Return to Transcripts main page


Has Defense Psychologist Helped or Hurt Jodi?

Aired March 21, 2013 - 19:00   ET


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST: Breaking news tonight. More unbelievable Jodi Arias interrogation tape coming in. We`re combing through it and bringing you every jaw-dropping moment.

Plus, the defense psychologist just got hit with a slew of hostile, really sarcastic questions from the jurors. Any minute now, the prosecutor is going to get his crack at him again.

Let`s go back into the courtroom as the defense attorney tries to rehabilitate this embattled witness who does believe Jodi and does think she went into a fog. Let`s start.

JENNIFER WILLMOTT, JODI`S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: And that is a physiologic -- is that something happens that, because it physiologically happens in our bodies?


WILLMOTT: Repressed memories, is that -- how do those occur?

SAMUELS: No one knows the exact ideology. If there`s an area of memory that is troublesome to you, somehow the brain has the ability, and it`s not necessarily anything we do on purpose. We`re just so troubled that sometimes the memories get partitioned off. And the net of it is that they don`t -- those memories don`t bother us. And so, the whole area is like cut off from the rest of the brain.

And the thing is, though, that those memories exist but they`re repressed. They`re shut off. And therefore, under varying treatments, spontaneously, he memories can reemerge and come back.

WILLMOTT: So with repressed memories, it`s a negative or bad experience, but not necessarily something that will throw us into acute stress?


WILLMOTT: Is that how you tell the difference?

SAMUELS: Well, in general. That`s one way of telling the difference. There are a lot of distinctions.


SAMUELS: And understand, our knowledge of memory is still fairly rudimentary. We have learned a great deal, especially in the last ten or 15 years, about how the hippocampus stores memory in the brain. We know, for example, that with aging the hippocampus shrinks. But with cognitive exercise, the hippocampus can grow new cells.

So this is all brand-new stuff. And we`re learning more and more. But it`s certainly only the beginning for our ability to get better control of these things.

WILLMOTT: All right. Based on what you know happened, something horrible happened on June 4, 2008. Based on that, is that -- does that help you better able to tell us if Jodi suffers from dissociative amnesia? From past memory?

SAMUELS: The probability is that she suffers dissociative amnesia, due to the presence of an acute stress disorder. It prevented the memories of that incident being retained.

WILLMOTT: OK. You were asked questions about acute stress order. And how is it you can say she had acute stress disorder when you weren`t there to diagnose it two to four weeks after she experienced the trauma. Do you remember that?

SAMUELS: Yes, I do.

WILLMOTT: OK. And are you actually diagnosing her with acute stress?

SAMUELS: There`s a high probability that she did experience an acute stress disorder. And I based that in large part, one, for the report of the memory loss; two, to the condition of the crime scene, which reflected a chaotic, uncontrolled frenzy.

WILLMOTT: OK, three?

SAMUELS: The fact that she exhibited great strength in being able to move Mr. Alexander`s body back into the bathroom, back into the shower.

WILLMOTT: Because that tells you what?

SAMUELS: It tells us that she was very likely flooded with adrenaline and had the strength to pull him. After all, he was quite a bit bigger than she was.

WILLMOTT: OK. What does that all tell us, then?

SAMUELS: It implies she suffered from the true acute stress disorder and during acute stress disorder, the occurrence of amnesia is very common. And going back to the fact that her story has always been she doesn`t remember what went on at that time, I have to say that it`s a very strong probability that she did experience dissociative amnesia.

WILLMOTT: All right. According to the DSM, can you specifically diagnose her because since you didn`t talk to her immediately after?

SAMUELS: No. And that`s why I didn`t use the diagnosis. But I did indicate that the conditions of the scene likely indicated the presence of an acute stress disorder which evolved into a post-traumatic stress disorder.

Like we talked about with the meteor crater up near Flagstaff. There`s a hole in the ground. We know at one point a meteor hit it. And so by going back and doing almost like a forensic analysis of that crater, we were able to, with a high degree of probability, assume that there was a collision of a big stone from space at one point.

WILLMOTT: OK. Using that same analogy, because you weren`t there when that meteor came down, you can`t -- is it that you can`t say in a diagnosable way? I guess according to the DSM, you couldn`t say it for sure? Is that how that works?

SAMUELS: That`s right. Within all reasonable psychological probability, this is what happened or this is what has occurred or this is where the patient is diagnosed.


You were asked a question about spending 25 to 30 hours with her, isn`t that actually inadequate? And your answer was no. But you also told us that getting close to 30 hours it starts to becomes therapeutic. Is there any concern that you were switching roles with Jodi?

SAMUELS: No, I had no concerns about that. That`s why I terminated the visits. I got the information I needed. There was no new information was coming in. And therefore, I felt that I had more than enough information to be able to finish my report and actually have some sessions after I finished my report because there was some new information that I took up in addendum. And there was no point to be served. So, I didn`t continue. There was no need to continue.

WILLMOTT: All right. And you talked about what other doctors in your profession often, the time that they often spend. What are the times that are normally spent with evaluation, typically?

SAMUELS: Six hours. The sum evaluations we do that can be accomplished in two hours. That doesn`t count -- that doesn`t include the review of the case materials. It`s actually sitting with the client. Some people might spend ten hours, 12 hours, 15 hours.

But as a rule, 25 to 30 hours is a fairly good stretch of time for an evaluation. Some people spend more. Depends upon the nature of the circumstances. And it`s up to the professional, who you assume knows when to stop.

WILLMOTT: Is there a problem?

JUDGE SHERRY STEPHENS, PRESIDING OVER TRIAL: Afternoon recess. Ladies and gentlemen, please be back in the designated area at 3:15. Please remember the admonition. You are excused.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. They`re taking a break. You won`t miss a moment of testimony.

This defense psychologist on the stand is there to help Jodi Arias to explain away all of her very incriminating behavior, what she did cleaning up the crime scene, taking the gun with her and disposing of it after she killed Travis Alexander.

So let`s debate it with the panel. You each have 15 seconds. Is this guy, this psychologist helping Jodi Arias or is he a total joke? Starting with Fred Teece for the prosecution.

FRED TEECE, ATTORNEY: That would be no. Separate and apart from when Martinez got him to admit that he lied to her, I`ll tell you, Jane, where this guy comes across with this gift of a book is she charmed him, tried to get his confidence and makes it look like she`s trying to manipulate him, which is now how the jury...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Annahita Gaspar (ph), for the defense.

ANAHITA SEDAGHATFAR: He`s absolutely helping Jodi`s case, Jane. He`s done an excellent job rehabilitating himself. He was much better prepared. He was concise, authoritative when he was speaking to those jurors. And he explained away the questions that the jurors had. And the fact that he didn`t readminister.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jordan Rose, for the prosecution.

JORDAN ROSE, ATTORNEY: All we have to do, Jane, is look at the jurors` questions, and they absolutely indicate they don`t trust this man. They`re asking things like can a bad haircut cause acute stress? Can planning a murder cause acute stress? And how can you believe someone who has lied to you and you realize they`ve lied?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You`re under the time. All right. Evangeline Gomez for the defense.

EVANGELINE GOMEZ: Yes, definitely, he`s trying to negate premeditation. He did a great job. He made the point she was not jealous of Travis. They both agreed that they were going to see other people. So she had no reason to want to kill him in a jealous rage. Perfect point.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, except that she told a police interrogator on the interrogation tapes that she and Travis did fight about him dating other women.

Now, hostile, sarcastic questions asked by the jurors. Jurors in Arizona can ask questions. You`re going to hear some of them right now, and then on the other side, more of this compelling testimony. Stay right there.


STEPHENS: "Do you feel it is possible for an individual to fool professionals into believing they have suffered post-traumatic stress disorder?"

"You have compared Jodi`s PTSD multiple times to that of police officers and soldiers. Do you think that is a fair comparison? Why didn`t you re-administer the test once Jodi admitted to killing Travis?"

"You seem to have several issues with omitting or forgetting to include information. Do you think that it is important to have an accurate and complete report for a trial like this?"

"How can you say with certainty that she has PTSD if her answers are fictitious?"

"Do you always develop such a fond relationship with the individuals you evaluate?"




JODI ARIAS, MURDER DEFENDANT: He wanted to pull off a freeway on a remote highway somewhere and have sex on the hood of a car, which we didn`t do. But we -- he also wanted to have sex on the freeway while driving, which we did.

He wanted me to wear the boy`s underwear and have anal sex. He wanted me to perform oral sex on him in his office while he was wearing a suit.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: A defense psychologist, Dr. Richard Samuels currently on the witness stand claims Jodi had low self-esteem. And that`s why she participated in many degrading sexual activities.

Now, he`s been questioned by the defense attorney, Jennifer Willmott. She only has a few more questions, we understand, before prosecutor Juan Martinez gets back in to skewer this guy again. Let`s go back into court.

STEPHENS: Please be seated. The record will show the presence of the jury, the defendant, and all counsel. Ms. Willmott, you may continue.

WILLMOTT: Thank you, your honor.

Dr. Samuels, do you remember being asked a question with regard to comparing the PTSD that Jodi suffers to PTSD that can happen with trained soldiers and police officers?


WILLMOTT: And what comparison are you making between the two?

SAMUELS: The comparison is that both groups reached the same diagnostic criteria, albeit for very different reasons.

WILLMOTT: All right. And when somebody experiences a trauma, do they necessarily get PTSD?


WILLMOTT: What about if the person is trained, the more trained they are to deal with certain traumas?

SAMUELS: Well, they`re still vulnerable. There`s a decreasing probability of undergoing an acute stress reaction if they are well trained and prepared.

WILLMOTT: OK. And if the person -- I guess along those lines, if a person has control over the situation where they know what`s going to happen, is there a less probability or less likely for that person to then be thrown into an acute stress?


WILLMOTT: Why is that?

SAMUELS: Well, normally, what occurs is that there`s a shock of value to certain situations. The person feels threatened first, and then they go after, they may respond by either fleeing or protecting themselves.

But, if they`re planning to kill someone, then the initial reaction is theirs. They don`t have the element of surprise. There`s more planning involved. And while it may very well be that their reaction to what they just did would be very negative, the likelihood of developing a post- traumatic -- acute stress reaction and experiencing those severe autonomic changes is lower.

WILLMOTT: OK. You talked about when you first learned of Jodi having a physiological response -- we`re talking about the tremors and the shaking. Is when you first learned about the fact that she was having tremors or that she was shaking, was it Mr. Nurmi who told you?


WILLMOTT: And after that did you know to look for it?

SAMUELS: That`s right. After that point, I made an effort to look at it and see it myself.

WILLMOTT: And after that, is that when -- did you discuss it with Jodi after that?

SAMUELS: After that. Yes.

WILLMOTT: Is it something that Jodi brought up to you all on your own to show a symptom that she had?

SAMUELS: No. I inquired when I first found out about that, and then she told me that she had sweaty palms and also shaking of various conditions.

WILLMOTT: It`s something that she answered your questions...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. She`s just about to wrap up. We`re going to take a very short break first.

Let`s go to Selin Darkalstanian. She`s our producer. In court, apparently, there was a hullabaloo. There were some members of the public, trial watchers, who said something nasty inside court, and they were thrown out. Tell us briefly.

SELIN DARKALSTANIAN, HLN PRODUCER: Yes, Jane. There were two people were sitting behind Jodi`s family. Remember, Jodi`s aunt and cousin are sitting in the front row.

And apparently, one of the court observers said that she wishes Jodi were dead. And so the mom`s cousin complained to the bailiff. And that court observer was actually escorted outside court. So yesterday, we had someone throw up. Today we had someone kicked out for saying they wished Jodi were dead.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: A lot of drama-rama in court. And prosecutor Juan Martinez, you see him sitting there like that. He`s getting ready to skewer this guy again.

We`re going to take a brief break and show you some of the new interrogation tapes just coming in. Then on the other side, prosecutor Juan Martinez. Stay right there.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Take your shoes. Why don`t you go ahead and put those on? Go ahead. Stop right there. Turn around. Put your hands behind your back.




ARIAS (singing): Oh, holy night. The stars are brightly shining...

... It is the night of our dear...


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. In the interrogation room, in July of 2008, Jodi Arias not only stands on her head, but she sings "Oh, Holy Night," the very same song that she sang to win the jailhouse -- you might call it the Jailhouse Idol competition. Very, very bizarre behavior.

Let`s go back into court for a couple more questions from the defense attorney of this defense psychologist before prosecutor Juan Martinez is up at bat to grill him. Listen.

SAMUELS: ... taken under various conditions.

WILLMOTT: So it`s something that she thought that she answered your questions after you found out about it?

SAMUELS: That`s right. I wanted to inquire further because I hadn`t noticed it.

WILLMOTT: OK. And with regards to the question about, there must have been confusion with regard to the three to eight cases per 100,000 people of transient global amnesia.


WILLMOTT: Did I say that right?

SAMUELS: You did.

WILLMOTT: OK. Is that a small number? Three...

SAMUELS: Very small. Yes.

WILLMOTT: All right. So what is the point then?

SAMUELS: The point was simply to explain to the jury and to show that amnesia is not something that`s mysterious, that it can occur under a wide range of circumstances. I indicated that it didn`t happen very frequently, but I simply wanted to lay that as the foundation for the further discussion of associative amnesia.

WILLMOTT: OK. And this particular, where you got that number from, three to eight out was that contained in a review article?


WILLMOTT: And did that review article contain information from 119 other articles?


WILLMOTT: And that was speaking of generally, a type of amnesia, transient global amnesia?


WILLMOTT: And that type of amnesia, you said, can occur from far less traumatic things?


WILLMOTT: Whereas dissociative, that occurs from something much more traumatic?

SAMUELS: Correct.

WILLMOTT: You were asked questions about hypnosis?


WILLMOTT: Is hypnosis something that an evaluator typically does?

SAMUELS: No. Not unless requested. For example, when I consulted with the police department, the state police in New Jersey, I was infrequently asked to do a hypnotic analysis.

WILLMOTT: I`m sorry. Did you say "infrequently"?

SAMUELS: Infrequently, yes. It didn`t happen very often.

And when I was asked to do it, I did because I am proficient in hypnosis. And the -- it was helpful a few times to help some police officers better recollect the circumstances of the situation in which they were involved in a shooting incident. But it wasn`t -- it didn`t really help the investigation all that much. And it was never clear whether they were just confabulating that or making it up based upon things that were said or things that they heard about.

I did use hypnosis in the case of a young, maybe a 10-year-old girl who was accused of killing her mother and -- to try to get some information from her. And in that case, it was more useful.

WILLMOTT: OK. Is hypnosis something that would be done more in therapy?


WILLMOTT: And so is that why you`re not frequently asked to do it as an evaluator?

SAMUELS: Well, its value is limited, and the information that you get from hypnosis is generally not considered reliable, and it is subject to, you know, cross-examination. And it doesn`t stand up.

It`s a pretty good therapeutic tool, by the way. Hypnosis can be very effective in controlling anxiety, depression, habit control and so on. But as a forensic technique, it has its limits.

WILLMOTT: All right. And were you doing any kind of therapy with Jodi?

SAMUELS: None whatsoever.

WILLMOTT: You were asked a question about whether other doctors who - - would other doctors have -- do you know if other doctors would have a different opinion with regard to your diagnosis of PTSD for Jodi. Do you remember that question?

SAMUELS: Yes, I do remember that question.

WILLMOTT: All right. And other doctors with your experience level, do you have an idea of whether or not they would be, have differing opinions from your diagnosis?

STEPHENS: Approach.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Prosecutor Juan Martinez getting ready to annihilate this defense witness once again. You see the defense attorney, Jennifer Willmott, trying to clean up the mess and trying to establish that "No, I didn`t fall for Jodi. I didn`t treat Jodi. I didn`t cross the line and blue boundaries as the prosecutor has alleged."

We`ll see what the prosecutor does on the other side of the break.

Meanwhile, we`ve been going through all of this new interrogation tape of Jodi Arias, just in. Take a look at how she treats male cops and female cops very differently. And then we`ll be back with more testimony.


ARIAS: I wouldn`t hurt Travis. He`s done so much for me.

DETECTIVE FLORES, INVESTIGATED MURDER: There`s so much evidence in that house, so much, and it all points to you.

ARIAS: I lived there. I was there for months.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Would you rather talk to him? If you do, that`s fine. I`m sure he would be willing to talk to you again or would you rather continue talking with me? It`s up to you.

ARIAS: Um, I don`t -- I don`t really have a preference, I guess.



ESTEBAN FLORES, POLICE DETECTIVE: What is it that you want to know about the photos? Do you want to see the room? Do you want to see the bathroom? Do you want to see him or is it the photos before it happened that you want to see?

JODI ARIAS, ON TRIAL FOR MURDER OF TRAVIS ALEXANDER: I think the photos of after everything.

FLORES: I won`t show you those. I won`t. Not in good conscience. I can`t do that.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jodi Arias asked repeatedly while she`s being interrogated in this newly-released interrogation video to see the crime scene photos, the gruesome photos of her handy work, the killing of Travis Alexander. Why -- Because she`s obsessed with him even in death or because she wants to see the evidence so she can figure out a defense strategy? Who knows?

Let`s go back into the courtroom as the defense psychologist who says she was suffering in a fog from PTSD answers a few last questions from the defense attorney before the prosecutor Juan Martinez gets to grill him again.


JENNIFER WILLMOTT, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR JODI ARIAS: Doctor, when other doctors are looking at making a diagnosis and, a psychologist in particular, are they all using -- to make a diagnosis, are they all using the same criteria that you would use?


WILLMOTT: And is that criteria located in the DSM?


WILLMOTT: And so if the criteria -- if you find that the criteria exists pursuant to the DSM, is there a likelihood of doctors with the same experience level who are listening to the same things you are listening to -- is there a likelihood that they would find the same criteria?

SAMUELS: If they had the opportunity to review all of the material and to interview the client in a similar manner, yes, I have a great deal of confidence that they would find the same diagnosis as me.


One of the questions you asked about your -- you talked about an assessment. How can you make an assessment if the person is lying? You talked about that you have been doing these evaluations and therapy -- things like that -- for over or for 35 years and some of the things that you look at in order to make these assessments.


WILLMOTT: Ok. What are some of the things that you look at to make these assessments?

SAMUELS: You look at the consistency of the reporting. You look at the ancillary information, whatever that may be. In some cases, it might be a spouse or other family members. It might be a diary. It might be text messages or e-mails. Comments with significant people -- discussions with significant people in their lives and you try to form a pattern.

If the things that you are being told are consistent with that which was told to you by others then you have to attribute a higher level of likelihood that what they are telling with you is true.


One of the questions that you were asked dealt with, how do you know, based on -- we`re talking about Jodi`s journal -- how do you know that nothing negative -- we saw some of the negative writings, but nothing overly negative. How do you know that nothing overly negative was written in her journals isn`t because nothing negative ever happened. Do you remember that question?


WILLMOTT: And did you review text messages and e-mails besides speaking to Jodi? Did you look at other things? Did you look at other things other than speaking with Jodi to learn about negative experiences?


WILLMOTT: In doing that, did you run across text messages between Jodi and Travis?


WILLMOTT: And in these text messages, did you see how -- did you see certain ways that Travis would treat Jodi?


WILLMOTT: I`m showing you Exhibit Number 444. This is a text message that was already established previously that this is a text message coming from Travis to Jodi.


WILLMOTT: Do you see where he`s talking to her about "Do not call me. Do not text me anything."


WILLMOTT: Oops, hold on.

SAMUELS: Right up on top.

WILLMOTT: Yes. And -- anything else matters about all the --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. The last time prosecutor Juan Martinez was accused of yelling at this witness, he is sitting there getting ready to grill him again. Meanwhile, the new interrogation tapes that were just released show that the detective, Detective Flores warns Jodi Arias, "Hey, you are going to face a trial, you are going to be in the spotlight and face the toughest prosecutor in Arizona, Juan Martinez."

Listen to this -- more testimony on the other side.


ARIAS: Can we do it all without a trial or does there have to be a trial?

FLORES: That`s something that you can discuss with the prosecutor. I`ve been on the phone with him pretty much every day giving him updates.

ARIAS: What`s his name?

FLORES: His name is Juan Martinez. He`s the number one prosecutor.



JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: Ma`am, were you crying when you were shooting him?

ARIAS: I don`t remember.

MARTINEZ: Were you crying when you were stabbing him?

ARIAS: I don`t remember.

MARTINEZ: How about when you cut his throat, were you crying then?

ARIAS: I don`t know.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: She has the gumption to do a head stand in the interrogation room. Nonetheless this defense psychologist on the stand right now insists she suffers from very low self-esteem. Let`s go back into court.


WILLMOTT: And -- anything else matters about all the crazy things you have done. So either fess up or feel my wrath -- or feel the wrath. Do you see that?

SAMUELS: Is that the middle of the page there?

WILLMOTT: I`m sorry.

SAMUELS: Ok, yes, I see it.

WILLMOTT: And that no matter how bad the truth is, I promise you the punishment will be better than the lie?


WILLMOTT: Are these -- is this type of behavior threatening behavior?

MARTINEZ: Objection -- speculation.


WILLMOTT: Can that be -- can it be considered threatening behavior by somebody who is receiving it?


WILLMOTT: I`m showing you what`s then entered into evidence is Exhibit 445. Do you see the incoming where it says, "Hmm, it doesn`t sound to me like that to be -- that`s being dramatic here, call me ASAP." Do you see that?


WILLMOTT: And then the outgoing message which means it`s coming from Travis to Jodi, "Do not call back. I`m sick of you playing stupid and dealing with childish tactics." Do you see that?


WILLMOTT: And then he goes on in the next part of a long text message, he talks about how she`s ruining yet another day of his. Do you see that in the beginning?

SAMUELS: I do. I do.

WILLMOTT: And do you see where he talks about "Bitter feelings are brewing in me towards you." Do you see that?


WILLMOTT: And he`s sick of having days ruined by her.


WILLMOTT: And that he has a genuine -- he`s going to have a genuine dislike for her.


WILLMOTT: And do you see where he starts talking about revenge?


WILLMOTT: Are these things that being received by someone else -- can they be considered negative or mean?


WILLMOTT: Are these types of comments hurtful? Can they be considered hurtful?


WILLMOTT: I`m showing you what`s been entered as Exhibit number 450. This is another middle -- another of a text fight. And I`m looking specifically in the middle where he talks about by the way your comment to Danny Jones -- a pleasantry that people exchange between each other?


WILLMOTT: And if he knew what I knew about you, he would spit in your face. That`s not a pleasantry is it?

SAMUELS: Not loving words, no.

WILLMOTT: And to call somebody evil?

SAMUELS: That`s a very negative assessment.

WILLMOTT: And are you aware from reading other instant chat mail and e-mails and things like that of the different names that Jodi was called by Travis?

Did you ever see any writing like this in her journal?

SAMUELS: Absolutely nothing like it whatsoever.

WILLMOTT: And so when you were talking about her not writing negative experiences in her journals, are these some of the things that you are talking about?

SAMUELS: She was always writing her journal to make Travis look good.

WILLMOTT: Did she ever talk to you about why she did that?

SAMUELS: Well, yes, she did.

WILLMOTT: Why is that?

SAMUELS: Well, she respected him. She loved him. She hoped that she could be part of his life. And she was hopeful that he would eventually change.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. There the defense is trying to show that Travis called the defendant some ugly names including bleep-hole wonder and other terms we cannot repeat on television.

A brief break and then we are back with prosecutor Juan Martinez.

Stay right there.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jodi Arias primping and fluffing up her hair in preparation for her mug shot almost five years ago.

Let`s go back into to the defense psychologist on the stand who is trying to explain away all of her bizarre behavior. Listen.


SAMUELS: Well, she respected him, she loved him, she hoped that she could be part of his life and she was hopeful that he would eventually change.

WILLMOTT: And is that something she talked about that it`s hope for change?

SAMUELS: Yes, that was part of her conversation.

WILLMOTT: And somebody who has a loved one speak to them in this way, is that -- and then doesn`t do anything, stays in the relationship, until the next time they`re spoken to in this matter does that speak to their assertiveness and their self esteem?

SAMUELS: Absolutely.

WILLMOTT: What does it say about it?

SAMUELS: It says that they have low self-esteem and that they`re not assertive, not assertive at all.

WILLMOTT: You remember you were asked questions about testing, question 16 through 21?


WILLMOTT: All right -- oh, I`m showing you Exhibit 540 --


WILLMOTT: -- which shows question 16 through 21, and Exhibit 540 is the -- these are the questions on the PDS test?


WILLMOTT: And these questions, 16 through 21, they speak to a trauma. Is that right?

SAMUELS: That is correct.

WILLMOTT: And you had talked earlier about when a person is speaking of a trauma, does it necessarily matter, the specifics of the trauma?

SAMUELS: Not if you`re talking about one type of trauma over another. In my professional opinion they were close enough. And so what she was reporting when she took this test is likely that what she experienced during the trauma, even though she attributed the cause of the trauma to something else.

WILLMOTT: So even though she was talking at the time that she takes this test, about intruders still -- when she answers the question, 16 through 21 based on what you know, what she says actually happened, did you feel comfortable whether or not the answers would answers would change?

MARTINEZ: Objection -- speculation.


SAMUELS: Yes, I was pretty confident they would remain roughly the same.

WILLMOTT: All right, and then ultimately if they remained roughly the same, did the testing result, which confirmed your hypothesis for PTSD, do that remain the same as well?

SAMUELS: That`s right. Yes.

WILLMOTT: Thank you. No further questions.

STEPHENS: Mr. Martinez.

MARTINEZ: Sir, one of the things that (inaudible) us with regard to the PTSD, was that -- I would have administered it had I thought about it, right? That is what you told us, right?

SAMUELS: I did say that.

MARTINEZ: And sir, with regard to that you also said -- you provided us with some rubdown, right. Remember questions being asked about the raw data in that particular test?

SAMUELS: That particular test?

WILLMOTT: Objection --

MARTINEZ: The PDS test? Do you remember that?

SAMUELS: I did not supply the defense team with the raw data.

MARTINEZ: No, I`m not asking about that. Do you remember that you made a comment about lawyers coming in possession of raw data? Do you remember that during a question from the jury?

SAMUELS: Well, we discussed it, yes.

MARTINEZ: Yes or no.

SAMUELS: Yes, we discussed it.

MARTINEZ: And with regard to that, you said because they wouldn`t understand it, right? You said that, right?

SAMUELS: Well, that is one component.

MARTINEZ: Sure, but you said it here in court, right.

SAMUELS: I don`t recall specifically.

WILLMOTT: Objection -- ma`am may we approach?

STEPHENS: You may approach.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, here we go. It is clear these two gentlemen don`t like each other. This has gotten very personal, a very short break. And back with more of this mano a mano head butting.

Stay right here.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Does Jodi`s life hang in the balance? Prosecutor, Juan Martinez, trying to annihilate this defense psychologist. Let`s go back into court.


MARTINEZ: Let`s take a look at Exhibit 550, and the work sheet that is associated with that. If you take a look at it, that is a PTSD diagnostic criteria A - F map. Do you see that question there?


MARTINEZ: Do you see the number of symptoms endorsed? It says maximum 17, you see that?


MARTINEZ: And it says 17 there, doesn`t it?

SAMUELS: Yes it does.

MARTINEZ: Let`s take look at the other one that you provided to me on a separate date back on March 18th of 2008 -- I`m sorry 2013. This here Exhibit 535, let`s take a look at that. This is Jodi Arias` -- do you see that same question post-traumatic stress disorder diagnostic criteria A - F map?

SAMUELS: Yes, I scored that twice.

MARTINEZ: The numbers are different, aren`t they?

SAMUELS: Yes, I scored that twice.

MARTINEZ: You`re making all of these changes, aren`t you, sir?


WILLMOTT: Objection -- argumentative.

STEPHENS: Sustained.

MARTINEZ: Sir, that is a change, isn`t it -- yes or no?

SAMUELS: I rescored it twice.

MARTINEZ: Yes or no, that is a change, right?

SAMUELS: It is a change.

MARTINEZ: And you only disclosed one of the changes didn`t you?

WILLMOTT: Objection -- (inaudible).

STEPHENS: Sustained.

MARTINEZ: Sir, the numbers do not coincide, do they?

SAMUELS: That is correct, I scored it twice.

MARTINEZ: And sir, you did tell us though, that with regard to this particular test, there was no need to re-administer this PDS test, because in your opinion, if when the new information came out, if a change information came out, well, then, to you, you would have exhibited more of the traumatic event, or a higher score. Do you remember testifying to that?

SAMUELS: I suggested that. Yes.

MARTINEZ: But sir, if we take a look at Exhibit Number 550 --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tomorrow night, I shoot a gun to test Jodi Arias` theory that the gun just went off. Please join me for that tomorrow night 7:00 p.m.

The testimony continues with Nancy Grace, next.