Return to Transcripts main page


Jodi`s Psychologist Grilled Again

Aired March 21, 2013 - 20:00:00   ET



RICHARD SAMUELS, PSYCHOLOGIST: And I can say that within all reasonable psychological probability, she does meet the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If we just take a look at your report, that does not fit the diagnosis for post-traumatic stress disorder, right?

SAMUELS: Correct. Post-traumatic stress disorder is not a "get out of jail free" diagnosis.

ARIAS: No jury is going to convict me.

SAMUELS: I`m pretty confident that they -- that we can be fairly certain that she does suffer from amnesia for that period of time of the acute stress.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: "Isn`t it fair to say you are not 100 percent sure that Jodi suffered from acute stress?"

SAMUELS: That`s correct.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: "Why didn`t you readminister the test once Jodi admitted to killing Travis?"

SAMUELS: It really didn`t need to be readministered.

I should have readministered that test.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: "Do you feel comfortable with diagnosing a person with a condition if they continually lie to you, hypothetically speaking?"

SAMUELS: Well, if I knew someone was lying, I would not make a diagnosis.

Post-traumatic stress disorder.

Amnesia for that period of time of the acute stress.

That would be inappropriate.

ARIAS: Regardless of what the bible says -- and yes, I`m Christian -- I just live my life by the 10 Commandments (INAUDIBLE) my rules, da-da-da-da- da, you know, thou shall not this or that. But it doesn`t say (INAUDIBLE) fornicate.


NANCY GRACE, HLN HOST: Good evening. I`m Nancy Grace. I want to thank you for being with us. Bombshell tonight. While Jodi Arias`s star witness undergoes a brutal cross-examination, we spot over 100 jury questions piling up for the shrink that claims Arias suffers post-traumatic stress disorder after he sends her personal greeting cards and buys her a gift.

The jury questions -- they are whoppers, like, Did you become too, quote, "fond" of Arias? Could she have tricked you? Doesn`t Arias just have, quote, "selective amnesia," asked the jury. This while the shrink, psychologist Dr. Dick Samuels, makes a major blunder on the stand, blurting out to the jury that 30 percent of convicted killers behind bars claim amnesia. Oops!

Everybody, court is still ongoing. We are going to give you all the testimony throughout our entire show. Liz, let`s go straight into the courtroom.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... events or a higher score. Do you remember testifying to that...

SAMUELS: I had suggested...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... in response...

SAMUELS: ... that, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But sir, if we take a look at exhibit number 550, isn`t she already at the maximum, 17? How could she possibly go higher than 17?

SAMUELS: I don`t recall, and I don`t know that I have a date on there, but what I did was that I calculated it twice...


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Judge, he`s -- it`s -- he`s being non-responsive.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE) trying to answer the question.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Overruled. You may continue.

SAMUELS: Thank you. I had misplaced that particular worksheet. And in preparation for testimony, I decided to re-score it. And I re-scored it, and the score may be different by a point or two, but both scores meet the criteria. There`s no -- there`s no difference in terms of the outcome of that test based on the score of 17 or 15.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: First of all, did you tell us when we were talking about exhibit 535 that you had misplaced the original? You didn`t tell us that, did you.

SAMUELS: I don`t recall that I did, no.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And with regard to when you testify today, my question is much more direct -- isn`t it true that in response to a question from the jury -- you were asked, Well, if this other story was known at the time that she took this PDS (ph), wouldn`t scores be the same? Do you remember being asked about that?

SAMUELS: I did. Yes, I did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And do you remember saying in response to that question, Well, it`s not really something that you were concerned with, and the reason you weren`t concerned with it was because you said that she would have scored higher anyway, right? Didn`t you say that?

SAMUELS: What I was referring to...


SAMUELS: I can`t answer yes or no, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You don`t remember saying that to -- in response to a juror`s question? Yes or no. And if you do remember...

SAMUELS: I don`t remember.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have problems with your memory, then?


SAMUELS: No, sir. No more problems than you do.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Overruled. The answer will stand.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, with regard to this issue, have you conducted a diagnostic test on the prosecutor?

SAMUELS: No, I have not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How would you know about his memory problems, if he has any?

SAMUELS: I`m not saying that...


SAMUELS: ... you are...


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, one of the things that you told us was that you were -- when -- when you went to see the defendant, one of the things that happened was that you gave her a book, right?

SAMUELS: That`s correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you said that you were a compassionate man. Do you remember saying that in response to a jury question?

SAMUELS: Yes. I have been accused of that by many.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m not asking you if you`ve been accused of anything! I`m asking you whether or not, in response to a juror`s question, you said that you were a compassionate man.

SAMUELS: Yes, I did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And with regard to compassion, isn`t that just sympathy for an other individual and whatever situation they may be in?

SAMUELS: Perhaps.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, no, you`re the one that used the word "compassion."

SAMUELS: Well, I`m not sure that compassion and sympathy mean the same thing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, perhaps, if we take a look at a definition from Webster and see whether or not it coincides with yours, all right?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Take a look at exhibit number 551. It has a couple of definitions of "compassion."

SAMUELS: Yes, I see that.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If I may have it back? Doesn`t it say that compassion could be sympathy for the distress of another?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so when you said that you had compassion, you told us that you had sympathy for the defendant, didn`t you.

SAMUELS: Well, that`s Webster`s definition. I used the word "compassionate."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right, and we just talked about how Webster defines "compassion," right?

SAMUELS: Correct.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you saying that you have a different definition of "compassion" than Webster?

SAMUELS: I`ll go by Webster`s definition.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, so Webster then talks about sympathy for the distress of another, right?

SAMUELS: That`s correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so you said that you gave the book to this defendant after your first meeting with her, right?

SAMUELS: Correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so that means that -- and how long did that first meeting last?

SAMUELS: Two, three -- three hours, four hours, perhaps.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was the date?

SAMUELS: I can look that up.


GRACE: While he`s looking that up, yet once again, the defense shrink, Dick Samuels, on the stand, having to look something else up, the prosecutor is tearing him to shreds.

We are live, everyone. The questioning, because of the time difference and the daylight savings change, is still going on in that Phoenix courthouse.

Out to you, Jean Casarez, legal correspondent, "In Session." We`re all camped out outside the Phoenix courthouse. Has he been ripping him up this badly all day long, or has the jury taken its turn?

JEAN CASAREZ, "IN SESSION": You know, the jury really was the one that started it. I think the themes of the jury have been, number one, the lies of Jodi Arias. How can you believe any test results you got from someone that continues to lie? They think she`s still lying now. You can tell that.

And number two, his professionalism, changing reports, not re-testing -- how can you call yourself a professional, is what they`re basically asking him.

GRACE: And you know, out to you, Alexis Tereszcuk, senior reporter,, also on the story. Alexis, I don`t have it in for Richard Samuels.

Everybody, you`re not missing any testimony. As soon as I hear in my ear that they`re questioning again, we`re going to go back in.

Liz, did you just say they`re ready? Oh, Alexis, I`ll come back to you in just a second. Let`s go back in the courtroom, Liz.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) admission of exhibit 551.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: 551 is admitted.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let`s take a look at the definition. Can you see that?

SAMUELS: Absolutely.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It says, Sympathetic consciousness of others` distress, together with a desire to alleviate it, right?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So what this says is that you now want to alleviate the defendant`s distress, right?

SAMUELS: My nature is to help people who are in trouble.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And that`s therapeutic, isn`t it.

SAMUELS: No, it is not.


SAMUELS: It is a desire on my part. Therapy is a process. There was no process of therapy conducted.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s a desire on your part, and that`s part of the bias or the thoughts that you take into these -- into this evaluation, right?

SAMUELS: My training of 35 years has taught me not to inject any bias whatsoever in the impartial evaluations that I conduct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And that training of 35 years has also taught you to omit certain things from your reports, right?

SAMUELS: Like omit what?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Like in finding PTSD. Let`s take a look at that. Over (ph) Exhibit number 544. Is that training of 35 years that you`re talking about, sir? Didn`t that training of 35 years teach you to be accurate?

SAMUELS: I -- absolutely, but I didn`t have training as a typist when I omitted a couple of numbers, which I then corrected prior to coming to court.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you -- you, however, released this report for publication...



SAMUELS: I did, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you did that even though you had the opportunity to review it, right?

SAMUELS: I didn`t review the specifics of that section until I started to prepare for trial. When my review revealed to me that I had omitted two of the criteria, they were otherwise listed in the body of the report.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nothing precluded you from reviewing that before you made it a final copy, did it.

SAMUELS: That`s true. I omitted those numbers and letters, and I made an error.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And in 35 years of experience, doesn`t that experience teach you to be very careful in going over your reports?

SAMUELS: I did, and I was. But I obviously missed those (INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And in fact, you know that these are reports that people are going to rely on, right?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you`ve testified other times with regard to reports, correct?

SAMUELS: Absolutely.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the accuracy of the report is something that you know is sacrosanct, isn`t it.

SAMUELS: That`s right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you failed...

GRACE: Martinez is not letting up! Look at that man go!

OK, we`re going to take a quick break. We`re going to be right back with testimony live as it`s going down in that Phoenix courthouse.


GRACE: Welcome back, everybody. We`re going straight back in the courtroom. This is not a repeat. You are hearing this testimony as it goes down.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So it does talk about, in this case, a desire to alleviate someone`s distress. A desire to alleviate someone`s distress is an indication of sympathy, isn`t it.

SAMUELS: According to Webster.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How about according to you?

SAMUELS: I -- sympathy for me means more like feeling sorry for someone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, so you felt sorry for the defendant after the first meeting, then.

SAMUELS: No, I didn`t. I felt a sense of compassion.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A sense of compassion means that you felt sorry for her, isn`t it?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Objection. Asked and answered.


SAMUELS: I saw a person who was having a great deal of difficulty. I felt that it would help my evaluation if I sent her this book, and that was the full extent of my interaction with her that in any way could be considered therapeutic.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m not asking about the book right now. I`m asking about your feelings towards the defendant. That`s what I`m asking about right now. And those feelings that you exhibited for the defendant were such that you felt a desire to alleviate whatever distress she was under.

SAMUELS: I did so by getting her a book.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But the answer is you did feel that way, right?

SAMUELS: My initial impression was that this was someone who would benefit from that book.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your initial impression after talking to her was that you felt sorry for her.

SAMUELS: Not necessarily sorry for her. I felt that this was a woman who was alone and isolated, and by reading the book, it might help with the accuracy of my report and make her more likely be able to come to terms with an issue that she was protecting herself from psychologically by creating an alternative reality.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you feel that your role is that of a support group, then, right?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, you said she was alone! You just said that, that you believed...

SAMUELS: That`s my...


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... that she was alone and isolated. Did you just not say that?

SAMUELS: I did say that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And if somebody is alone and isolated, you tried to take care of it, didn`t you.

SAMUELS: I offered her -- I gave her a book that I felt would make my evaluation more accurate and more complete.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Didn`t you just tell me that you felt that she was alone and isolated after the first meeting?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Objection. Asked and answered.


SAMUELS: (INAUDIBLE) that`s what I said, that`s what I said.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And because of that, you decided to do something about it, right?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And that doesn`t have anything to do with anything other than what you`re feeling at the time, does it.

SAMUELS: No, because I`ve been trained to disconnect any feelings that I might have from the -- the objectivity of an evaluation. This is something that we learn how to do. And I`ve been doing it long enough to know that sending someone a book that I think might be helpful to them, which in the long run would help me and the accuracy of my evaluation, is not a situation where I`m creating therapy or giving them support because nothing was ever talked about other than once she told me she was reading the book.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you were describing an answer to the question from the jury, didn`t you use the word "breakthrough," that she had a breakthrough, and then you continued with talking to her? Didn`t you say that?

SAMUELS: Yes, I...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Objection (INAUDIBLE) mischaracterizing the testimony.


SAMUELS: That mischaracterizes what I said. What I said, that if this was therapeutic, if it was a therapy that occurred during someone`s therapy, it would have been considered a breakthrough.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But just because you say that the word "therapy" isn`t being used, the fact that she changed stories after reading this book, because you gave her that book because you felt sorry -- that`s not considered therapeutic at all, right?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Objection. Mischaracterizing the evidence (INAUDIBLE) changing story (INAUDIBLE) just after she read the book.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Overruled. You may answer.

SAMUELS: It took several -- several visits and many months before she changed her story. And she didn`t reveal the new story to me, she referred to it -- she told her attorney about it, who then informed me. Whether the book had anything to do with that, I have no idea.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t want to know anything about anybody else other than you. Can we just -- in other words, what you knew in talking to the defendant. That`s what I`m interested in. So after the first meeting, that`s when you decide to send her the book, right?

SAMUELS: Correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After the first meeting, you then had another conversation with her...

GRACE: You know, you`d think Martinez may be tired by now. It certainly is not showing as he is grilling Arias`s analyst on the stand. This is the man that claims Jodi Arias has amnesia and post-traumatic stress syndrome.

OK, they`re going up to the bench. They`re having a sidebar. We`ll take that opportunity to take our break, and we`ll be right back for live testimony. Please stay with us.


GRACE: Welcome back, everybody. We are waiting to go back into that courtroom. All the lawyers went up for a sidebar.

Very quickly, Bethany Marshall, psychoanalyst, what do you make of it?

BETHANY MARSHALL, PSYCHOANALYST: Well, I mean, I think, basically, he`s misdiagnosed her, and now he`s trying to substantiate that diagnosis. That`s why he goes from 15 symptoms of PTSD to 17 symptoms of PTSD.

I am very concerned that he sent her a book. What that tells me is that he had some affection for her from the beginning.

GRACE: Well, not just a book, Bethany, but two greeting cards. I don`t know when your gynecologist sent you greeting cards, but I`d be interested in hearing that. But I can`t hear it right now.

Liz, let`s go straight back into the courtroom.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You may continue.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: During that second meeting, you still had those feelings of sympathy, didn`t you.



SAMUELS: No. We talked about things that were related to the evaluation, and my feelings were not of concern during this evaluation. I was simply collecting information and data from her.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I know you say that your feelings were of no concern, but if you had these feelings for her when you first started to talk to her, are you now telling us that those feelings changed the second time?

SAMUELS: We are trained extensively to deal with our own personal feelings, and to disregard them and put them aside, in order to conduct an objective evaluation, which is precisely what I did. And I had no further feelings of compassion once I ordered the book for her because I felt I discharged the duty that I felt I needed to do for this particular person. And that was it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And that wasn`t my question, now, was it?

SAMUELS: That was my answer to your question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And my question to you was, did those feelings of sympathy that you had to start this evaluation -- isn`t it true that they still existed during the second meeting that you had with her?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Objection. Mischaracterizes the evidence of feelings of sympathy. He`s telling -- he`s telling him over and over again he did not have feelings of sympathy...

GRACE: Here you see Martinez delving into whatever feelings the psychoanalyst had for Arias. Were they appropriate?

We`ll be right back with more live testimony.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If there`s a question that you don`t want to answer, you don`t feel comfortable, you can say no, you know? Or you know, you can elaborate as much as you want. It`s completely up to you. It`s at your speed. I don`t want to pressure you...

ARIAS: Is this being recorded at all? Or should...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t -- I don`t know if there`s a recording or not.

ARIAS: I don`t know if these are voice recorders. I noticed them (INAUDIBLE) batteries or...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t think they`re on.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I haven`t touched those or anything, but...

ARIAS: OK. There were three main reasons I moved back to Yreka and one was I was in financial dire straits. I was not getting ahead, I was not -- things were not working. Everything in Arizona was like -- except for the wonderful friends that I made in my ward, and the opportunity, it`s like the Mormon land of opportunity there, which is awesome nit -- except for all that, like, every sign was pointing just to go.

I didn`t realize until I actually spoke with Ryan Burns. He told -- the guy that`s in Utah. And we have been talking a lot, we try not to talk about that, because it`s kind of like ugh, and plus Travis is my ex- boyfriend, but at the same time he`s my friend, so while I`m worried my friend, how do you talk to your new potential, possible, maybe person that you might start dating about your friend, even though he was your ex- boyfriend?

So it`s kind of like a gray area. I try not to talk about him too much, but he comes up a lot. And it was through him that I learned that he said, you know, if you come out to Utah, things are really weird because everyone -- everyone thinks that you could have had a hand in this.


GRACE: And as you look at her in these brand-new videos from police interrogation the jury has not and may not ever see, know that in the back, the backdrop is she stabbed him 29 times. Stabbed him to death and shot him in the head. And this is what she -- oh, yes, she is scooting her booty forward enough so she can fluff her hair for her mug shot. OK? So that`s her -- goes through the trash, she sings, she`s even commenting on the cameras. She knows that the male police officers are watching her right now. She even does a head stand during all of this.

Unleash the lawyers, Carmen St. George, defense attorney, New York, Randy Kessler, defense attorney, Atlanta.

All right. Kessler, why is it to the defense`s benefit that the jury never sees all this?

RANDY KESSLER, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You don`t want too much for them to say she says one thing here, one thing there, one thing there.

GRACE: Well, I`m sorry but that cow is out of the barn. All right?

KESSLER: Well --

GRACE: She`s already given like eight different stories.

KESSLER: Right. The less, the better for the defense. The defense does not want her showing a different story. This is a different story than what she told in court. They don`t want it in there. It`s better for her.

GRACE: Randy, Randy, you`re right, and I can say oh, they`ve already heard a different version of one or two stories. But you`re right, why -- why pile on more? But even more than that, Carmen St. George, we see her attitude talking about Travis. So flippantly, and as she is being charged with murder one, she`s got on handcuffs, flipping her hair, and worried about how she`s going to look in her mug shot. That`s disturbing on a lot of levels.

CARMEN ST. GEORGE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Of course it is, Nancy, but the jury is listening to the testimony that`s being provided by Dr. Samuels, and that`s what they`re going to have to evaluate.

What`s important is whether they value his testimony as scientific and whether they`re going to believe it in connection with all the physical evidence and the testimony that`s been provided at trial.

GRACE: Alexis Tereszcuk, you`ve been watching the testimony all day long. Has Martinez been going at it like this the entire day? He is shredding him.

ALEXIS TERESZCUK, SENIOR REPORTER, RADAROLINE.COM: Yes, and this is how he is every single day, he never lets up. There is never an apology from Martinez, oh, I`m so sorry if I offended you. No, he goes at it like a rabid dog.

GRACE: Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Wait. Wait. He should apologize to a slasher, killer? Do you think he should apologize? Did you just say apologize? You did. I heard you.

TERESZCUK: No, I`m saying that it seems like a -- well, yes, I did say that. But what I meant was that a lot of the people on the stand are arguing back with him, and he never says anything to them as if oh, I`m so sorry I offended you, he just keeps hammering at them.

GRACE: Yes, he keeps going forward. I`m hearing in my ear from the control room, we can go back into the courtroom.

Let`s go, Liz.


JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: Isn`t it true that they still existed during the second meeting that you had with her?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Objection, mischaracterizes the evidence, feelings of sympathy, he is telling -- he`s telling over and over again he did not have feelings of sympathy, he is mischaracterizing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Overruled. The answer stands.

MARTINEZ: And you continued -- when was the first meeting? You gave me the first date was what?

SAMUELS: It was the 16th of December of 2009.

MARTINEZ: And you continued seeing her, in fact there was this last meeting, again in response to the follow up, that there was another meeting in December of 2012. Correct?

SAMUELS: Let me just confirm that.



MARTINEZ: And so you -- what was the date of the first meeting, again?

SAMUELS: The first meeting was December 16th, 2010.

MARTINEZ: So you consistently -- you met with her the first time in December of 2010. Until the last time, December of 2012. Correct?

SAMUELS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: So that is a period of two years, right?

SAMUELS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: Sir, one of the things that you did during this course of evaluation that you`re talking about is in response to a question by the jury was that you administered this PDS test, right?


MARTINEZ: And one of the things that you were asked by the jury was well, why didn`t you do it again. Basically it was the question. Do you remember being asked that?


MARTINEZ: And your answer to that was well, the answers would have -- been the same, right?


MARTINEZ: And the answers would have been the same because you said it didn`t matter what the triggering event was. That`s what you said, right?

SAMUELS: That`s correct. In my opinion, in this case, it didn`t matter.

MARTINEZ: So what you`re saying is the event, whether it was her killing or -- or these two other individuals coming in, that didn`t matter, right? The story didn`t matter.

SAMUELS: And for the purposes of my scoring of using the test, which simply confirmed my hypothesis which was made previously it didn`t matter to me.

MARTINEZ: And this hypothesis that you had of PTSD, that was for -- at the first meeting, wasn`t it?


GRACE: What is he saying? That sounds like psychoanalyst mumbo jumbo, and Martinez is not letting him get away with it.


MARTINEZ: You say that exhibit number 540, that her answer, being number 4, nonsexual assault by a stranger really is not important in this assessment of PTSD, right?

SAMUELS: Correct, based on my use.


SAMUELS: For my purposes, it didn`t make that much of a difference.

MARTINEZ: And so she could have said, based on what you`re telling us, that 20 people came in and committed this horrific act on Mr. Alexander, and that also would not have changed.


GRACE: Martinez not letting up. Everyone, you are seeing the testimony on scene. This is going down in the Phoenix courthouse.

Everybody, our family album back with your photos tonight. Texas friends John, Jacquelyn and Presley Kendall. Love walking in the park, their labs and the zoo.

Share photos at, then click on "Nancy`s Family Album."


GRACE: Everyone, we are getting tons of e-mails and tweets that many people think the prosecution went way too far today to the point of turning off the jury. Well, let me tell you something, he doesn`t want to go to his grave thinking would have, could have, should have.

This is one bite of the apple, one swing at the ball, people. And you don`t want to try and fail and wish you had asked that extra question, wish you had been more aggressive. I mean, think about Casey Anthony, tot mom, would have, could have, should have. Tot mom walked free.

Let`s go back in the courtroom.


MARTINEZ: Came in and committed this horrific act on Mr. Alexander. And that also would not have changed your opinion of what was going on in terms of scoring this test, right?

SAMUELS: You`re mischaracterizing what I said.

MARTINEZ: No, I`m giving you a hypothetical, sir.

SAMUELS: A hypothetical?


SAMUELS: OK, then that`s your hypothetical, I would absolutely say that it probably would change the results somehow.

MARTINEZ: Well, why is it that in this hypothetical that I`m giving you, which is a lie, I made it up, and the other hypothetical that -- or the other circumstance which the defendant gave you, and then changed, what is so different about my hypothetical that would indicate to you that there would be a change and not a change to hers?

SAMUELS: You indicated in your hypothetical that there were 20 people coming into the house.


SAMUELS: And the chaos involved in that and the disorganization would be greater than if there were two people involved. However, in both of her stories, someone was killed, her life was threatened, and she feared for her life. So those similarities made me feel that the redo of the test was not critical to my hypothesis of post-traumatic stress disorder particularly because this was only a confirmation of my diagnosis.

MARTINEZ: And you`re saying that in both instances, she was -- someone attempted to kill her, right? That`s what you said. Right?


MARTINEZ: In the first moment when these two individuals came in, somebody put a gun to her head, that was an indication that somebody was going to kill her, and the second, according to you, it was Mr. Alexander who -- based on the story that she gave that threatened to kill her, right?


MARTINEZ: Both of those stories, sir, were told by the same person, right?


MARTINEZ: So one of them has to be untrue, right?

SAMUELS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: And so if one of those is untrue, doesn`t that make a -- that person suspect in terms of storytelling with regard to the PDS and anything else that is presented?

SAMUELS: Uh -- no.

MARTINEZ: So in other words a person can make up a story and present that story to you and you know it`s not true, right?


MARTINEZ: And based on that, if they then take a test anyway like this PDS, and they give results on that test, according to you, for example, the answers 16 to 21 that we were asked about, well, I`m going to take these as truthful, 16 to 21, even though the answer to 14 may have been untrue, right?

SAMUELS: Based -- I`m sorry, I don`t know what your question is.

MARTINEZ: My question is that you are telling us that the answers to question 16 to 21, you believe are valid, right?

SAMUELS: They were consistent for both scenarios.

MARTINEZ: No. OK. I am not asking if they were consistent for both scenarios, I`m asking whether or not you consider them valid.

SAMUELS: The items themselves?

MARTINEZ: The answers to the items.

SAMUELS: Yes, I do.

MARTINEZ: And the answers were valid to you, even though one of them, we don`t know which one of them, any of them, were based on an untruth, right?

SAMUELS: That is right.

MARTINEZ: Isn`t it true that the reason that you take that position is because you have compassion for the defendant?


MARTINEZ: Isn`t it true that you have changed or done things like exhibit number 550, and then exhibit number 535? Isn`t it true that you`ve done things like that because you have sympathy or bias toward the defendant?

SAMUELS: Absolutely not.

MARTINEZ: Isn`t it true, sir, that it is an ethical issue for you to have exhibit 535 exhibited as the only raw data? And then, exhibit number 550 of the same person, same test scored differently without you telling anybody -- isn`t that an ethical dilemma for you?

SAMUELS: I recalculated the items because I had misplaced the sheet. And I wanted to re-calculate that I would have something to refer to knowing that the first copy was sent in as part of my evaluation. But I didn`t have access to it. So I recalculated it again so that I would have something to review when I was going through my reports.

However, I might point out to you that either score met the criteria. It did not change the utility of the test.

MARTINEZ: But you`re the -- not answering my question. This does not run afoul of the psychiatric guidelines, what you just did in this case, where you have exhibit 535? Where you scored something, correct?

SAMUELS: The original exhibit is the one that I submitted. The second one occurred because I did not have access to that, and I needed to have those numbers in front of me when I was doing my review.

MARTINEZ: I understand all of those justifications, but my question to you is in terms of the ethical guidelines, exhibit 550 is the one that has the dots filled in, right?


MARTINEZ: You filled those dots in, right?


MARTINEZ: It wasn`t the defendant that filled those dots in, right?

SAMUELS: That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: You`re the person who scored these tests, right?


MARTINEZ: And you`re also the person that scored number 535, right?


MARTINEZ: And do you remember originally on cross examination that the prosecutor asked you for the raw data, do you remember that?


MARTINEZ: At that time you didn`t provide any of this raw data with the little circles on it, right?

SAMUELS: No, I believe I did.

MARTINEZ: You think you did?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Objection, mischaracterizes what happened, may we approach?



GRACE: OK, here they go with another side bar. We`ll take this opportunity to break so we don`t miss any live testimony. Stay with us.



GRACE: Martinez showing no signs of letting up on Dr. Richard Samuels. Let`s go in the courtroom.


MARTINEZ: The original sheets that you indicate to us were used by Miss Arias when she filled out the PDS, correct?

SAMUELS: Well, I don`t know if I have that because my notes have been picked apart and put into exhibits.


I don`t know that I have those sheets.

MARTINEZ: Hold on. I know that the yellow sheets with that green tax in front of you. Do you have that in front of you?

SAMUELS: Let`s see. Yes.



MARTINEZ: Initially during cross examination, this is what you provided, Exhibit 534 is what you provided to the prosecutor, correct?

SAMUELS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: At that time you indicated that you did not know where the scoring sheet was associated with this, correct?

SAMUELS: Well, actually it turns out that it was somewhere else in my book, but that`s correct. I said that.

MARTINEZ: And you came back the next day, correct?


MARTINEZ: And the next day is when you provided exhibit number 535, right?


MARTINEZ: But at no time, did you ever provide what`s in exhibit 550, which is the scoring sheet with the little round circles on it, right?

SAMUELS: Can I see that, please, sir?

MARTINEZ: Sure. Of course.

SAMUELS: Well, I have to have given it to you because we have copies here. So, again, if you notice here, this is not an exhibit. This is a copy that I brought with me. So I don`t know where that confusion came from. But here it is.

MARTINEZ: So you now have a copy of Exhibit 550 in your file, correct?

SAMUELS: Apparently, yes. This is a copy that I had, yes.

MARTINEZ: And with regard to Exhibit number 550, do you see that 550 had this three-holed punch, right?


MARTINEZ: Take a look at -- let me go ahead and mark what you have there.


MARTINEZ: With regard to Exhibit 550, if you take a look at it, sir, this one does not have any holes punched in it, right?

SAMUELS: That`s correct. Because those copies were made before I punched the holes.

MARTINEZ: OK. I want you to look in your notebook to see if you have the one that corresponds with this one with the punched holes.




GRACE: The defense can object all they want to and run up to the judge`s bench all they want to, but nobody`s stopping this train. These are responsive questions to the jury`s questions of this witness. We`ll be right back.


GRACE: We remember American hero, Marine Corporal Christopher Greer, 25, Ashton City, Tennessee. Purple Heart, Navy Marine Corps Achievement medal, Combat Action Ribbon, National Defense Medal, parents Chris and Mary Jo, brother Dylan, sister Michaela, widow Stacy, son Ethan.

Christopher Greer, American hero.

They are on the verge of recess in the courtroom. Let`s go straight back in for the end.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take the weekend recess.


GRACE: That is it for the testimony. As we sign off, happy sweet 16 to Mary Michael, aka Superstar. Hangs out with friends, loves shopping and volunteering at her church North Star Baptist.

Happy birthday, Mary Michael. And follow your dreams, sweet girl.

"DR. DREW" up next everyone. You`re not missing any testimony. They are done for the day. I`ll see you tomorrow night 8:00 sharp Eastern. Until then, goodnight, friend.