Return to Transcripts main page


Jodi Arias Trial; Martinez Faces Off with Defense Psychologist

Aired March 19, 2013 - 19:00:00   ET


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST: Tonight, it was Juan Martinez versus Jodi`s expert shrink in an epic battle in the courtroom. And right now, Jodi`s team is trying to clean up the mess and win back the jurors. Our expert panel here to debate it. But first, let`s get right back into that courtroom for the fireworks.

RICHARD SAMUELS, PSYCHOLOGIST: ... and combining it with other evaluative techniques, including an extensive interview of the client.


SAMUELS: Was not using it specifically to give me a diagnosis but rather to confirm a hypothesis that I had created previously.

WILLMOTT: Your hypothesis is that she suffered from PTSD?


WILLMOTT: OK. So let me -- let me make this clear, I think. Let`s say you ignored the rules with regard to MCMI and conducted just the MCMI test.


WILLMOTT: OK? So you didn`t interview anybody? You didn`t look at anything else, just conducted this test?


WILLMOTT: First of all, would that be a problem with the way the MCMI is supposed to be used?

SAMUELS: That`s correct. Yes.

WILLMOTT: But second of all, in that situation, is that where the number 75 can be important?


WILLMOTT: Because why?

SAMUELS: Well, because when you have a value that exceeds the number 75, that`s suggestive of a very strong trait. And that trait -- there`s a cut- off point of 75. That considers -- it`s considered that the trait is strong enough to be able to use it in the formulation of a diagnosis, without other information, mind you.

WILLMOTT: OK. And that`s not how you did your evaluation, is that right?


WILLMOTT: And did you -- did you look at many other things besides conducting this MCMI?


WILLMOTT: And when you do that, then how do you look at these scores when you`re not using the MCMI alone?

SAMUELS: You look for relative strengths. You look for the absolute score plus the relative strengths. And then you determine if those relative strengths are high enough to confirm your hypothesis.

WILLMOTT: OK. All right. And so what we see is that we see the PTSD has 69.

SAMUELS: You`re not quite there yet. A little higher.

WILLMOTT: All right. So we`re looking at PTSD, a score of 69.


WILLMOTT: And we see anxiety, a score of 75.

SAMUELS: Correct.

WILLMOTT: And are those the two highest scores?


WILLMOTT: You remember that or do you need to look at it?

SAMUELS: No, I remember that.

WILLMOTT: OK. And even if those are the two highest scores, what does that mean to you?

SAMUELS: That means to me that, well, certainly anxiety is a major feature of PTSD. And the PTSD score was 69, a relatively high score and the second highest score on that series of variables. And so that, coupled with the high anxiety score, allows me to state that there`s a confirmation of my initial hypothesis of the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.

WILLMOTT: OK. And when you say confirmation, what is it that you had -- that you were also using besides the MCMI?

SAMUELS: Well, certainly, the trauma itself, the interviews with the client, the review of all of the additional material that I reviewed and also the fact that the PTS test revealed or suggested the presence of PTSD.

WILLMOTT: OK. Would you consider it a complete mischaracterization for someone to say that not having 75 means it doesn`t exist?


WILLMOTT: Is that a mischaracterization?

SAMUELS: I believe it is.

WILLMOTT: Would that be irresponsible for somebody to testify to that? A doctor were to testify to that?



WILLMOTT: Would it be irresponsible if a doctor were to come in and say having something not reaching the number 75 means it doesn`t exist?

SAMUELS: I would say so.

WILLMOTT: All right. You were also talked to about -- oh, about the MCMI and how it -- the way it was created and it was normed.


WILLMOTT: What does normed mean?

SAMUELS: Well, when you do a test like this, you basically give the sample questions, actually, you give more than just the 175 that were chosen. Test construction can be a rather lengthy and difficult process.

If you take a pool of questions and you administer them to people that have previously been diagnosed according to the DSM Manual, and you look to see which of the diagnoses are associated with a group of particular responses. Now, in order to get this from the items, very complex mathematical calculations are conducted, multi-variant analysis and so on, is beyond me at this point.

But at any rate, they finally select a pool of the items that most well correlate with particular diagnostic categories. That creates the test. Then those tests are scored. The various comparisons between different types of questions are made through this algorithm, and they do a comparison for people that have been previously diagnosed with these particular disorders.

And then it basically says this individual`s pattern approaches a similarity with people who have already been diagnosed with this disorder.

WILLMOTT: Do you have any idea how long it takes to create a test like this? And make it valid?

SAMUELS: It can take a decade or more. And it`s on ongoing process, because the validation groups keep changing as society changes.


SAMUELS: So this is an ongoing process.

WILLMOTT: All right. So in other words, the MCMI was not created last year?


WILLMOTT: Is it something that you said is continually being validated?


WILLMOTT: So, let me get this straight, then. You`re talking about a population of people, let`s say, who have already been diagnosed with PTSD?

SAMUELS: Yes. And other conditions, as well.

WILLMOTT: And other conditions. I just want to narrow it down to make it easier.


WILLMOTT: So for example, you`re talking about a population of people who have been diagnosed with PTSD, and then do those people take this test?

SAMUELS: They can, yes. That`s right, they do.

WILLMOTT: OK. I`m talking about the creation.

SAMUELS: The -- right. The validation study. Yes.

WILLMOTT: Yes. And so those people, then, would take this test, and their test would be scored?

SAMUELS: Correct.

WILLMOTT: And when their test is scored, what you`re telling us is it`s a big mathematical calculation?


WILLMOTT: OK. And once those are scored, that gives you what people with PTSD typically present with.

SAMUELS: That`s right.

WILLMOTT: OK. And is that what, then, tells you what you would expect to see with somebody who now you don`t know if they have PTSD or not for sure? Does that then tell you what you need to compare it with?


WILLMOTT: At the time that this test is given to Ms. Arias, did you already have a hypothesis about PTSD?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. We`re going to hit the pause button for one moment. You will not miss a second of testimony. But for now, a brief sidebar debate with our expert panel.

My question: has this defense attorney, Jennifer Willmott revived this defense expert witness after the prosecutor, Juan Martinez, annihilated him on cross-examination, starting with Jordan Rose for the prosecution out of Phoenix.

JORDAN ROSE, ATTORNEY: When you can`t get a psychiatrist, you go for a psychologist. And when you can`t get a psychologist that`s going to tell you what you want to hear, you go for a psychologist that is completely compromised, because he`s trying to treat her. And she has done nothing to revitalize that.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Evangeline Gomez, for the defense.

EVANGELINE GOMEZ, ATTORNEY: Yes, he is absolutely revitalized. That`s the perfect word, Jane. The prosecutor was trying to put him in a box. And Jennifer is speaking the language of psychology to him.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jon Lieberman.

JON LIEBERMAN, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: Look, first of all, PTSD doesn`t give you a license to kill and then a license to lie about it. But what Mr. Martinez did today was he systematically broke down this witness and basically showed lies in, lies out. He based almost his entire reports, all of them, on Jodi`s lies. And so how are those reports credible?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And I`ve got to tell you that he, this expert witness, this psychologist, said that Jodi created an alternate reality, and that was alternization. I didn`t think that word exists, but I Googled it. There is a word called "alternization." He ain`t making that up. But I don`t know what it has to do with Jodi. It says something here about mathematics.

A very short break. On the other side, we`re going to get back into this testimony, day 34. We`re going to find out how the jurors are reacting to all this. Stay right there.


JODI ARIAS, MURDER DEFENDANT (singing): It might change my memory.

SAMUELS: If the memories aren`t there, they ain`t there.

She suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The shortness of breath, her heart begins to pound.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She`s admitted that she`s the one who killed Travis.

SAMUELS: We encouraged her to reveal the truth.



ARIAS (singing): It might change my memory.

(speaking): Should have at least done your makeup, Jodi. Gosh. (LAUGHS) Goodness.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And let`s go back into court for the redirect by defense attorney Jennifer Willmott of this defense psychologist, Dr. Richard Samuels, who has been accused by the prosecutor of being soft on Jodi, even giving her a gift, a book called "Your Erroneous Zones." Listen.

WILLMOTT: ... is given to Ms. Arias, did you already have a hypothesis about PTSD?


WILLMOTT: What was your hypothesis?

SAMUELS: That she was suffering from a form of PTSD.

WILLMOTT: OK. And so because you had this belief already, and that`s based on what? At that time?

SAMUELS: It was based upon things that were said in the interview. Even though there were certain things that changed later, there was still enough evidence to suggest to me that she suffered from PTSD. Now, I wasn`t really 100 percent sure where it came from at that time.

But she was referring to the incident at Mr. Alexander`s. That could be one area. It could have been related to her childhood. It wasn`t clear to me. It became clearer later, after she began explaining the alternative story as to what happened.


SAMUELS: I had formulated my diagnosis earlier.

WILLMOTT: OK. And so when you think you have a diagnosis, would you want to use a test that is normed to people that have psychological issues already?

SAMUELS: Yes. Yes. Yes.

WILLMOTT: Why is that?

SAMUELS: Well, it`s basically looking for confirmation of a diagnostic category that you`re already considering. And this test is geared to the DSM.

WILLMOTT: What does that mean, when you say "geared to the DMS"?

SAMUELS: In other words, the diagnostic categories that they`re using here have been derived from the DSM. So is this test says there`s a high anxiety score, we could turn to the DSM and see what their definition is of anxiety feel fairly certain that what`s being measured in this test is similar or it`s never identical, but similar to what is being identified in the DSM as an anxiety disorder. That`s an oversimplification but that`s pretty much it.

WILLMOTT: That makes it easier to understand, correct?


WILLMOTT: So -- so in other words, we see on this -- we see the score on here with anxiety. And with the MCMI because it`s, what was the word you used with regard to the DSM?

SAMUELS: It -- that it correlates with or is based upon or it overlaps with.

WILLMOTT: So we see this anxiety score.


WILLMOTT: And we see that it`s 75. If we want to take it and then compare it to the way anxiety is in the DSM, the way that the MCMI defines anxiety is going to be very similar to the way that anxiety is defined in the DSM?

SAMUELS: That`s right.

WILLMOTT: OK. And is that why the MCMI, then -- does that make the MCMI a better tool for you to use in -- in this situation?

SAMUELS: In this particular situation, it is precisely what I was looking for.

WILLMOTT: OK. You were asked the question, would it be more valid to test -- to give Ms. Arias a test with regards to the -- that was normed to the general population.

SAMUELS: No, in this particular case, it`s better to give her a test that`s normed to the diagnostic criteria that I`m hypothesizing about. Because I wanted to confirm it.

WILLMOTT: OK. All right, you were asked a question about -- you were -- you were asked a question about whether or not Ms. Arias felt uncomfortable when Mr. Alexander had oral sex with her the first time. Remember that?

SAMUELS: Yes. Yes.

WILLMOTT: OK. And -- and she had told you that she was uncomfortable, right?


WILLMOTT: So, being that this was the first time that they had sex -- that Ms. Arias and Mr. Alexander had experienced oral sex together...


WILLMOTT: ... did she explain to you why she was uncomfortable?

SAMUELS: It was the circumstances that made her feel uncomfortable.

WILLMOTT: Meaning what?

SAMUELS: Well, in other words -- now, I don`t recall if it was the time that she was given the Book of Mormon and shortly thereafter oral sex was performed.

WILLMOTT: This would have been the time that she was asked...

MARTINEZ: Objection, leading. Lack of foundation.

STEPHENS: Approach, please.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. We`re taking a brief pause as they get into Jodi and Travis`s sex life. Let`s go back to the test that they were discussing. Seth Myers, psychologist, explain to us in plain English briefly what the heck they were talking about.

SETH MYERS, PSYCHOLOGIST: Right. So I mean, they`re talking about a lot of complex issues. But to try to break it down, what he`s trying to do is explain what post-traumatic stress really looks like and some of the things that come with post-traumatic stress.

One of the things is de-realization. That basically means that the way you see the world, it`s not true. It`s different from how the world really exists. So, things don`t seem real. The world seems surreal. The colors may be different than they really are. That`s kind of a quick example.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. So in other words, she wasn`t lying. She just was de-realized. Aha.

Now Selin Darkalstanian, I say that facetiously. Some of the signs of PTSD: anger, difficulty concentrating, high anxiety. Are the jurors experiencing any of these signs at this point, given this is day 34?

SELIN DARKALSTANIAN, HLN PRODUCER: Jane, day 34, 2 1/2 months, you have to realize they have their jobs on hold, their lives on hold. They`ve been sitting in this courtroom every single day for 2 1/2 months. They definitely look tired to me. At times, they look bored and a little bit out of it during this expert testimony. And I think they`re tired, and I think that they want to get to deliberating at this point.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I`m going to tell you, they`re going to wake up as they always do, because we`re getting into the sex portion of this doctor`s testimony. Yes, she had oral sex in the past. But was this experience with Travis Alexander different? Did she feel violated by this experience because of the way it went down, so to speak?

We`ll be right back with more testimony.


ARIAS (via phone): You know what I really liked is when we were in the bath with the candles and I had the braids.

TRAVIS ALEXANDER, MURDER VICTIM (via phone): I love the braids.

ARIAS: I know. Those are hot.

ALEXANDER: I`m going to tie you to a tree and put it in your (EXPLETIVE DELETED) all the way.

ARIAS: Oh, my gosh.




SAMUELS: A large percentage of individuals who are in such settings do not remember or have cloudy and foggy memories, because the brain is not able to process that information. We are more concerned with survival.

WILLMOTT: How does that relate?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: The topic has now turned to oral sex. Jodi Arias, there`s been testimony, experienced oral sex as early as 15 years of age, but somehow with Travis Alexander, it made her uncomfortable. Let`s listen in to the defense psychologist.

STEPHENS: You may continue.

WILLMOTT: Do you remember Ms. Arias talking to you about when she was at a friend of Travis`s home?

SAMUELS: Yes, I do.

WILLMOTT: And it was just shortly after she met Mr. Alexander?

SAMUELS: Yes, I recall that.

WILLMOTT: All right. And did she spend the night?

SAMUELS: She did. They had separate bedrooms. She spent the night.

WILLMOTT: OK. And did Mr. Alexander come into her bedroom?

SAMUELS: Yes, he did.

WILLMOTT: And is that the time where he took off her clothes?


WILLMOTT: And then he performed oral sex on her?

SAMUELS: That`s what it starts with. Yes.

WILLMOTT: Did he perform oral sex on her?

SAMUELS: Yes, that`s what was reported to me.

WILLMOTT: All right. And did she tell you she was uncomfortable?


WILLMOTT: Why was she uncomfortable?

SAMUELS: Well, she was in a friend of theirs home. She was under the impression that premarital sex was not permitted. And there was no preparation for her. He just popped up in her room and performed the oral sex. Removed the clothing and performed oral sex.

WILLMOTT: And did this appear to be too soon for her?

SAMUELS: Yes. She claimed that it was too soon, because normally in a relationship, there`s a period of time that would transpire before she would be involved sexually with the person.

WILLMOTT: OK. So regardless of whether or not Ms. Arias had any prior sexual experiences, did she feel uncomfortable with Mr. Alexander because it was too soon?

SAMUELS: Yes, that`s what she reported.

WILLMOTT: And after that night, did Mr. Alexander take her to church?


WILLMOTT: You also were asked questions about Ms. Arias reporting to you that she had regular anal sex with Mr. Alexander?


WILLMOTT: Or I should guess, I say, anal sex on a regular basis?


MARTINEZ: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) not regular. I`m sorry. It`s not in evidence. He was not asked if it was regular.

WILLMOTT: Thanks. He asked about whether or not they had anal sex?


WILLMOTT: OK. And did Ms. Arias talk to you about that?

SAMUELS: Yes, she did.

WILLMOTT: And at some point later, did she tell you that she did have anal sex -- tried anal sex with another boyfriend?

SAMUELS: Yes, she did.

WILLMOTT: Now is there something that is important to your ultimate diagnosis to PTSD?

SAMUELS: No. Because if she was complaining that the physical trauma of having the anal intercourse was harmful to her, then it might have had an impact on my diagnosis. But it turned out not to be. That is -- it was not comfortable for her, I recall. But nonetheless, it was not traumatic.

And so whether she had had it before with others is not really that significant for my part of the evaluation, for my involvement in the diagnosis. It`s not that critical.

WILLMOTT: All right. And so you were talked to -- do you remember being asked about you being in an addendum to your report?


WILLMOTT: And that you did not put this information about her trying anal intercourse prior to Travis a couple of times.

SAMUELS: That`s right.

WILLMOTT: Is it something that you needed to put in your addendum?

SAMUELS: All right. Let`s hit the pause button for a second as we analyze this very crucial testimony. You`re going to see it all.

Beth Karas, correspondent, "In Session," you`ve been there in court. What this psychologist is saying is that all sex isn`t created equal. And just because she had previous oral and anal sex experiences doesn`t mean that these were going to be the same. That she was uncomfortable with certain aspects of this particular oral and anal sex with Travis Alexander.

Is that a good point? Is this attorney cleaning up this mess?

BETH KARAS, CORRESPONDENT, TRUTV`S "IN SESSION": Well, she`s certainly, you know, trying to clean up the mess. I don`t know if she really can fully rehabilitate him. Because he made some, you know, really glaring errors on his report. And so he`s trying to explain it. I just don`t know if she can fully rehabilitate him.

Meanwhile, jurors continued to drop questions in their basket all throughout the day today. And they had a number of them yesterday, as well. So when this redirect is finished, there`s no more re-cross. The juror questions probably tomorrow, and then each attorney, of course, will get one more opportunity to question him.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. And some of the biggest mistakes, for example, he gave her a book. You`re not supposed to give gifts to people you`re evaluating. "Your Erroneous Zones" is the title of the book. That`s just one of several on the stage who are crossing the boundaries that the prosecutor pointed out.

Again, you`re not going to miss a moment of testimony. We`re taking a very short break. We`re going to be back in the courtroom in just a moment. Stay right there.


MARTINEZ: You didn`t have the knife in your hand. You needed to get it from somewhere, right?

ARIAS: I guess, I don`t know.

MARTINEZ: No, no, no. There`s no guessing here now.





JODI ARIAS, ON TRIAL FOR MURDER OF TRAVIS ALEXANDER: When I finally came to, I saw that there was blood in my hands.

JUAN MARTINEZ: And you enjoyed the tootsie pops and the pop rocks, correct?

You think that the braids are hot, don`t you?

ARIAS: I think cute is more appropriate.



JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN HOST: They are talking sex in the Jodi Arias courtroom on the stand. The defense psychologist who said Jodi Arias did suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and did go into a fog. But the prosecutor on cross-examination annihilated him showing he crossed the line by giving Jodi a gift and may have been kind of stuck on her, he implied.

Now the defense attorney, Jennifer Willmott trying to clean up that mess, rehabilitate this witness and also rehabilitate the whole issue that Jodi Arias was sexually degraded by Travis Alexander.

Let`s listen.


JENNIFER WILLMOTT, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR JODI ARIAS: Put this information about her trying anal intercourse prior to Travis a couple of times.


WILLMOTT: Is that something you needed to put in your addendum?


WILLMOTT: Is it something that changed anything with regard to your diagnosis or what you felt about acute stress or PTSD?

SAMUELS: Not at all.

WILLMOTT: Do you remember being asked the question about whether or not Miss Arias talked to you about pictures of breasts on Mr. Alexander`s computer?

SAMUELS: Yes, I remember that was mentioned.

WILLMOTT: All right. Do you have any memory of how many computers Mr. Alexander had?

SAMUELS: No, I do not.

WILLMOTT: Do you even know that?

SAMUELS: No I don`t.

WILLMOTT: Did Miss Arias ever talk to you about how many computers he had?


WILLMOTT: And did she ever -- did you guys ever talk about a time line of when she was talking about these pictures that she saw?


WILLMOTT: And do you know the time line of when Miss Arias knew Mr. Alexander? That she met him in 2006.

SAMUELS: Yes. I have a time line, not specific as a time line, but through my notes I have various dates. I could create a time line, if necessary.

WILLMOTT: Ok, well, my question is though, is that when she was talking to you about these pictures on his computer, was there ever a specific time that she saw them in 2006 versus 2008?


WILLMOTT: Was there ever specific discussion as to which computer she might have seen them on?


MARTINEZ: Objection. (inaudible) We know there were really four computers.



WILLMOTT: The answer was no?

SAMUELS: My answer was no.

WILLMOTT: All right, I want to talk to you about a couple of issues that came up yesterday, ok?


WILLMOTT: I think it was yesterday. You were asked questions about giving or sending a book to Jodi in jail, is that right?


WILLMOTT: How do you do that? How do you send a book to a person who`s in jail?

SAMUELS: Well, I obtained her jail address, and I went online and I ordered the book from Amazon and it was delivered to her directly through the mail.

WILLMOTT: So did you -- you don`t deliver it personally then?


WILLMOTT: And how much was it?

Samuels: Spent $9 -- it was a paperback book.

WILLMOTT: And in the time line of when you met Miss Arias, beginning to end, do you remember when this book went in approximately.

SAMUELS: I have it in my notes from the first day I visited her.

WILLMOTT: Ok. And what was the name of the book?

SAMUELS: "Your Erroneous Zones" by Dr. Wayne Dyer, which turns out has been in consistent printing --

MARTINEZ: Objection -- beyond the scope of the question.

STEPHENS: Sustained.

WILLMOTT: It turns out what?

SAMUELS: That it`s been consistently printed since 1978 in different versions. And it`s an extremely well-known and useful self-help book.

WILLMOTT: Ok. And a self-help book for what?

SAMUELS: For building self-esteem.

WILLMOTT: For building self-esteem. So did it have anything to do with depression?


WILLMOTT: Ok. And, are there -- have you had a chance to review the psychological guidelines, ethical guidelines you have?


WILLMOTT: And is there anything, ethically speaking that prohibits you as an evaluator from sending a self-help book to a client?


WILLMOTT: Do you remember specifically what the guidelines say?

SAMUELS: Well, they say that obviously, one should not be a therapist and evaluator at the same time. But, in the course of doing your evaluation, there`s a certain degree of leeway that can be taken to ensure the success of the evaluation.

WILLMOTT: And by sending Miss Arias a book about self-esteem, how does that ensure the success of an evaluation?

SAMUELS: I listened to her story. And it was apparent to me that she had very low self-esteem from the first visit. Being a compassionate person and in the health care capacity, I know that many of my patients over the years have benefited from recommending this book to them as have friends, and relatives, my kids, my aunt and uncle.

I thought perhaps she would benefit from that. Because her self- esteem was so low, she was very inhibited and insecure about sharing the details of her experiences. And I thought that by reading this book, if she decided to read it, it might help open her up a little bit and make her more confident revealing the information about what had happened.

WILLMOTT: And ultimately did she reveal additional information to you?

SAMUELS: She did.

WILLMOTT: Now, when you give her or when you send this book to her, is that any form of therapy to you?

SAMUELS: Not at all.

WILLMOTT: If you had a patient come into your office when you are doing therapy sessions to them, would you ever just hand them a book and say I`ll see you next week?

SAMUELS: No, of course not.

WILLMOTT: Is that therapy?


WILLMOTT: And in other situations when you have done other --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. We are going to hit the pause button for one second. You won`t miss a second of testimony. This defense psychologist keeps talking about Jodi Arias` low self-esteem.

Well, take a look at this, Jodi Arias doing a head stand minutes in the interrogation room minutes before she`s arrested for murder. Does that look like somebody who is suffering from low self-esteem, meek, timid, and she`s just too, too shy to speak?

Let`s debate it with our expert panel starting with Jordan Rose for the prosecution.

JORDAN ROSE, ATTORNEY: This woman does not have low self-esteem. You don`t go doing a head stand and doing all this crazy stuff. She`s kind of like a black widow. She just sucks -- she preys on men. She sucks them in. And even in this case, this psychologist has been sucked in by her, whatever it is that she does to these people and he`s compromised. Sending her a book to improve her self-esteem? Crazy.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Evangeline Gomez for the defense.

EVANGELINE GOMEZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Self-esteem just doesn`t mean that you are silent or you`re meek. Self-esteem, look at all the bad relationships she`s been in where she has not put herself first. That`s a big sign of someone having low self-esteem. Not taking initiative and getting out of a bad relationship when you should break off completely break off ties. That`s another sign of low self-esteem.

And to say that she doesn`t have it, we`re not being honest.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jon Leiberman.

JON LEIBERMAN, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, she didn`t have low self-esteem when she butchered Travis Alexander and then lied about it repeatedly to police. I can tell you that. But what --

GOMEZ: She was fighting for her life. She was fighting for her life.

LEIBERMAN: Oh, she was fighting for her life. Ok. You are buying that line that she was fighting for her life. All I`m hearing from this expert is a regurgitation of her lies which haven`t been corroborated by anybody else. This expert hasn`t spoken to anybody else except for Jodi. And it appears at least that this expert will do anything to bolster Jodi`s claims even if it means doctoring the results of a test or omitting something, or fixing --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. And news for you, I have to say this, the prosecutor implied maybe that this psychologist liked Jodi, if you know what I mean. She`s a seductress. She`s mesmerizing.

Tonight on "HLN AFTER DARK", we`re taking a closer look at the Jodi Arias trial. From now through closing arguments, the verdict, the HLN team will gather at 10:00 p.m. to look at the case in front of a live studio audience who`ll act as jury and render their verdict for the night. Follow the evidence the way the investigators did. Don`t miss "HLN AFTER DARK" tonight, 10:00 p.m.

But we`re back in just moments with more of today`s crucial testimony. It just happened moments ago. We`re bringing it to you right now.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We drove all the way from Vancouver, Washington. We are so fascinated with the trial.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And have you been watching at home?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Every day. We don`t miss it. Lucky for me, I work in the evening so me and my girlfriend watch it every day.

It`s like a drug to us.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: I went to a shooting range to test Jodi Arias` claims that the gun just went off when she shot Travis. I`ll bring you that story Thursday. Check it out.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: We came here to the New Jersey Firearms Academy to test out Jodi Arias` claim. She says Travis was coming at her. She pointed the gun at him to try to stop him. And the gun just went off but she didn`t mean to shoot him.

So we are asking a firearms expert, can a .25 caliber weapon just go off like that?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: On the other side of this break, very soon, more testimony. We are going back inside court. Stay right there.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: This is the defense psychologist who said Jodi suffers from PTSD and she did go into a genuine fog amnesia. The prosecutor on cross destroyed him saying he was stuck on Jodi, liked her and gave her a gift. The defense attorney trying to clean up that mess -- let`s listen in.


WILLMOTT: A patient come in to your office when you`re doing therapy sessions with them, would you ever just hand them a book and say I`ll see you next week?

SAMUELS: No, of course not.

WILLMOTT: Is that therapy?


WILLMOTT: And in other situations when you have done other evaluations, have you ever sent a book such as this to any other client?

SAMUELS: Yes, I have.

WILLMOTT: So is sending a book to Miss Arias, is that in any way unusual for you?

SAMUELS: Not for me, no.

WILLMOTT: Are you aware of other psychologists in your field of expertise who have done similar things?

SAMUELS: As caring professionals, we have a tendency sometimes to do that.

WILLMOTT: Ok. Now, and by sending her a book about self-esteem, does that in any way -- there`s an implication that maybe perhaps you liked her more than a patient, a client/doctor type relationship.

SAMUELS: I do that -- I have done it, not with every client I have seen but only those that I feel might benefit from this particular book. And believe me, there are a lot of people that I have sent it to that I almost don`t like or didn`t like. I try to like everybody. It makes my evaluation easier to do.

WILLMOTT: Ok. So regardless of whether you like them or not, is that material to you?

SAMUELS: It`s not material to the way I feel about a person. It`s just that I felt that they could benefit from them, so I recommended the book by sending.


And with regard to the book, when you sent the book to her, did you have any -- did you give her any directions read this, we`ll discuss it next week?

SAMUELS: Not at all. I said read this book, I think it may help you.

WILLMOTT: All right. And if she didn`t read it, were you going to do anything about it?


WILLMOTT: Do you remember being asked a question about tape recording your interviews with clients and patients?


WILLMOTT: Do you ever tape record?

SAMUELS: No. I would only in cases where it was required for one reason or another. But no, typically, I do not.

WILLMOTT: Ok. Why is it that you don`t tape record?

SAMUELS: The presence of a recording apparatus frequently inhibits what people will tell you. I knew specifically in this case that the material that we were talking about would be very sensitive to her. And so, typical to many other cases, for example if I was working with someone who committed a crime, they might be reluctant to reveal something that could conceivably be called by the prosecution and they, in a sense, would be testifying against themselves.

So to avoid that type of problem, since I don`t have to do it, I rarely do it. And I find that people are more likely and by the way, that has been shown by scientific study, people are much more likely to reveal to an interviewer if they are not being recorded.

WILLMOTT: If you are not recording it, audio recording it then does that mean that you --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. The defense attorney Jennifer Willmott trying to clean up this defense psychologist after he was annihilated by the prosecution on cross-examination.

Selin Darkalstanian, our producer there in Phoenix in the courtroom; tell us about the growing tension between the prosecutor and the defense team.

SELIN DARKALSTANIAN, HLN PRODUCER: I think today it was the most tension I have seen between the two attorneys between Juan Martinez and Jennifer Willmott. You could cut the tension with a knife in that courtroom.

At one point, you know, Juan Martinez is yelling at the defense for a witness. And Jennifer Willmott gets up, and is like objection, they are speaking over each other. There were multiple sidebars today in court. These two are not getting along and are not at all playing nice with each other like you saw today.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. This happens in megatrials. I saw it in the Michael Jackson child molestation trial, we saw it with Casey Anthony. The two sides grew to hate each other.

We`re going to be back with more testimony from inside court. But first, here is an example of what Selin is talking about. Listen to this.


MARTINEZ: Do you have any problems with your memory because this just happened --

SAMUELS: No, I do not have problems with my memory.

MARTINEZ: You don`t know that, do you?

SAMUELS: No, I don`t. I`m speculating.

MARTINEZ: Right, made it up right now, speculating.

SAMUELS: No, clinical judgment, sir.

What are you reading from, sir?

MARTINEZ: Sir, I ask the questions, do you understand that?


MARTINEZ: Her PTSD score of 69 is below the 75, correct?

SAMUELS: The 75 doesn`t mean anything.

MARTINEZ: Right, it doesn`t mean anything. That`s why they threw it in there, right?

SAMUELS: You are misinterpreting --

MARTINEZ: No, no, no.

SAMUELS: I studied these tests for years. You are misinterpreting it, sir.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`ll get back to the trial, but first, Pet o` the Day. Send your pet pics to Shelby those blue eyes gorgeous. And Carmela, look at her lounging in style. And Bailey & Sadi -- they say, we got each other, we don`t need you. Little Azazel -- Azazel? Azazel, you dazzle, Azazel. Oh, yes, you do. Gorgeous, gorgeous child.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: The prosecutor made a huge deal about how this defense psychologist didn`t tape-record his sessions with Jodi Arias. Well, the defense is now trying to clean that up and explain why. Let`s listen.


SAMUELS: People are much more likely to reveal to an interviewer if they`re not being recorded.

WILLMOTT: And so if you`re not recording it, audio recording it, then does that mean that you have to write everything down that she says?


WILLMOTT: And when you write things down, what Jodi is telling you, are you ever sharing your notes with her?

SAMUELS: No. In fact, all of my interviews with Miss Arias were conducted behind a barrier and a heavy screen between us. So it would have been impossible for her to see what I was writing.


SAMUELS: And by the way, we are trained that if we are taking notes, not to allow the client to see what you`re writing because they may take that as if that`s something you want to hear, and they may start altering what they`re telling you. So we take precautions to block what it is that we`re writing.

WILLMOTT: Ok. And so as you`re writing things down, you`re not, then, double checking with her, did I get this correct?

SAMUELS: No. I try not to.

WILLMOTT: Ok. And when she`s telling -- in the middle of a story or in the middle of a situation that she`s telling you, is it practice of yours to interrupt her to say, wait, I didn`t get that?

SAMUELS: No, I try not to. I try to write down as much as I can while there is a free-flow of communication. Sometimes the topic may change and the thought suddenly gets obliterated by the new topic and so there may be some gaps in what I`m writing. What I`ll try to do at a later time is to repeat the interview and try to elicit the material that was missing. And usually with a few passes, you can fill in the bulk of the material.

The problem is, this is not searchable like it might be on the computer. And therefore sometimes you have to go back and forth between your paperwork. I know that`s old-fashioned, but that`s what I do.

WILLMOTT: Have you been doing that for 30 years?




VELEZ-MITCHELL: So the defense psychologist currently on the stand, that man, Dr. Richard Samuels, says all the lies Jodi told after killing Travis, totally understandable, she was in deep denial, she was traumatized. The prosecutor says nonsense. This guy is bias in favor of Jodi. Clinical psychologist Seth Meyers, what do you think?

SETH MEYERS, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, you know, I don`t support the diagnosis of PTSD for Jodi. One of the things that makes an event truly traumatic for a person is the fact that they have no control. They feel completely defenseless in this situation. You know, imagine a rape victim -- imagine a rape victim who`s held down by three different men. She has no ability to fight back.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I get your point. She had a gun.

MEYERS: It`s quite the opposite with Jodi.