Return to Transcripts main page
Nancy Grace
Prosecution Decimates Arias Expert Witness
Aired March 18, 2013 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
NANCY GRACE, HOST: Good evening. I`m Nancy Grace. I want to thank you for being with us.
We are live right now in that Phoenix courtroom in the trial of Jodi Arias charged with murder one in the slabbing (SIC) and stabbing and shooting death of her lover, Travis Alexander.
Now, on the stand at this moment, her shrink. And he is getting carved up on cross-examination like a Thanksgiving turkey. Repeat, because of the time difference, we are still live in the courtroom.
Liz, let`s go in the courtroom.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... 12 questions that we`ve just gone over, right? And the one that she indicated was the traumatic event in her life that triggers this post-traumatic stress disorder is what? Why don`t you read number 4.
RICHARD SAMUELS, PSYCHOLOGIST: Non-sexual assault, stranger.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not somebody that she knows, right?
SAMUELS: Correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You said that you reviewed the photographs of the crime scene, right?
SAMUELS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you talked about Mr. Alexander being in that shower, right.
SAMUELS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s not a stranger, is he.
SAMUELS: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s somebody that she knew, right?
SAMUELS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And it`s talking about that the thing that triggers it for her, is PTSD, is non-sexual assault by a stranger, correct?
SAMUELS: Correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the rest of the questions that you ask here in exhibit 534, all of the answers here are based on the fact that she had an assault by a stranger, right?
SAMUELS: That`s what she said in that (INAUDIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, no, that`s -- that`s -- let`s go back to this, just so we make sure -- 533. It says -- why don`t you read it for me. Let`s make sure that I can bring (ph) it in, the whole thing. OK?
SAMUELS: "Below are several questions about the traumatic event you marked in item 14, non-sexual assault, stranger."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And these are the questions that I have in my hand, right? These are the answers, right?
SAMUELS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is her worksheet, right?
SAMUELS: That`s right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you turn this worksheet -- a copy of this work sheet over to Jeanine (ph) to mark this up?
SAMUELS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And this is a true and accurate -- or this is the actual item that the defendant filled out, right?
SAMUELS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Take a look at it, 535.
SAMUELS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I move for the admission of exhibit 536.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You may.
GRACE: OK, the lawyers are going to a sidebar.
Very quickly, let`s go to our panel. Everybody, we`re camped out, live outside the courthouse. Very quickly, Jean Casarez, legal correspondent, "In Session," with us, along with Alexis Tereszcuk and Alexis Weed.
Everyone, testimony is still going on right now. As soon as they come down out of that sidebar, we`re taking you straight back into the courtroom.
Jean Casarez, he`s not faring very well on cross-examination. I`m talking about the defense shrink, Dick Samuels.
JEAN CASAREZ, "IN SESSION": Nancy, what this expert has just testified to is huge because his opinion is that she suffered from post- traumatic stress disorder. He issued her and she took the standardized test. She had to write in the answers. She wrote in the answers that she had been assaulted by a stranger.
Nancy, at this time that this test was given, she was continuing to say intruders came into the home, killed Travis and assaulted her. She is lying, Nancy, on this test.
GRACE: So bottom, the shrink that they are asking the jury to believe based a large part of his analysis on a lie, until she finally started telling the truth. He never readministered those tests to determine her state of mind.
CASAREZ: He never readministered the test, no. And he testified that he finally confronted her with attorney Nurmi and said, You`ve got to tell us the truth because this isn`t the truth.
GRACE: Everybody, we`re taking your calls live. I want to go right back in the courtroom. Take us in, Liz, please.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, with regard to exhibit 534 (INAUDIBLE) answers, right?
SAMUELS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For example, 534. You said this is the one that the defendant filled out, right?
SAMUELS: No. I don`t remember...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let me do it this way. Isn`t it true that, previously, you told us that this is the one that the defendant filled out, right?
SAMUELS: I believe so.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn`t it true that you said that whatever markings are on here are those of the defendant, right?
SAMUELS: Well, those are in my hand.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, so...
SAMUELS: (INAUDIBLE) part of it is.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So for example, part 2, where it says "circle numbers that apply," that`s your writing, "circle numbers that apply," right?
SAMUELS: Yes, that`s my writing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And under 14, it does circle number 4, right?
SAMUELS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you circle that or did she circle that?
SAMUELS: I honestly don`t recall, but I think she circled it or she gave me the number and I circled it. I don`t recall.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And then down at the bottom, you say "expands (ph) for assault, life-threatening," right?
SAMUELS: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And that was important to you. That`s why you wrote it, right?
SAMUELS: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She didn`t write that down there, right?
SAMUELS: No, I wrote that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And this is an assault that`s life-threatening by a stranger, right?
SAMUELS: That`s what she said at the time.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, that`s when you filled out this test, right?
SAMUELS: Yes, that`s what she was saying at the time.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And one of the things that you told us previously on direct examination was that, well, in terms of what she was telling you, you believed that she wasn`t telling you the truth initially. Do you remember telling us this?
SAMUELS: Yes, that`s correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yet you administer this test and you write these notations down, even though you believe those are not true, right?
SAMUELS: That`s true.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why are you writing down untruths?
SAMUELS: Because this was her perception at the time. This was a story of what went on at the time the test was administered. These were her responses.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you used it -- you -- knowing -- you just said, knowing that this was a lie, you used it, and then concluded that those scores on that (INAUDIBLE) confirm the presence of PTSD, even though you`ve just now told us that this is based on a lie.
SAMUELS: Perhaps I should have readministered that test.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because this is one of the foundations for your finding of post-traumatic stress disorder on the defendant, right?
SAMUELS: Correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the other one is the MCMI, right?
SAMUELS: Correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The other test, right, as well as your conversation with her, right?
SAMUELS: Correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So let`s take a look at the one that you have up there.
SAMUELS: The worksheet?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir.
SAMUELS: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My question is with, regard to 535, why are you filling this out and not her? Why do you feel that you have the need to -- for example, items 16 through 19. Let`s talk about those. Why do you have to fill in the number here? Do you see that?
SAMUELS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, couldn`t she do that herself?
SAMUELS: No. This is for the examiner to fill out after reviewing the answer sheet. This is called a hand (ph) scoring worksheet.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, so this is the score that you actually get on it, correct?
SAMUELS: That`s right. That`s the scoring of her raw data.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So when you told me before that this was actually her answers, that was a mistake, then?
SAMUELS: Well, there is an answer sheet, which I have. It`s probably on my desk, but that is very similar in appearance. But it does -- it`s a printed form, which is what I transfer her data to, and then I score it for my transfer sheet.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And this scoring is done with reference to a guide, correct?
SAMUELS: A reference to a scoring guide, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. And you give it a number, right?
SAMUELS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And based on that number, that tells you, yes, this is a measure that can be used in support of PTSD or not, right?
SAMUELS: Correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Exhibit number 534, question number 22. You see that? There`s a number there, right?
SAMUELS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where`s the guide that tells us why you would have to, on question number 22, give her a 3?
SAMUELS: Well, I didn`t give her a 3. She scored a 3. And there is a scale on the actual answer sheet, where you circle 0, 1, 2 or 3. In the manual that you have over there, it explains precisely how to do this.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So what you`re talking about is exhibit 527, right?
SAMUELS: That`s correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So she put a 3 in response to the question, whatever the question was, right?
SAMUELS: Whatever the item (ph) is, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s a question that you don`t have in front of you.
SAMUELS: Well, it`s -- yes, the questions are in the book.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Exhibit 527.
GRACE: OK, there is a slowdown right now. He is -- Martinez is approaching the witness with a document.
Very quickly, Jean Casarez, I want to go through this before they resume the testimony. This guy doesn`t even know what document he`s talking about. He`s saying, Oh, I thought that was what she filled out. I guess that must still be back on my desk.
CASAREZ: You see, there`s two pieces of paper. One she`s filling out, one he`s is filling out and...
GRACE: I get it, but he doesn`t know the difference.
(CROSSTALK)
CASAREZ: ... confusion as to who filled out what paper.
(CROSSTALK)
GRACE: ... which document he`s talking about. I just wonder how the jury is taking this.
Out to you, Alexis Tereszcuk, senior reporter, Radaronline.com. Very quickly, Alexis, I want to beat the clock because they`re about to resume testimony. Why is this guy sending her cards? What kind of cards did he send her or give her? I`m talking about her psychologist giving her cards. What kind of cards?
ALEXIS TERESZCUK, RADARONLINE.COM: They`re, like, greeting cards telling her to cheer up. And he`s saying that she was suffering from depression because her attorney was quitting the case. And so he was just trying to cheer her up, which is such an incredibly personal thing for a doctor who is not treating her to be doing. All he`s supposed to be doing is evaluating her and finding out, yes, she has this problem or she doesn`t have that problem. But instead, he`s become almost like a...
GRACE: Alexis, may I ask you a personal question? Has your doctor, say your internist, your podiatrist, your dermatologist, your gynecologist -- have they ever sent you personal greeting cards?
TERESZCUK: No. Never. Not one time.
GRACE: OK, I`m hearing in my ear they`re about to resume. Very quickly, Alexis Weed, also standing by -- everybody, we`re live outside the courthouse, taking your calls.
Alexis, how is the jury responding to this guy on the stand?
ALEXIS WEED, NANCY GRACE PRODUCER: Nancy, there was one juror -- this is a juror that sits the farthest point away from Jodi Arias. He submitted at least one question today. They did look a little bored today, but at one point, we saw a couple of the women in the back exchanging a little laugh together. But at least we know there`s one question out there. That box is full (ph) where the jurors submit their questions.
GRACE: Everyone, you are not going to miss a moment of this trial. We are literally hanging on every word. This is a death penalty trial of Jodi Arias, on trial in the brutal stabbing and shooting death of her lover, Travis Alexander. We`ll be right back with more live testimony.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GRACE: Welcome back, everyone. We are live in the Arias courtroom, testimony still going on. Let`s go straight into the courtroom, Liz.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Exhibit 527, question 22. Read that one for us.
SAMUELS: The instructions are for item number 22?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
SAMUELS: (INAUDIBLE) there`s a -- the exact directions are here -- OK -- that`s not the right one. Oh, OK...
GRACE: Do you see this? Thumbing through papers? Unleash the lawyers. Jeff Gold defense attorney out of Phoenix, at the courthouse right now, Danny Cevallos, defense attorney joining me out of New York.
Danny, by the time you get your expert on the stand, this is supposed to be a well-oiled machine. He`s not supposed to be going, Ahh, hold, please. This is so bad!
DANNY CEVALLOS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Nancy, I disagree with you. Look, I would love an expert who has everything ready, an iPad, just that everything`s at his touch, at his fingers.
But number one, there`s a lot of documentation in this case. And number two, this is cross-examination. The attorney is trying to keep him off guard. How would he know what he`s going to be asked to look at and thumb through and page through? Yes, that affect is desired in cross- examination, but you can`t prepare your expert witness completely for every question out of the blue, Nancy.
GRACE: Mr. Cevallos, has your urologist ever sent you a greeting card? Yes, no.
CEVALLOS: Well, I should probably not answer that one, Nancy.
GRACE: Is that a no or a yes?
CEVALLOS: That is a no. I will -- I will admit that.
GRACE: All right, no need to explain.
All right, Jeff Gold, what about this witness?
JEFF GOLD, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Look, you need this witness. This -- it`s the linchpin of the defense. They have Jodi Arias limping out of there. Kurt Nurmi and Jennifer Wilmott should have really prepared this guy. And he`s not only limping, he`s devastated today.
I think there is a defense here. I think they could have done it the right way, but this is not the right witness. This is a lightweight. I mean, this is not the guy who wrote the book, this is a guy who read the book on the toilet in the gym. I mean, that`s the guy you put up there to say, I know everything...
GRACE: Well, you know what concerns me...
GOLD: ... about post-traumatic stress?
GRACE: I mean, we have -- all of us lawyers have used the DSM a million times on the stand. It`s not a big secret. It`s just a medical manual shrinks use to assign, Oh, narcissistic, Oh, schizophrenic, and you look to see if they meet all the criteria.
But what drove me crazy, Jeff and Daniel -- I`ll throw this to you, Jeff -- is that for two days, we heard about transient global amnesia brought on by too much sex or immersion in hot or cold water. Then suddenly today I guess he watched our show, and he goes, Oh, yes. All that stuff about transient global amnesia? Yes, she doesn`t have that. It`s something else. Did you hear that?
GOLD: Well, Nancy -- Nancy, I`ve been in the courtroom, and I`ll tell you that -- you know, Thursday afternoon, the jury was paying attention. They were glazed over in the morning when it was pure science. But when the science was being applied to Jodi Arias, they were listening. He had their attention.
And the same thing, though, happened today when Juan Martinez got up there. After them being asleep in the morning, in the afternoon, they woke up. They paid attention. I think that you`re absolutely right on this. Look, I think there`s really a defense here. It`s just that it`s not being done right without this...
GRACE: Well, I can tell you this...
GOLD: ... with this expert.
GRACE: ... Cevallos and Gold. You`re the two veteran defense lawyers. But the defense, if there is one, is getting lost in the sauce of this guy`s testimony.
You`re not missing a word of testimony. We are live in the courthouse. They`re about to resume. We`ll be right back from our commercial break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GRACE: Welcome back, everybody. We are live, camped outside the Phoenix courthouse. We are bringing you live testimony throughout our entire show tonight. Let`s go straight back into the courtroom, Liz.
SAMUELS: I guess -- maybe this doesn`t have it. Now, hold on one second. I guess the actual test is not here. I -- and I had it (INAUDIBLE) together. Ah! Wait. Hold on.
All right, there is a question booklet, a booklet that comes with this, which I thought was attached in this book, but it isn`t. And it explains to the individual how to score these particular items. And then it has a separate answer sheet.
If I don`t have that with me here, I apologize. I can certainly bring it tomorrow. But I don`t have -- apparently, I don`t have it here. Some pages must have gotten lost in my...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So that`s not -- what you have in front of you is not the guide to score number 535...
SAMUELS: Right, it`s not the actual...
GRACE: Another document the defense can`t find. This is, like, the third time on the stand he can`t find the document he`s talking about.
SAMUELS: I thought it was in here, but apparently, it`s not.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So what is that, then, that you have in front of you? What is...
SAMUELS: This is the manual. This tells you how to score it. It tells you about the validity of the test. It describes sample reports. But apparently, it doesn`t have the actual questions. And I had that together with the original answer sheet. And I`m afraid I left it home.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. May I have that back?
SAMUELS: Yes.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GRACE: Welcome back, everyone. We are live in that Phoenix courthouse, and we are bringing you live testimony. Because of the time difference, they`re still having court right now.
As we wait for them to resume, very quickly, Matt Zarrell, what stands out in your mind regarding this expert`s testimony?
MATT ZARRELL, NANCY GRACE PRODUCER (via telephone): Well, one thing we haven`t gotten to yet is the dissociative amnesia is the amnesia that Samuels says Arias has. The problem is, is that Samuels also says that the most frequent way this is associated, this amnesia, is with criminals and criminal behavior. So my argument, Nancy, is if she killed in self- defense, what is the crime? Why is this criminal behavior, as the psychologist is suggesting?
GRACE: Let`s go to the specialist. Joining me out of LA, Sharyl Erritt (ph), clinical and forensic psychologist, PTSD specialist. Let`s hear your observations, Doctor.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, thank you, Nancy. I think that they switched from the other amnesia to the dissociative amnesia because they were looking for something else to say. It really doesn`t quite follow that she would have dissociative amnesia, unless she were traumatized by what was going on. And when we look at all the psychological tests that we`re looking at here, it`s sort of garbage in, garbage out. You have got a nonstandard administration. You have got based on a lie, the data is just not there.
GRACE: Sharyl, I am hearing that we are going live. And I know you say that they wanted to add on. I think they changed their mind over the weekend when they heard the legal analysis on all the national talk shows all weekend about this transient global amnesia brought on by sex for Pete`s sakes. Of course they changed midstream. Liz, take us back into the courtroom very quickly, please.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you take a look at page No. 2 of exhibit number 534. Question number 16, 17, 18 and 19. Do you see that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Those are yeses, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So 16, 17, 18 and 19. Those are four check marks, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How come on this -- and you filled out 535?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is the hand scoring sheet.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the one you said you filled out.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. This is the hand scoring sheet.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (inaudible). Why was there a six there present at first and then changed it?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I added them up incorrectly.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This test serves, like all tests, is a situation where you sit down, involves a situation where you sit down with the defendant and you indicate to them that you are going to administer a test, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you provide them the materials with which to make questions, correct?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You give them the instructions. Right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And then there is a period of time within which this test must be answered, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, there is no time limit on this test.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How long did the defendant take to fill this out?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 20 minutes or so.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But if she wanted to take more, she could have, correct?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And during that time, she never manifested any indication to you that she didn`t understand any of the questions, correct?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For example, exhibit number 533 that talks about the traumatic event, non-sexual assault by stranger, never indicated any compunction or any reservation or reluctance while you were there administering it, in filling that out, correct?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what you are telling me is that the validity or this test really is only as good as the person who is telling or filling it out, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s true.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So if they are lying, then the test is not very good.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And in this case, we do have a circumstance where you know the defendant is lying and she lied on the test, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, her answers didn`t reflect what we ultimately discovered.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. So she lied, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, or her answers may have been consistent with the story she was telling.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, 533 question number 14. The answer. That is a lie.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Question number 4 or 14, did you say?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s question 14.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, 14, I see. OK. Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And she was given many choices including right above there, nonsexual assault by someone she knew, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So that is a lie, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Speculation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Again--
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (inaudible). Approach, please.
GRACE: OK. Here they are having another sidebar, and boy do they need it, because they have got the defense expert, Dr. Richard Samuels, on the ropes. He is now telling the jury that the defendant, Jodi Arias, lied to him, her own shrink, there`s lies on which he based his analysis.
Jean Casarez, Alexis Weed, Alexis Tereszcuk, Matt Zarrell, everybody, calling all the troops together. Let`s figure out what is going on.
First of all, let me go to you. Jean Casarez, the guy just said he can`t add. The answer was four and he had six or vice versa. He couldn`t even add up to four and he is the expert? I don`t want to trash this guy. I don`t have a dog in the fight, but I mean, oh, he keeps saying, oh, I don`t have that document, it is not on my desk or this document. I left that on my desk too. Where in the heck is his desk? Why are all of his documents on his desk, Jean?
CASAREZ: I don`t know. I don`t know, Nancy. But all I can tell you is here is one of the most important things that he did know and he was able to testify to today, of all the questions that she subjectively answered and circled, No. 4, assault by a stranger, she also said out of everything else, it was the most troubling to her. And it was the lie, because she is saying the intruders came into the home, and that was the most troubling to her. That only impacts the lack of veracity and truthfulness to the results of this test.
GRACE: Well, out to you, Matt Zarrell, following up on what Jean is saying, I mean, he based his analysis on her second story, that to get two people, a man and a woman dressed like ninjas came in and murdered Travis and let her go after memorizing her driver`s license. He based his analysis on that. The guy doesn`t know the difference between four and six. He doesn`t have his documents, and he told the jury that Jodi Arias is lying. Now, how much worse can it get?
ZARRELL: Well, Nancy, on cross exam, I don`t know how much worse it can get because they just made him look like he didn`t know what he was talking about. Another conflict here is whether he was treating Arias medically or treating her as just evaluating her. And this goes back to the cards you were talking about and the self-help book that Samuels gave to Arias. The state is trying to show that the expert was treating Arias medically as opposed to just evaluating her for court, and that is a conflict of interest.
GRACE: I can tell you this right now. Matt Zarrell, I don`t know if your doctor sends you greeting cards, cheer up, thinking of you, that sort of thing, but something is not exactly just right.
Alexis Tereszcuk, weigh in.
TERESZCUK: It seems like this doctor might have fallen under the same spell that a lot of other people have fallen under with Jodi. She is attractive, she`s an incredible liar. And she might have tricked him too.
GRACE: Very quickly, joining me right now at the courthouse, Dustin Sumner, former roommate of Travis`s, knows Jodi Arias. Jodi Arias is claiming that she has a mental defect and has memory problems. Dustin, did she have those memory problems when you knew her?
DUSTIN SUMNER, FRIEND OF TRAVIS ALEXANDER: No. Those are not -- that is not from my experience that she had a memory problem.
GRACE: What was your experience with Jodi Arias?
SUMNER: The time that I spent with Jodi was while I lived with Travis, it was very short. Most of the time we hung out and like watched basketball games and did laundry. It was really unaggressive and just very casual.
GRACE: Well, first of all, what was your impression of Jodi Arias? And when you first discovered that Travis had been murdered, what was your initial reaction?
SUMNER: My initial reaction was obviously shock, but I had no idea that it would have been her. I never got the eerie feeling that she was so psychotic that she would be capable of murder. So it was very shocking to me. I, like a lot of the people, believed the first story, that there were intruders and there was a break-in. But it is saddening to think that she is capable of something like that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GRACE: Welcome back, everyone. We are still in the testimony out of the courtroom. Jodi Arias on trial for murder one. Let`s go straight into the courtroom.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You may continue.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And after this testing was done and after this answer was given, and I`m just asking about you, I`m not asking about anybody else, there was a subsequent meeting. Yes or no, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you repeat that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After this was administered, this test, 533, there was a subsequent meeting, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Afterwards? Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. And during this subsequent meeting is when the story changed, correct?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And during that story change, one of the things the defendant told you was that this story about the strangers was fiction, correct?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And that, in fact, she had been the one who actually killed Mr. Alexander, correct?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And yet you did not administer another PDS, correct?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That was an oversight and I should have done that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And sir, one of the other things is that during this conversation for (inaudible) your meetings with the defendant, you and she talked about a number of things, didn`t you?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sure.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In fact, one of the things that you talked to us about during direct examination was specifically the rope at the crime scene. Do you remember answering questions about that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Isn`t it true, sir, that one of the things that the defendant told you about that rope was that she was tied at the hands, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And she also told you that she was tied at the ankles. Didn`t she tell you that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is what I had in my notes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m not asking you what you had in your notes. I`m asking you whether or not that`s what she told you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t remember what she told me.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you have notes, though, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I do have notes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And those notes are made at exactly the time that she is relating back to you, correct?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And those notes reflect on two occasions, on two separate parts that she was tied down at the hands and the ankles, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is what my notes reflect. Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And there is no reason for us to doubt your notes, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. There aren`t -- the one thing, the fact is that most of the time over the years when people have said they used rope, they tie the hands and the ankles. It is conceivable that in my attempt to write down quickly as she is talking, I may have added that by mistake, but I don`t remember. So (inaudible).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So are you confessing or saying that you are wrong in writing that down?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t know.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But isn`t that the notes -- isn`t that what forms partly, isn`t that part of the clinical interview?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. It is.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn`t that part of what has formed your conclusion that she was afflicted -- she was afflicted with post traumatic stress disorder?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so don`t you think that that would be important to make sure that you are accurate?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The formulation of the post traumatic stress disorder came about after a careful analysis of the notes, the crime scene material and her changed story. These tests, which I administered earlier, did confirm the presence of post traumatic stress disorder, although I was in error by not readministering the PDS (ph).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I am not talking about the test, we`ll talk about that probably tomorrow, but I am talking about the statement to you from her that she was tied both hands and also at the ankles.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Well, that is what I wrote.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And there is no reason, as we sit here today, to doubt that, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And one of the other things that she told you was that even she -- when this was going on, that she was tied down, that it was Mr. Alexander, when this was happening, that he actually cut the ropes as she approached climax, correct?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And he used a knife to cut the ropes, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And then as she approached climax, he got or she straddled him or got on top of him, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And while she was on top of him, that is when Mr. Alexander took the photograph, the nude photograph, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s correct. Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want you to take a look at exhibits 164, 165, 168, and 169.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Those are photographs of Ms. Arias, correct?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And those are the photographs of her sprawled or laying back on the bed. Correct?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It also shows a picture of her vaginal area, correct?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And it also shows a picture of her back side, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In none of those pictures does -- Mr. Alexander appears in none of those pictures? Correct?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Those are the pictures, sir.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GRACE: Welcome back. Let`s go straight back into the courtroom for testimony.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These are the pictures, sir, that were -- well, did you ever see or look at these pictures? After you talked to Ms. Arias, and you received this story about these pictures being taken while she was straddling him?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I saw some pictures, but I don`t believe I`ve seen all of them.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So don`t you think it would have been important to look at those photographs so you could see if you could corroborate what she was telling you at that time? What`s happening?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Actually, I had the photographs when I first began the case. It would have been helpful to corroborate, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And that wasn`t done in this case? Correct?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And if you had looked at those, that would have provided you an opportunity to ask her about this particular issue, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Since that`s part of what goes into this post- traumatic stress disorder diagnosis, looking at what somebody tells you and whether or not it can be corroborated, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I didn`t see a major contribution to her post-traumatic stress disorder as a function of the sexual life that they were having.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But if somebody is a liar over and over with something like that, don`t you think that that`s something you would consider?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Objection to the characterization of someone being liar. That`s certainly not what Dr. Samuels would agree to.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Approach please.
GRACE: Unleash the lawyers. Danny Cevallos, Jeff Gold. Jeff Gold, it almost makes it worse when the defense attorney stands up and objects, and repeats the phrase that they`re objecting to. Again, it`s like re- ringing the bell. I don`t like it when the jury hears him calls her a liar. I mean, and they say again, and it seems like they are drawing more attention to it.
JEFF GOLD, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Juan was doing some speaking objections too that caused some consternation on the other side. They were both doing it.
You know, this whole defense is crumbling, I`ve got to tell you. Because there`s only two things you want with a witness. You want credibility and you want competence. And today, the prosecutor unfortunately for the defense showed this guy was not very competent and not very credible.
GRACE: So what do you do in that situation, Danny?
DANNY CEVALLOS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You try to bolster your witness. You hope for the best. Look, I have to admit, this defense witness hasn`t been the greatest, but at the same time, there`s some opportunities to bolster him. The reality is this witness -- that the prosecution`s going after the wrong issues here. They need to focus on premeditation. They`re not doing that.
GRACE: Well, another thing is, guys, here`s the reality. They`ve got her as a defendant. They`re stuck with what she told them, including the lies. So now they`re trying to cobble together the best possible defense that they can with Jodi Arias as a client. That is not an enviable position.
Everyone, due to the time difference, East Coast/West Coast, we are still in testimony. We`ll go straight back into the courtroom as soon as we get back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GRACE: We remember American hero Army Specialist Ryan Grady. 25, Bristol (ph), Oklahoma. Two Purple Hearts, Bronze Star, Army Achievement. Parents, Deborah and James, brothers Kevin and James, daughter Alexis. Ryan Grady, American hero.
And now to the courtroom.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Isn`t it important, if you have someone who you are assessing, if they lie to you over and over again, isn`t it important to corroborate things?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I didn`t view the story she was telling as a lie.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, no, no. I`m not asking you about this case. I`m asking generally speaking, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The information that I get in a case can be corroborated to some degree.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. No. My question, sir, is if someone -- not in this case, generally speaking in your experience, all these years that you had -- if someone is constantly lying to you -- not this case -- but if someone is constantly lying to you, don`t you think it`s important to attempt to corroborate what they`re telling you?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If I knew someone was constantly lying to me, I would discontinue the evaluation. Because it wouldn`t be worthwhile to continue it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you wouldn`t corroborate it, you would just discontinue it, then, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If I knew somebody was lying consistently, what would be the point of me to continue even with therapy or with an evaluation?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What if they only lied three or four times that you knew of? Would that make it OK?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If I was able to corroborate that, of course I wouldn`t (ph).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With regard to these photographs, our information --
GRACE: The end of the courthouse day. The testimony is ending. But Dr. Drew is up next. Everyone, I`ll see you tomorrow night, 8:00 sharp Eastern. And until then, good night, friend.
END
