Return to Transcripts main page


Jodi Arias Murder Trial

Aired January 2, 2013 - 21:00   ET


DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST: Jodi Arias, a beautiful young woman, now on trial for one of the grisliest murders in recent memory. Cops say she butchered her ex-boyfriend in his shower, stabbing him over and over, slitting his throat, even shooting him in the face. Was she an abused woman defending herself or a jilted lover exacting revenge?

Plus, Hillary Clinton`s health condition. It`s rare, it`s complicated, and I don`t think it`s being reported correctly. I`ll explain.

Let`s get started.


PINSKY: Good evening, everybody. Happy New Year.

We are going to get going with the Jodi Arias murder trial. We`re going to try to look at this from all angles. It`s obviously a study of itself in extreme human behavior.

Take a look at this.


PINSKY (voice-over): Travis Alexander`s throat was slit from ear to ear. He was shot in the face and stabbed 29 times in his head, neck, hand, back, and chest.

Prosecutors say his former girlfriend Jodi Arias in a fit of rage murdered the man who loved her.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She rewarded that love by sticking a knife in his chest. She slit his throat. She knocked the blessings out of him by putting a bullet in his head.

PINSKY: According to the state, Arias first said she wasn`t there on that day in 2008. Then they say she blamed the crime on intruders. And now they say she admits to killing Alexander out of defense.

Is this 32-year-old a monster who could be sentenced to death if convicted of first degree murder? Or is she an innocent young woman who did what she had to do to survive?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Jodi Arias killed Travis Alexander. The million-dollar question is what would have forced her to do it?


PINSKY: All right. So let`s get into that question and more.

Joining me: Marcia Clark, former prosecutor and author of "Guilt By Degrees"; Mark Geragos, criminal defense attorney and author of "Mistrial"; Mark Eiglarsh, attorney at

All right. Mark Geragos, I`m going to start with you first.

Let me do this. If I do this --


PINSKY: I`ve just done it eight times. I`m exhausted.


PINSKY: I`m tired.

GERAGOS: That`s why you stop and you pick up a gun and you shoot.

PINSKY: OK. Then I shoot. Then I shoot. And then I go back to stabbing.

That is not the behavior of somebody in their normal state of mind. How do you create a defense that that was somehow motivated by something reasonable like oh, she was just defending herself or --

GERAGOS: I`m going to use somebody like you. I`m going to find somebody who`s going to say that is not somebody in their normal state of mind.

So you`ve got a couple of alternatives. Number one, if I`ve got a domestic violence expert who`s going to come up there and who`s going to testify that this could be some kind of rage, a breakdown, something like that --

PINSKY: Out of a domestic violence situation.

GERAGOS: Out of a domestic violence situation. Would you support that?

PINSKY: I -- well, you`ve --

GERAGOS: You`re hesitating.

PINSKY: If you said that on the stand, I would hesitate.

Marcia Clark, I`ll ask you the same thing. Is that a reasonable defense for mark to get into, or is this somebody in some other kind of altered rage state that is really more about some psychopathic behavior?

MARCIA CLARK, LEAD PROSECUTOR, O.J. SIMPSON TRIAL: You know, objectively speaking, I would say this looks more like psychopathic behavior.

I also point to the fact that the day after the murder was committed, not only has she been lying about it. In her most immediate statements, she lied about it, said she wasn`t even there, then she was there and she ran away because others did it in a home invasion attack. And then the very next day, she`s out playing with his friends in another city and acting like nothing happened.

It looks very clearly to me like psychopathic behavior. That said, if I`m defending her, if Mark is defending her, you have to find some defense, and it`s going to have to be some kind of mental defense, whether it`s a self-defense kind of, you know, I acted in self-defense, even if it`s unreasonable, or a real mental defense, i.e., I didn`t know what I was doing.

I don`t think she can sell a real mental defense in terms of not guilty by reason of insanity, but some form of self-defense seems like it would be her only option unless she`s going to plead guilty.

PINSKY: Mark Eiglarsh, here we are again. It`s Casey Anthony 2 for us.

Based on what our other guests have said, what`s your opinion?

MARK EIGLARSH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I`ll go with Marcia Clark, not Geragos on this one. I think they need David Copperfield on this defense team to make this all go away. The physical evidence is completely different than Casey Anthony.

It`s Casey Anthony 2 only because arguably this one has an attractive shell. But the difference is the quality and significance of the evidence -- the hand print, the lying over and over about what took place, the photographs that apparently show her the only one there in the apartment, including but not limited to dragging a bloody body.

Drew, there are two things that I`m certain of as I sit here today. Number one, she`s going to be convicted of first degree murder. And number two, the person who first milked the cow and then drank it was a massive pervert.

PINSKY: I`m trying to follow all that.

GERAGOS: I lost the second part of that, Mark. Maybe Mark`s been drinking tainted milk in Florida.

The problem she has in this case and what`s going to have to be explained to the jury is obviously the different statements. The prosecutors --

PINSKY: The lying.

GERAGOS: Yes, the lying.

PINSKY: Casey Anthony got away with that.

GERAGOS: Lying does not necessarily mean that you`re going to be found guilty. The problem, as Marcia points out, is, you know, you`ve got evidence that she`s there. It`s not a whodunit.


GERAGOS: So that`s how it`s distinguished from Casey Anthony.

PINSKY: They had sex earlier in the day or something, too.

GERAGOS: Right, right. And I`ve tried cases like that.


GERAGOS: Where they later find on the cell phone the two of them --

PINSKY: The pictures.

GERAGOS: -- the pictures of them having sex.

PINSKY: How do you get rid of that?

GERAGOS: You don`t. You can use that to your advantage.


GERAGOS: Yes, you can absolutely use -- why would I do this unless something happened, unless something had provoked me?

Look, I didn`t have any animosity to him, we were having sex, blah, blah, blah. And then she goes into this rage of some kind. I mean, there is something going on here mentally --

PINSKY: Seriously, 29 stab wounds. That`s unbelievable and a shooting.

GERAGOS: And the shooting.

PINSKY: And --

GERAGOS: Right. So something snapped. What snapped, I don`t know. They obviously are going to, it sounds like, from their witness list, they`ve got a domestic violence expert who`s going to center it on that. And that at least appears to be -- and, Marcia, I don`t -- maybe you know more than I, but that appears to be where the defense is headed here.

CLARK: Yes, I agree, Mark, that does. It looks like it`s going there. And to me, Mark, it sounds more like what you`d call an unreasonable self-defense kind of defense, where in California at least you could say, look, you know, I believed I was in imminent danger of dying, I believed that he was about to kill me. Whether you believe objectively that that was a reasonable thing to believe or not, I really believed it, and I acted out in my fear and I think that`s what they`re going to have to try to sell, right?

GERAGOS: Right. And Marcia`s exactly right. I had a case like that in California about 15 years ago. And in that situation, what you`re arguing for is a voluntary manslaughter or a manslaughter, a reduced --

EIGLARSH: Here`s the problem --

PINSKY: Go ahead, Mark.

EIGLARSH: Here`s the problem -- it doesn`t fit. This alleged victim was the snow white of victims. He would give you his shirt off his back. There`s no allegation that he was ever violent with her in the past. There`s nothing to corroborate that.

And also, if this was self-defense, why didn`t she come out right away and tell someone? That`s typically what happens.

PINSKY: I`m going to stop guys. I`ve got -- hang on, Mark.

EIGLARSH: I have to shoot him. He`s abusive.

PINSKY: I`ve got somebody who was in the courtroom today. It`s Shanna Hogan.

I think we had some technical issues getting to you. Could you hear the conversation we were having so far? Are you there with us, Shanna?


PINSKY: OK. Good. Could you hear this whole exchange?

HOGAN: Yes, I`m here.

PINSKY: What are your thoughts based on what you saw in the courtroom today?

HOGAN: Most of it.

Well, I mean, it was a pretty explosive day in the courtroom. I didn`t hear everything you guys were talking about.

But, you know, the prosecution really opened up with using her own words against her, which were really, really powerful. When they played that last sentence, "no jury will ever find me guilty," and then the prosecutor turned that around on her and said, you know what? Go to the jury room, deliberate, and see if you`re going to mark her words, if you`re not going to find her guilty.

PINSKY: Mark, do you have any idea what she was talking about when she --

GERAGOS: Well, I think -- correct me if I`m wrong. Didn`t she also say no jury`s going to find me guilty because I`m innocent? If I`m the defense lawyer, you keep repeating that, "because I`m innocent." I like that I don`t have to put her on.

I`m going to go back to this in a second. I mean, it sure seems to me he may not be snow white, or he may be snow white now, not by the time the defense gets done with him. We`ve already heard about --

EIGLARSH: You don`t put her on the stand, Mark?


EIGLARSH: You don`t put her on the stand? Where`s the self-defense then?

GERAGOS: You can put her on through the expert. That`s why you call the expert on domestic violence.

EIGLARSH: The expert wasn`t there.

PINSKY: You have somebody else --

EIGLARSH: The expert wasn`t there.


GERAGOS: Mark, let me explain to you how it works as a criminal defense lawyer.

EIGLARHS: Oh. Go ahead and tell me how, 20 years of experience. Go ahead.

GERAGOS: Well, I don`t know. Twenty years prosecuting people on TV. But the fact is --

PINSKY: Play nice, gentlemen.

GERAGOS: You get an expert who talks about the hearsay statements of the client. That`s how you get the self-defense --

PINSKY: All right. Stop right here. Later, we are going to be --

EIGLARSH: It`s an easy cross-examination.

PINSKY: We`re getting into it. We`re going to keep this conversation going. And we`re also going to talk -- I`ll be discussing later after this whole, we`re getting into this Jodi Arias thing even more detail.

I`m going to talk about what people aren`t saying about Hillary Clinton`s medical condition. Also call us with your questions, 855- DRDREW5.

Next up, I`m bringing in a body language expert to look at what Jodi Arias was doing in court today. Plus, a clip from the chilling 911 call made by the victim`s roommates.

Be right back.



JENNIFER WILLMOTT, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: What would have forced Jodi? It was Travis`s continual abuse. And on June 4th of 2008, it had reached a point of no return. And sadly, Travis left Jodi no other option but to defend herself.


PINSKY: That was Jodi`s defense attorney telling the jury today that Jodi was herself a victim and that caused her to snap and stab this guy 29 times. That`s more than a snap in my way of thinking about it. But -- and we`ve got to define what abuse is. So, is the jury going to buy all this?

Joining me is Janine Driver. She`s president of the Body Language Institute and author of "You Can`t Lie to Me."

All right. Janine, first of all, I`m curious about that title of your book. What do you mean by that? You mean you can tell me whether Jodi Arias is guilty or not just by look at her?

JANINE DRIVER, BODY LANGUAGE EXPERT: Well, yes. Well, I`ve trained the CIA and FBI. I used to work for ATF.

And so, this book, it gives you the tools to manipulate and control people`s minds and hearts. So --

PINSKY: Mark, here you go. All the Marks. Fantastic. Everybody. Let`s get into manipulating people here tonight.

What is your first impression of this woman, and you who do you think the jury`s going to respond to here.

DRIVER: Listen, Dr. Drew, first impressions matter.

When there`s a complicated situation like murder where someone is stabbed over and over and over and cut from the jaw -- one ear across the jaw to the other ear, first impressions matter. When we are trying to make sense of something, whether you`re coming in for a job interview or in this case with murder, as soon as we look at her, we are deciding based on sometimes the non-verbals, sometimes her gestures and her mannerisms on -- is this a woman who could commit murder? Is this a woman who`s a liar and do we have a potential guilty person here?

And I think the answer`s going to be yes. We see a lot of crocodile tears and a lot of body language tells that say this woman is not only capable of murder, but she`s a phony.

PINSKY: Give me one.

DRIVER: One is we see these crocodile tears. You know, Dr. Drew. You`re a doctor. There`s I reason why we have a doctor called an ear, nose and throat doctor. They`re all connected.

So when someone is crying inconsolably for hours or minutes and we saw this with Susan Smith -- cry, cry, cry. If you`re crying for several minutes and you don`t have these things called tears, your nose isn`t running, you don`t have deep swallows, that`s when we know there`s fake sadness there. With genuine sadness, we see the inner eyebrows pulled together and up in grief, we don`t see that.

So, right out of the gate, we see fake sadness. We`re not going to buy it. The jury`s not going to buy it. She`s not off to a good start.

PINSKY: I don`t know, maybe she`s had a bunch of Botox.

GERAGOS: Wait, wait. The problem with that is take the reverse. If she sat there stoically and didn`t cry at all, then what people would be saying is oh, my God --

PINSKY: Monster.

GERAGOS: -- she`s a sociopath, she didn`t show any emotion -- blah, blah, blah.

DRIVER: But she does sit there.

GERAGOS: No, but the problem with this, with all due respect, is the jury is going to -- first of all, understand something. There is a mountain of evidence against this woman. So, I mean, let`s just --

PINSKY: The direction is already biased by that.

GERAGOS: The jury is completely biased by that. They understand it. They know someone`s been stabbed 29 times. This isn`t a mystery in terms of who did it. So, you come in with jurors predisposed to that.

So, that isn`t going to be the question. The question is whether or not they have some empathy or slash sympathy whereby as Marcia discussed earlier, they may want to move this from a murder and slide it down to a manslaughter.

PINSKY: Mark, do you coach your defense -- your clients to do something to try to get more sympathy from the jury?

GERAGOS: The worst thing you can do is coach a client. Other than to tell them no laughing, you know, this isn`t -- this isn`t a time to joke around or anything like that.


GERAGOS: But if they look like they`re coached, people can read that. You can tell that.

PINSKY: Mark Eiglarsh --

DRIVER: But listen --

PINSKY: Let me go to Mark. Mark, you were trying to break in here. Go.

EIGLARSH: Yes, because I actually do agree with Geragos. First of all, I don`t think that clients should ever be judged based on how they`re acting in court. But that being said, we tell our clients, you know, they`re looking to us for guidance. They`re so consumed with nerves. They don`t know how to act.

It really would be disconcerting to think that somehow they`re judging the defendant and making a decision about their guilt and not looking at the evidence. That`s problematic.

PINSKY: Let`s take a quick call. Maiah in California. Maiah?

MAIAH, CALLER FROM CALIFORNIA: Hi. I was wondering -- hi, Dr. Drew.

I was wondering, if she was this crazy and this psychotic to commit such violent overkill, why would he have this relationship with her? Why would he have this sexual relationship?

PINSKY: I would just say a lot of males out there don`t ask questions like that and that`s why these guys do this kind of thing, because they can. That`s what it boils down to. But it`s an interesting question.

GERAGOS: Maiah`s question is fantastic because that`s something that everybody`s going to plug into, or at least the defense is going to plug into. Look, she doesn`t just snap out of anywhere and stab somebody 29 times, shoot him, give him the coup de grace in the head if it was --

PINSKY: You`re right. And that`s the question I`m looking for. What`s the antecedent history here? What do we know about her that builds a case that she is someone who`s capable of that? I`ve not seen anyone present that.

GERAGOS: What were they alluding to today? They`re talking about anal sex. They`re talking about the sins of Mormonism. They`re getting into all that kind of language, which I think the defense is building a theme here.

The only theme that they can is that she just was broken. He broke her mentally --

PINSKY: He broke her down, it wasn`t some pre-existing --

GERAGOS: No. Maybe she was susceptible.

PINSKY: Right, right. Yes, yes.

GERAGOS: This is your -- this is your area of expertise.

PINSKY: Yes, yes.

GERAGOS: But you`re going to say he`s the one who broke her down, and I think that`s exactly where the defense was headed.

PINSKY: Marcia -- go ahead.

CLARK: Dr. Drew, I was just going to ask you, the problem with that defense is that in saying that she snapped, that there was some kind of provocative act on his part, and obviously as Mark Geragos and I have been saying, you know, something he was doing to her, some kind of brutality inflicted upon her --


PINSKY: Yes, they keep talking about --

CLARK: The problem is, Doctor, if I ask you, doctor, as an expert --


CLARK: -- to opine for me in front of the jury that she snapped because of something he did, wouldn`t you need some evidence of his prior conduct that he had been abusive to her in the pas --


CLARK: -- as opposed to something that just only happened between them on that one day?


PINSKY: But sometimes -- I would say, Mark, to take devil`s advocacy, I would say sometimes it is the special alchemy of that relationship that results in both of them going to a place they would know --

GERAGOS: How many couples have you met -- how many couples have you met that, you know, seem perfectly normal separated from one another but you put them together and there`s a chemistry there that just is explosive?

PINSKY: But still, still, you`d want to know that both of these people, if you`re going to make the case that he had really done something, brutality towards her --

GERAGOS: I think that`s why they were getting into that today.

PINSKY: Both of them may have had to have been exposed to brutality at some time in their life and they want to see that kind of evidence. And then they keep talking about psychological abuse.

Mark Eiglarsh, although you were subjecting us to some psychological abuse a few minutes ago about the milk and the cow, I didn`t quite understand what that was all about, someday you`ll tell me, but what do they mean? Don`t they have to define what psychological abuse is?

EIGLARSH: Well, what they`re trying to do is establish things that we can`t necessarily see. There`s no bruises on her. There`s no one saying that she was physically abused by him.

So the next thing you go with is psychological abuse and how convenient. Only she can testify to it. No one else is going to say that he was abusive to her. Everyone is saying just the opposite about this guy.

PINSKY: All right.

EIGLARSH: That`s what you go with.

PINSKY: Got to take a break. Again, I`ve got to hear more of the word that Marcia used, you want to see brutality. Be right back.



JODI ARIAS, ACCUSED OF MURDER: I guess it`s really all I needed. Sorry. Don`t roll the tape yet.


PINSKY: All right. That is Jodi Arias, the woman that is accused of killing her boyfriend after stabbing him 29 times and shooting him in the face and slitting his throat and --

GERAGOS: Don`t forget --


GERAGOS: In the face.

PINSKY: I can`t forget that. And it`s so bizarre. But that`s her primping before the cameras started rolling during a jailhouse interview.

And so, people are getting very excited and exercised that perhaps this woman is such a severe narcissist that even in the face of having committed such a heinous crime, she`s still preoccupied with herself. Do you agree --

GERAGOS: I`m going to ask you. Do you -- is that a -- does narcissism lead to 29 stabs and a gunshot?

PINSKY: No, it does not. It does not.

See? It`s funny. As those words are coming out of my mouth, I was thinking, it doesn`t really -- it doesn`t result in murder. It could result in being a pain in the butt.

EIGLARSH: What does? Drew --

PINSKY: Well, Mark --



EIGLARSH: I`ve got to ask you. No, no, I`ve got to ask you.

PINSKY: What does?

EIGLARSH: I don`t know. I`m not an expert in why my clients do what they do, and I`m certainly not an expert in why a gal like this allegedly - - let`s just assume for, you know, argument`s sake, she`s guilty.


EIGLARSH: Why would she do what she did and then act so, quote- unquote, "normal" afterwards?

PINSKY: And, Janine, I`m going to bring you into this one, too, little bit because that would be: (a), a sort of psychopath -- somebody, but they`re usually goal-directed. People don`t really exist to them. They need to accomplish something.

This seemed like what you guys call a crime of passion. She was enraged. And in my world, those are people who have been through very severe physical, sexual abuse situations where they black out or red out and when they become enraged they literally don`t know what they`re doing.

Janine, would you agree with that?

DRIVER: In law enforcement, we call it be a gray out. In the gray out, you pull someone over and say what`s in the trunk of your car, what`s in the trunk of your car? They`re literally not even hearing you because they`re going into that fight or flight is really kicking in.

Listen, the first witness we have on the stand today, we see with Jodi no affect. She`s sitting there, she has no affect, until the first witness, the young woman that he dated a little while but they didn`t fool around, she begins talking about his former girlfriend who got the nasty e- mail.

At that point, we see Jodi leak a micro-expression of disgust. Her nose wrinkles. This is one of the seven universal emotions. It can happen in a 15th of a second.

So, we have no affect, no affect, then into disgust. We get the second witness on the stand. What happens? They start talking about evidence. Which evidence? Evidence 73, 74, 75. Just before the police officer begins to testify, she takes this exasperated -- deep breath, and we see her do it three times, Dr. Drew.

This is before we`re talking about the murder, before we`re talking about the evidence, 73, 74, 75. This is before.

PINSKY: But would, Janine, would that be contempt? Is that what we`re seeing?

DRIVER: Well, it`s not contempt. This is like you`re going to a funeral, your mother passes away, and before you go in, you`re like, all right, here we go. I`ve got to put my game face on.

And this is a hot spot for --

GERAGOS: Yes, but that doesn`t answer --

DRIVER: -- she knows some bad evidence is coming.

GERAGOS: That doesn`t answer the question of what we were saying before. What is it that --

PINSKY: That makes somebody snap like that?


PINSKY: And again, I would want to see some evidence that she was brutalized to become that brutal themselves. They actually -- Janine mentioned fight or flight response. It actually is a shutdown response.

GERAGOS: That`s what I thought. You withdraw into yourself.

PINSKY: You dissociate but sometimes that stays, rage emerges and that`s when they don`t know what they`re doing.

GERAGOS: I mean, is there --

PINSKY: Quick call. Jennifer in Rhode Island. Jennifer, go ahead. We`re running out of time.

JENNIFER, CALLER FROM RHODE ISLAND: Hi, Dr. Drew. I truly believe she has a narcissistic personality disorder.

PINSKY: What kind?

JENNIFER: She was unrealistic fantasies of romance. She`s unemotional. She lacks empathy. What is your feelings toward that?

PINSKY: That`s what we`ve been kind of talking about. But it`s interesting that, you know, this whole issue of her being a stalker and sort of being sort of cold-blooded -- believe it or not, that`s in the spectrum of what some people call love addiction, where people can`t tolerate the disconnect from somebody.

I`m running out of time. We`re going to keep this going.

Later on, I`m going to talk about Hillary Clinton being out of the hospital and her road to recovery.

Next, who thought Casey Anthony would be acquitted? Tell us about what you think Jodi`s fate`s likely to be. Be right back.



CALLER: He`s dead. He`s in his bedroom.


CALLER: In the shower.

OPERATOR: OK. How did this happen? Do you have any idea?

CALLER: We have no idea. Everyone`s been wondering about him for a few days.

OPERATOR: She said there`s blood. So is it coming from his head? Did he cut his wrists?

CALLER: It`s all over the place.


PINSKY: And that was just a portion of the 911 call from June 2008 after the roommates of Travis Alexander found his body bludgeoned 29 times -- I challenge anybody out there, just move your hand 29 times like that, you will be exhausted, let alone --

GERAGOS: The gun. You keep forgetting the gun.

PINSKY: I`m sorry, Mark. He reached for the gun, right? That`s your big defense, isn`t it?

EIGLARSH: I know. It`s the gun.

PINSKY: Jodi Arias reminds many people of another infamous defendant, of course, Casey Anthony. Marcia, are these cases similar?

MARCIA CLARK, LEAD PROSECUTOR, O.J. SIMPSON TRIAL: Well, I think I agree with Mark Eiglarsh in that. Yes, you have a beautiful shell. You have a very pretty girl accused of a very heinous crime, and the two don`t fit together. You know, people see that, and it`s not what they expect, a beautiful girl murdering her child. A beautiful girl hideously, gruesomely killing her boyfriend or ex-boyfriend.

This is something that grabs the attention and certainly grabs the imagination of the viewing public. but in terms of the outcome, I don`t think it`s going to be the same.

PINSKY: No baby involved, either.

EIGLARSH: There`s no baby involved, which --

CLARK: That actually might have gone against her, to tell you the truth. I mean, that`s kind of, you know, hurting a baby is something totally unforgivable.

PINSKY: Yes. Yes.

CLARK: But they have a totally different set-up here in terms of the evidence. She`s admitting she did this. So, you`re starting with that already. And Casey Anthony never did. So, in terms of the evidence in a way it`s setting up, I don`t see that being the same.

PINSKY: Janine, go ahead.

JANINE DRIVER, PRESIDENT, BODY LANGUAGE INSTITUTE: Well, out of the gate today we see similarities with Casey Anthony and with Jodi. How do we see them? We see Jodi, just before the police officer goes up to testify, she takes her left side of her hair and she starts pulling it towards her face. Her hair`s in front of her face. We call this in my world, detecting deception world, imploding.

She`s imploding. She`s starting to disappear just before the police officer disappears. Who did this? Casey Anthony right out of the gate in the beginning of her trial when she was, you know, a little less cocky, halfway through she got cocky. We`d see Casey Anthony constantly playing with her bangs (ph), constantly pulling them in front.

We see it here. What does this mean? This means right now, there`s not a lot of confidence going on for her. We see it at home when we watch it and we know that her outcome does not look good so far. And she knows it, too.

PINSKY: Listen, I want to bring something else up. I mentioned the whole -- the sort of model -- I was thinking of love addiction. And people get obsessed with somebody. And we, like, teenager kind of obsession. I think we`re all kind of familiar with those sorts of things. But adults can get involved in these severe obsessions where they could actually start stalking people.

You know, people talk about parking their car outside of somebody`s house and watching. Again, teenagers do this stuff. We joke about it. It`s seriously pathological behavior. And it can go even to a psychotic stalking. And in that case, again, unbelievably violent behavior could develop, couldn`t it?

DRIVER: Dr. Drew, I had this happen to one of my family members, a close family member. Her and her husband were separated. He rented a car, stalked her and their baby together. When they pulled up into a parking spot, he hit them at 65 miles an hour, and it can result in a dangerous situation. You have to take stalking seriously because it could literally end up in murder like it did in this case with Jodi.

PINSKY: Greg in Pennsylvania -- Greg.

GREG, PENNSYLVANIA: Yes. From what I`ve been watching all day about this, I just wanted to know, is anybody else out there think that this girl was fatally attracted to Travis?

PINSKY: Well, Greg, that`s what we were just talking about, that sort of that phenomenon. But again, you know, to sort of -- again, you`d take that apart I would think in the courtroom, the defense attorneys, because that`s sort of telling a story that`s possibly true, but to come up with a really concrete bit of evidence --

MARK GERAGOS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I`m going to go back to what you were saying before. The brutality and what they`re going to hang their hat on is this -- they`ve delved into it in the opening. They`re going to stick with this Mormonism, the sins, the anal sex and everything else, and they`re going to build from there.

That`s what`s going to be -- that`s going to be the pivot point, if you will, of what the defense is doing.

PINSKY: Mark Eiglarsh, you agree with that?

EIGLARSH: Yes. The main difference, though, between this and Casey Anthony is that jurors in Casey Anthony say we didn`t know how it happened. We couldn`t decide whether it was first, second, or manslaughter because we didn`t know exactly how it took place. Here, very different. The evidence is overwhelming.

PINSKY: It`s very obvious how it happened. Go ahead, Janine.

DRIVER: And Dr. Drew --


DRIVER: Dr. Drew, well, Casey Anthony had friends. You know, she even had an ex-boyfriend take the stand and say yes, she was a good mother. You know, this woman from what we hear so far in the case she`s not going to have a lot of people as character witnesses to say she`s a good person. We actually have the opposite here than what we had for Casey Anthony.


CLARK: But you know what she will have that Casey Anthony did not mind of having --

PINSKY: Go ahead, Marcia. Yes.

CLARK: -- is someone like you, Dr. Drew. That`s what she`s going to have on her side. As Mark Geragos --


CLARK: And it is definitely the ace in the hole for the defense.

GERAGOS: That`s exactly right.

CLARK: You get a doctor up there to make her human and to say oh, my God, he pushed every button. He deliberately tortured her. He put her through such mental anguish she could no longer withstand, blah, blah, blah. You could see the way that one will unfurl to someone like you could really be impressive to a jury who says, I don`t get how anybody could have done this.

This is an unbelievable crime. She`s done nothing in her past that ever fits this, so he must have done something to provoke her. And an expert who is as engaging as you are could really sway the jury.

PINSKY: Mark Geragos.

GERAGOS: Marcia`s spot on. That`s exactly what -- that`s the only place, frankly, that the defense could go, number one. And number two, it really kind of plays into this narrative because the narrative is everybody sits here. You`re going to sit here 29 times and then the gun and everybody`s going to do the same thing in their head. How the heck can this woman as you`re looking at her, it seems incomprehensible --

PINSKY: But that, to me, that makes -- do you know they`re going to - - have they lined those guys up yet?

GERAGOS: Yes. Absolutely.

PINSKY: It`s going to happen. OK. That will be interesting --

DRIVER: Dr. Drew --

PINSKY: Yes, Janine.

DRIVER: Dr. Drew, she`s lied three times. We have the lies three times. The evidence is stacked up against her. I don`t care what the defense is going to do. At the end of the day, a murderer is a murderer is a murderer. If she walks like a duck, she looks like a duck and smells like a duck. It`s a duck. And it is stacked up against her. I don`t think it`s going to be enough to say Casanova --


GERAGOS: Janine, remember something. She`s on trial for a death penalty here.



GERAGOS: You could be -- and a lot of times, they`re working -- they`re reverse engineering. They may not be worried about the guilt phase. They`re designing that -- all of this with an idea toward saving her life.

PINSKY: But isn`t something that went wrong with Casey Anthony, the state went too far with what they were trying to get?

GERAGOS: Yes, but this is not the same case.

PINSKY: Not that.

GERAGOS: This is not the same --

EIGLARSH: This is different, Drew. This is --



PINSKY: OK. Thanks, Mark.

DRIVER: And Marcia hits the nail on the head. We know exactly how this guy was murdered, this adorable kid. So, I don`t think it`s as easy as the defense team or people that are on the defense team`s side are going to think that it is. I think the non-verbals are going to add up. I think her statements are going to add up. And I think at the end of the day --


GERAGOS: Nobody -- right. Nobody is arguing that. Nobody is arguing that and saying this is easy or this is an easy defense --


DRIVER: Let`s put it that way. I won`t be surprised if she gets the death penalty. How do you like that?


GERAGOS: Nancy Grace is on this show as well.

PINSKY: Will we hear her on the stand, Mark?


DRIVER: You`re funny, thanks a lot.

PINSKY: Will she be on the stand?

EIGLARSH: It would be over my dead body if I`m defending her.

PINSKY: OK. Fair enough. Let`s get a call in. Joseph in New York - - Joseph.

JOSEPH, NEW YORK: Hello, Dr. Drew. Thanks for having me.

PINSKY: Our pleasure.

JOSEPH: You`re the man. I just wanted to know if Jodi Arias had ever been treated for any type of mental illness or what`s known about her --

PINSKY: This is what we wanted to know, too. Our defense attorneys are saying that`s what they`re going to probably use to build a defense. Although, I don`t know how you do that because it also becomes a motivation for why she was capable of doing what she did.

GERAGOS: Like I just alluded to before. It`s a double-edged sword. Remember, it`s a death penalty case.

PINSKY: All right. Fair enough. Do we have other calls out there?

CLARK: Yes. Can I just say, what mark is saying is so important, Drew. It`s so important. You know, when you have a death penalty case, the defense has to be thinking two things. Number one, can we mitigate? And you know, yes, it`s true. The evidence is overwhelming in this case. Just because we talk about what the theory of the defense is going to be and what kind of experts they`re going to call in order to give her the best result possible, that doesn`t mean that it succeeds.

We`re just talking about what they`re going to try to do. It`s very difficult in a case like this. Mark Geragos would agree with me, I`m sure, this is an uphill battle for the defense.

GERAGOS: Absolutely.

CLARK: But they have to look at it first in the guilt phase. Can we get her a manslaughter? If they can`t, can we save her life? They have to look from both all of those aspects and they have to plot it out very carefully from day one and they`re going for that kind of thing all the way through the trial. Does that mean they win? It doesn`t mean they win.

GERAGOS: And remember, she gets the death penalty, there are going to be legions of lawyers, judges, and everything else dissecting everything the defense lawyers do in this case to make sure that they explored every single possible avenue.

PINSKY: Yes. Mark, go ahead.

EIGLARSH: They`re both correct. Here`s the problem, though. What they`re doing with this defense is absolutely trashing the victim. What we heard in opening statement, they didn`t just drive the bus over them. It went back and forth and then hit him a few times. That is going to really piss the jurors off --

GERAGOS: No. I don`t think that`s going to piss the jurors off more than the fact that somebody stabbed him 29 times and shot him in the face.

PINSKY: And Janine, when you talk about her taking deep breaths before the evidence comes in, you know, the people coming in really running over her, too, I would expect her to take some deep breaths, like oh, man, here it comes. What are they going to say about me? Quickly, hang on. Marissa in Toronto, very quickly.

MARISSA, TORONTO: Dr. Drew, I have two seconds. I just want to say, bottom line, who has the premeditation to bring a butcher knife and a gun to go have sex with her ex-boyfriend? Please.

PINSKY: Interesting. Do we know about where the weapons came from, anybody?


CLARK: You know what, I would guess, Drew, at least the gun is something she brought. It strikes me that from what I`ve been reading about him that that was something she brought to the scene. A knife you can find at somebody`s house, but a gun -


DRIVER: It`s a butcher knife. Where do you find a butcher knife?

EIGLARSH: Wait. Her house was allegedly burglarized, and she claimed that a 25-caliber gun was allegedly taken from the burglary. Maybe it wasn`t and that`s the gun that was used.

PINSKY: All right. Listen --

DRIVER: When it doesn`t fit, you`ve got to acquit.

PINSKY: Janine, there we go. Thank you very much to Marcia Clark, Mark Eiglarsh, Shanna Hogan (ph), Janine Driver. Mark Geragos, thank you so much. Mark`s new book "The Mistrial" is out April 11th. We`re going to keep this conversation going. Trust me, this one ain`t going away.

Next up, Hillary Clinton was released from the hospital today. Are we getting the whole story about her condition? I want to talk to you about that after this break.


PINSKY: Secretary of state Hillary Clinton was discharged from the hospital today. She is going to be fine. She was being treated for a blood clot in her skull. Now, last week, she suffered a concussion while recovering from what`s called a viral gastroenteritis. Now, here`s the deal. The reason I wanted to do this story tonight is I`ve watched many, many reports about what she had, what people are guessing she had.

They`ve now been finally clear about what it was, and it`s something complicated and rare. It`s not the usual situation, which may be why it`s so confusing to everybody. So, I want to give it some clarity. So, if you`ll permit me, I want to take you through what actually she has. If you could put up on the screen here my -- there we go. OK. Now, what we`ve got here is a picture of a skull with the top removed, like we`ve taken the top off of my head here, right?

And inside -- and we`ve actually taken the brains out as well. What you see here is this big fiber structure that divides the two hemispheres of the brain, and all that`s left behind is these veins that sit against the skull. You know, there`s two kinds of vessels in our body. There`s arteries that take blood to the tissue and veins that brings blood back.

And in the brain, the venous system, the vein system is rather complicated. It sits here, and it`s part of the skull, really. This is called the transversitis, and Hillary Clinton had a clot right there, right in this vein here. It`s something very unusual. It typically happens in children and teenagers. And it`s not something typically associated with head injury.

She apparently hit her head, had a concussion, meaning something rattled her brain quite literally, but in doing so, it triggered this clot up here I`m showing you on the skull. And people that get this kind of a clot from head injury typically have some sort of pre-existing -- this is going to get kind of complicated, so, hang with me, coagulation disorder.

Your with blood has a system that helps its clot. That`s how it clots. There`s a whole series of proteins and your platelets get together and there can be disorders in that. There can be things you are born with like a protein S or protein C disorder or there can be things you acquire later. In fact, cancer is associated with this.

Now, we all know that Miss Clinton had a clot in her leg, which when people talk about blood clots, that`s usually what they`re referring to. A venous thrombosis deep in the leg that can migrate to the lung caused something called a pulmonary embolus. The fact that she had a previous clot and this would make me very concerned about cancer were it not for the fact that that clot in her leg was actually in 1998.

So, it`s been almost a decade and a half since that last clot. And now this one, which makes everyone -- and you hear them talk about this on the news a little bit, think about a congenital disorder. Something maybe she was born with that predisposes her to clot that can all be taken care of. What they`ve done is they have put her on anti-coagulants, a blood thinner, a very powerful blood thinner that will dissolve this clot.

The complications that occur should this clot extend is the pressure in the head can begin to build up. There can actually be things like strokes or brain damage that occurs. I want to make this distinction from -- show me my other picture up here. This is very different.

What Hillary Clinton has very different from what we often think of as a blood clot on the brain from a head injury, which is called a subdural hematoma, which is a blood clot that develops and pushes down on the brain and can harm the brain tissue below it. That`s what typically people have from head injury. That is not what she had here.

Let me take quickly some of your questions about this problem. Melanie on Facebook says, "My grandma`s leg was hurting real bad. She couldn`t walk on it. My grandpa was rubbing on it. The doctor told her she had a blood clot and told my grandpa not to rub it because it can break off and go to her heart or brain and kill her." Is this true?

Categorically not. When you have a vein on your leg that you can see, that`s hot and tender, and you can sort of feel the little lump, that`s called a thrombophlebitis. That is not the kind of deep venous thrombosis, though, sometimes, it`s associated with that. Those don`t move. Those don`t go anywhere.

The deep ones are the ones that move, and they will move independent of rubbing the leg or not. So, it`s something, again, you have to be on blood thinners, that sort of intervention.

I`m running out of time. I hope that helped clarify this for you guys. Next up, I`ve got something very heartwarming for the New Year, a lesson on giving back, giving back that changes the life of a teen and the homeless people he now helps. We`re going to have that story after this.


PINSKY: OK. Before I get into this next story, which is really heartwarming and a great way to start off the New Year, I want to quickly respond to a Twitter from my last little diatribe from Robin 3D23. "@Dr. Drew, why isn`t anyone mentioning her suffering any speech problems? Something like this isn`t easily recovered from."

I wasn`t getting this across to you clearly. Think about this blood clot as in the skull, not in the brain. I think it`s an easy way to kind of think about it. And as such, blood thinners make it go away as opposed to if it were between the brain and the skull or in the brain, blood thinners would make it worse. Very simple.

So, as I said, as the holiday season comes to a close we thought here at DR. DREW, we will bring you a story about a group of teens whose spirit of giving will last all year long, and hopefully, carry all of us through the year. Fourteen-year-old Alec Johnson is on the phone. His father, Michael, is joining us from San Diego.

So, Michael, tell us the story. It was actually Alec`s Christmas wish list that inspired you. Tell us what happened.

MICHAEL JOHNSON, SON WAS INSPIRED TO FEED HOMELESS: Hello, Dr. Drew. That`s exactly right. It was two years ago. And we had -- my wife and I had Alec put together his Christmas list. And, a couple of days later, we get this list saying I want an iPhone, an iPad, not just a Tom Brady T- shirt but an authentic Tom Brady jersey and the list went on.

And, we kind of looked at each other, my wife and I, and said you know, we need to do something here to get Alec to really appreciate some of the things that he has. It seemed like he was expecting things as opposed to appreciating them. So, we decided to do something that I was familiar with, and that was helping our homeless community.

So, we went out that very next Sunday, and we served 54 egg and cheese burritos with his best friend, Luke, and we went down there and served them out of a tray and went person to person, asking if they were hungry, asking if they wanted something to drink, and the boys served them, and it was just a great experience. Our very first Sunday.

PINSKY: Alec, you`re on the phone with me. What did you think when your dad first suggested this? Did you resist? Were you confused? Or did you kind of grab on to the idea?

VOICE OF ALEC JOHNSON, 14, FEEDS HOMELESS IN SAN DIEGO: Oh, well, I thought it was a punishment at first.


PINSKY: That`s interesting. And how did it go from being punished to being something you actually look forward to?

ALEC JOHNSON: Well, it felt good to go downtown and help a lot of people. And all I have to do is give up a few hours of my day. But -- and after getting a few of my friends, and we really enjoy our Sundays passing out the hot burritos.

PINSKY: Now, Michael, I understand there are seven -- there are six more kids now involved, but the seven all told that make up the so-called Burrito Boys (ph). Tell me about that organization.

MICHAEL JOHNSON: Well, after Alec and Luke started that very first Sunday for the next -- it was the next three or four weeks that the boys were doing this, just myself, my wife, and the two boys. And they were talking about it with their friends. And it was -- honestly, it was like five weeks later that three others joined us.

And then, it was a couple months after that that the five boys then voted the last two to be members. And, as we incorporated as a non-profit, all seven of the boys are now officers of the company, and they`re there every single week for 113 Sundays in a row now.

PINSKY: I understand in addition to 113 Sundays, there`s been 23,000 burritos delivered. Alec, what have you learned through this experience?

ALEC JOHNSON: Oh, well, I`ve learned not to take things for granted. And I still have a nice house with a cozy bed and a TV, but I`ve learned to appreciate it all.

PINSKY: It seems like not only have you learned how to appreciate things, but you must have learned some systems issues, too, how to organize, how to fund giving for other people. I mean, this is quite an operation you have going.

ALEC JOHNSON: Yes. Yes, we do this every Sunday. And yes, we make the burritos, we wrap them, we put them in the car, and we go down. And yes, it`s taught me a lot.

PINSKY: Michael, has he had to try to find funding for his 23,000 burritos?

MICHAEL JOHNSON: Well, the boys do all the fundraising. And every dollar that comes in goes straight out to helping the homeless community. The other thing that as the boys start to learn is that, you know, they`re putting together a schedule.

So, we do -- when I say all seven work every single Sunday, we always have at least four or five boys there every Sunday and we schedule -- because they have other conflicts that happen, whether it`s a soccer game or football game or something that`s going on. So, they`re learning how to schedule. They`re learning how to be responsible.

PINSKY: And Michael, my understanding is the viewers if they want to contribute, can go to is that our best way to help you guys out?

MICHAEL JOHNSON: That is the best way to help us out. And like I said, every dollar that comes in, we spend on food, clothing, water, all those comfort items that we provide every single Sunday.

PINSKY: Michael and Alec, thank you for a great story. And Michael, a great parenting story. And for all of us that want to make a difference, We`re going to take a break. Be right back.


PINSKY: Well, that was very interesting and heartwarming story to start out the New Year and hope you`ll stay with us throughout the year at DR DREW ON CALL, DR DREW ON CALL. We really enjoy doing the show, and we hope you enjoy, you know, watching the show and participating. In fact, we`re still getting more calls on the Hillary Clinton situation. I`ve got Lori in Missouri -- Lori.


PINSKY: Hey, Lori.

LORI: I think it`s absolutely awesome that you`re letting the people know a little more about this disorder. It is not a death sentence. I, myself, had a venous sinus thrombosis episode three and a half years ago and I am alive and well and continuing to go.

PINSKY: I`m really glad you called, Lori, because it is something that people -- one of the reasons it`s confusing to people, when they hear about clots in the brain, they think about strokes, they think about subdural hematomas. And this is something very rare that affects like one in 100,000 people and usually young people like teenagers.

Birth control pills have been associated with this, various other medical conditions, and then congenital clotting disorders as I was explaining earlier. Do you have some sort of clotting issue in your blood?

LORI: Well, I did, but as you said, you hit the nail on the head, with me, it was birth control. I sadly enough am an older woman and those two do not mix.

PINSKY: Not necessarily. Do you smoke, too? Do you smoke also?

LORI: Yes, sir.

PINSKY: There we go. That`s the combo.

LORI: That was my doom.

PINSKY: Do you smoke still?


LORI: Well, I came on the show to actually -- I`m on live television here, but yes, I do.

PINSKY: OK. That`s the thing we`ve got to -- we`re going to extend your life years by just getting you to stop smoking. Commit to me now you`re going to stop smoking. You`re going to find a way. Talk to your doctor about that, OK?

LORI: You got it.

PINSKY: All right. There were go. Thank you for calling, my dear. I appreciate it, Lori. Thank you also to all of my guests, of course. And of course, thank you all for watching. It`s going to be a great new year. I will see you next time. And just a reminder here and now, Nancy Grace is up and begins right this minute.