY: Yes.
LAKE: And you know what, Dr. Drew? I would prefer these families to come into our courtroom where they know they are going, you know, to be a part of a courtroom atmosphere, not a circus, and get the result they need versus sitting and wallowing in their denial and letting the secret fester. And they`re talking about it on Facebook anyway. So, they might as well come into court and talk about it.
PINSKY: And Lauren, the one thing we know about you from working here is you do not -- do not hold back, let`s say. You don`t pull your punches.
HUTT: No mincing words.
LAKE: Tell it like it is.
PINSKY: Congratulations. We will check our local listings and of course, hope to see you here soon. And thank you all for watching. "HLN After Dark" starts right now.
POLITAN: Thanks, Drew. Tonight on "After Dark," new evidence revealed in the Baby Ayla case out Maine. New evidence involving blood. You`ll hear for the first time new details from this investigation as we present our bold question tonight, does this new evidence prove Baby Ayla was murdered? The jury is seated and ready to hear this evidence for the first time right now on "After Dark."
END
