Return to Transcripts main page


Jodi`s Trial Live

Aired April 9, 2013 - 21:00   ET



DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST (voice-over): Jodi Arias trial, day 44. Is Jodi -- another Einstein?

JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: She believed that her I.Q. was as high as Einstein`s. And, in fact, that speaks against somebody who has low self- esteem.

PINSKY: And we`ve got a new theory about the killing from a seasoned crime scene expert. Does he hold the key as to how Jodi did it?

Plus, did Jodi`s own parents think she`d flee once she knew she was toast?

JODI ARIAS` DAD: She said, I can`t tell you what`s going on. And she goes, I got to leave (ph) because I might be blamed for something.

PINSKY: Did he just say that?

Let us get started.



PINSKY: Good evening, everybody.

My co-host tonight is forensic and clinical psychologist Cheryl Arutt.

And we -- she and I will be back shortly. We`ll be discussing a new theory, a theory I find very compelling about precisely what Jodi Arias did as she killed Travis Alexander. I have a CSI expert here that is going to tell us not only precisely what she did but what he thinks she actually said to him and how she tormented him near moments before she dispatched him.

Now, I`m going to hit the play button again, guys. We`re going to finish the trial. Let`s go do that, and then we`ll be back to discuss it with my "Behavior Bureau" and others.

Be right back.

MARTINEZ: All right. And isn`t it true that there was a breakup, correct, between her and Mr. McCartney, correct? Yes or no?


MARTINEZ: And isn`t it true that it was after this breakup that there was their conversation between the defendant and Bianca, correct?

WITNESS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: Isn`t that part of a pattern of jealous behavior in confronting somebody?

WITNESS: It didn`t sound like a confrontation either by Mr. McCartney or Ms. Arias. It sounded like she went and had a talk with her and maybe clarified. I don`t know. But I didn`t get the jealous behavior. I got the going to talk to someone.

It wasn`t -- if it was real jealous, it seems like it would have been more confrontational.


WITNESS: It was not described that way.

MARTINEZ: So, Mr. McCartney wasn`t present for that one, was he?

WITNESS: No, but he said it wasn`t.

MARTINEZ: And it was based on what the defendant told him, right?

WITNESS: I would suspect he talked to Bianca, as well.


WITNESS: I would suspect he talked to his own girlfriend about it.

MARTINEZ: Again, now, you`re assuming because for the benefit of the defendant that Mr. McCartney spoke to Bianca. You don`t know that, do you?

WITNESS: I know that Mr. McCartney said it wasn`t an adversarial situation.

MARTINEZ: Right. And the issue with that is he wasn`t present, correct?

WITNESS: No, he wasn`t.

MARTINEZ: Any information he would have received would have come either from the defendant or perhaps from Bianca if he spoke with Bianca, correct?

WITNESS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: So anything he knows, he knows secondhand, correct?

WITNESS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: And after this confrontation, isn`t it true that the defendant went at some point, shortly after that and slept in Mr. McCartney`s bid without his permission?


MARTINEZ: Again, isn`t it that, in light of what happened with Mr. Juarez and in light of what`s happening with Mr. McCartney, doesn`t that suggest to you a pattern of jealousy?

WITNESS: It suggests a pattern of having a very difficult time letting go. But she`s not controlling anyone with her jealousy. She`s not controlling them.

MARTINEZ: Let me talk to you about another exhibit. Take a look at this exhibit, 614. Recognize it?


MARTINEZ: And it`s the same one that we talked about before, right?


MARTINEZ: The only difference is that this one is clearer, correct?

WITNESS: Clearer?

MARTINEZ: In order, the letters are clearer.

WITNESS: There aren`t any exacerbating factors on it.

MARTINEZ: There`s no what?

WITNESS: There`s no exacerbating factors on it.

MARTINEZ: Right. Other than that, and that`s the only change. But other than that, it`s just a clear presentation of the items in the up and down fashion, right?

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Does she have the original to look at?


MARTINEZ: Judge, I don`t want her to compare to the original. I`m just saying isn`t this something that show`s familiar with.

JUDGE: All right. Overruled.

MARTINEZ: Is it something you`re familiar with and you put together, correct?

WITNESS: Yes. It`s incomplete.

MARTINEZ: That`s why it`s incomplete. But this is something you put together, correct?


MARTINEZ: I move for the admission of 614.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Judge, may we approach?

PINSKY: During this little sidebar, we`re going to go to "In Sessions" Beth Karas. You`re not going to miss a second of this trial. We`re going to get back to it in a second.

But, first, Beth, Martinez, is he having the desired effect on the jury?

BETH KARAS, "IN SESSION" CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, the jurors have been submitting questions throughout the entire cross examination for the last two days and today as well. You know, they did not have a lot of questions in that basket during the direct examination. But the questions are piling up.

He is -- he`s been making points. You`ve got to stay focused, though, to follow it. But he s certainly showing that she took Jodi Arias at her word. She discounted evidence that didn`t fit in with Jodi Arias` version of what happened in this alleged domestic violence. And what he`s showing now is that there was indeed a pattern of stalking with prior boyfriends.

Jodi Arias just couldn`t let go, and that she did it with Travis Alexander, too. Now, there`s evidence that the jury`s not going to hear, the judge has precluded and there probably is some about these prior boyfriends. But nonetheless, there is enough for Martinez to make this argument to the jury in the end.

PINSKY: And Cheryl and I were talking that it`s interesting how she never concedes anything in spite of this mounting evidence of Jodi`s behavior and lies. She`s sort of being exposed to it, and yet, Cheryl, she doesn`t ever concede her opinions at all.

ARUTT: She won`t give an inch. She just keeps fighting and fighting and holding on and trying to equivocate.

PINSKY: It`s very strange. At some point, she`s got to go -- well, I didn`t have that information, so I`ve drawn my opinions based on previous - - I have no way of knowing what the truth is. I just arrived at my clinical opinion. By the way, she never talks about having an opinion about things.

It`s OK for clinicians to have an opinion, to use their judgment, even if Martinez doesn`t want them to, it`s OK to do that.

We`re going to go back to the trial.

Thank you, Beth.

As I said, you`re not going to miss a minute of the trial, but, boy, we`ve got a lot to talk about once we finish the trial for the day. The judge ruled that the exhibit was admitted. We`re push being the play button and getting right back to the trial. And, again, we`ll have much more conversation after a little while.

MARTINEZ: Now you indicated that was, with regard to the -- what we`ve been talking to, the defendant, that that was not necessarily a pattern of jealousy, correct?

WITNESS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: Actually, what we`re really talking about is that that`s a pattern of stalking, isn`t it?

WITNESS: No, it isn`t.

MARTINEZ: Well, she`s gone and contacted Bobby Juarez on the telephone, two times after the breakup, right?

WITNESS: She has.

MARTINEZ: And she`s left things at his door after they`ve broken up, correct?

WITNESS: Stalking and --

MARTINEZ: Yes or no?

WITNESS: Stalking and --

MARTINEZ: Yes or no.

WITNESS: Incorrect. Stalking is about fear.


JUDGE: Yes, what`s the objection?

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The objection is she clearly cannot answer the question with a yes or no answer.

JUDGE: Overruled. Restate your question.

MARTINEZ: Isn`t it true that with regard to Mr. Juarez, she left things at his doorstep, correct?


MARTINEZ: And isn`t it true that with regard to Mr. McCartney, one of the things she did is that she went and spoke to the person that she believed that he was seeing, correct?

WITNESS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: And then she slept in his bed, right?

WITNESS: She did.

MARTINEZ: And with regard to Mr. Alexander, isn`t it true that one of the things that you know with regard to the Reagan Housley instant messaging was that Mr. Alexander was exceedingly afraid because of the defendant`s stalk being behavior.


JUDGE: Overruled.

WITNESS: I don`t know that he was exceedingly afraid. I don`t get --

MARTINEZ: Judge, may I ask her the -- I think we`ll need to approach.

JUDGE: Yes. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we`re going to take the evening recess.

During the break, did you have an opportunity to look at your schedules for the dates --

PINSKY: There you go. Court is done for the day. We are back with our show and we`re going to be discussing all that happened in court today.

I`d like to introduce my panel. May I not at this point? I have to go to break, I`m sorry.

I will get back to my panel after the break. Stay with us. We`ve got a lot, including our theory we were talking about. I`ve got a CSI expert in here to walk us through what Jodi did to Travis. I got to tell you, it gave my chills hearing his theory.

Be right back.


PINSKY: All right. Let`s get to our show this evening. My co-host is forensic and clinical psychologist Cheryl Arutt.

Also joining us, former prosecutor Loni Coombs, author of "You`re Perfect and Other Lies Parents Tell You." Attorney at, Mark Eiglarsh. And attorney at Sirius XM Radio, Jenny Hutt.

All right, guys, here we go. Can it get more contentious inside the courtroom? Take a look.


MARTINEZ: Isn`t it true that what the defendant was about to be evaluated, isn`t it true that she was happy because she believed that her I.Q. was as high as Einstein`s? Do you know anything to about that?

WITNESS: Yes, I do.

MARTINEZ: One of the things that we know about her is that whenever she had an issue with people, she would correct everybody`s grammar, right?

WITNESS: There were people that said that, yes.

JODI ARIAS, MURDER DEFENDANT: These are text messages sent between Travis and I, dated -- well, it says it`s dated from 2/1/06 to 6/6/08.

It would have been the 31st or the 1st. I`m not sure the timestamp on that is also Greenwich Time or Pacific Standard Time.

Anything that related back to my involvement no Travis` death or de- edifying him in any way.

WITNESS: I found the defendant to be credible. And I would move on with my investigation.

MARTINEZ: Which means you found her to be truthful, right?

WITNESS: All right.

MARTINEZ: No, not all right. Isn`t that what you found?

WITNESS: I found her to be credible. Yes, I did.

MARTINEZ: And credible means the same thin as being truthful, right?

WITNESS: I found her to be believable, yes.

MARTINEZ: And believable means truthful, right?

WITNESS: I found her to be believable enough so that I would continue with the case.

MARTINEZ: You applied this other standard of reasonable doubt, right?

WITNESS: I apply --

MARTINEZ: Yes or no?

WITNESS: No. It`s a semantics thing and I don`t know where you go with this.

MARTINEZ: I`m interested in the mouth moving and you talking to somebody else and their mouth moving. Do we understand that that`s what I`m asking?

WITNESS: I understand.

MARTINEZ: And with regard to that particular issue, there was only one person that you talked to, and that was the defendant, right?

WITNESS: Correct.

MARTINEZ: The defendant said that after the murder she had cuts on her hands because she had cut them on apples, right?


INVESTIGATOR: Do you have any recent cuts that are healing?

ARIAS: Well, my cat scratches me.

MARTINEZ: Isn`t it true that your investigation show that she was not abused but liked to play the victim, and that`s part of manipulation?

WITNESS: I don`t recall that.

MARTINEZ: In a sense, you`re saying you`re a human lie detector, right?

WITNESS: I would not call myself a human lie detector.

MARTINEZ: Isn`t it true that when you used that phrase old-fashioned you indicated that were inhibited in your questioning of the defendant?

WITNESS: I did not specifically ask, did you bring K-Y, or did of bring Astroglide. I did not do that.


PINSKY: I started to feel bad for her. But she is indeed not a human lie detector. And were she, we`d have to say she was broken as a human lie detector. Would it be not, Cheryl?

CHERYL ARUTT, CO-HOST: I think we would, Drew, yes.

PINSKY: Here`s what`s confusing of both she and Samuels. We`re dealing with a criminal, just like dealing with a drug addict or a psychopath, or a sociopath. You come in thinking the person is lying and you sort of try to intuit what`s real. You don`t accept everything at face value, right?

ARUTT: Well, the idea of secondary gain. Like does somebody have something to gain?

PINSKY: Well, that was discussed in great detail in court. And explain to people what that means.

ARUTT: Well, secondary gain is, if something good happen if you for example, if somebody believes you, if you take a position and somebody, like for example if you might get put to death.

PINSKY: For example. Yes.

ARUTT: That`s kind of a big secondary gain.

PINSKY: Not being put to death is a big secondary gain that might motivate you to lie, I was saying, yes, I agree with that.

ARUTT: Yes, exactly.

PINSKY: Especially if you are already a liar as we see from the footage with the parent interviews which to me were very, very telling.

So, speaking of more video, I`ve got another piece of video I want you to see from this afternoon, pay particular attention to Jodi at the end of this video. I don`t think you like it. Take a look.


MARTINEZ: She has an orgasm on two occasions and he has an orgasm on one occasion, right?


MARTINEZ: It is clear that they`re enjoying each other, correct?

What leads you to believe that Mr. Alexander was not having an orgasm?

WITNESS: You know, once again, my expertise is in domestic violence, not in orgasms.

MARTINEZ: You`re advocating on behalf of the defendant and you`re only presenting things that benefit her.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Objection. Argumentative.

MARTINEZ: Correct?

ARIAS: It was sustained.


PINSKY: Mark, Mark, Mark, Jodi sustained the objection. She sustained the objection for us. Did you see that?

MARK EIGLARSH, ATTORNEY: Yes. She`s getting frustrated. As many people are.

Listen, yes, I think this witness would be more effective if she would concede that potentially the person that she`s evaluating can lie from time to time. However, let`s look on the other side. Even "The Bachelor", a show that my wife forces me to watch with her -- strike that, gives me the romantic opportunity to sit with her and watch the show will -- baby, I`m serious about that -- will only show maybe an hour`s worth of a hundred hours that they filmed.


EIGLARSH: Because it`s most effective.

And so my criticism, again, even though it`s for those ardent Travis lovers and I`m one of them, but those Juan supporters who blindly don`t understand that he would be more effective to take days of question, narrow it down to the moist effective group of questions and then get out. He`s not going to get the knock out punch.

PINSKY: Jenny, what say you?

JENNY HUTT, SIRIUS XM RADIO: I just feel like LaViolette is enchanted by Jodi. So I think Jodi -- I do.

PINSKY: We`re back to the fairy tales again. We`re back to enchanted and Snow White.

HUTT: But she is.

ARUTT: She`s under her spell.

HUTT: And I think her credibility is totally gone. I mean, first of all, the whole I`m not an expert in orgasms. Let`s be real, if you have had orgasm, you probably now about orgasms.

PINSKY: So, Loni, Jenny says she`s an expert in orgasms. I think that`s what I heard her say.

LONI COOMBS, FORMER PROSECUTOR: I was really trying to avoid that one, OK.

PINSKY: But, Loni, how about the defendant sustaining on behalf of the judge an objection by her own attorney.

COOMBS: Well, we should really call her judge Jodi, right?

PINSKY: Judge Jodi, there`s a reality show there, I`m sure of it.

COOMBS: Yes. I mean, she`s as smart as Einstein. She`s probably the smartest person in that courtroom. I`ve always agreed with Mark. We both agree that that prosecutor could have asked the questions in one eighth of the time he`s taken.

But the one thing I`m disappointed in Ms. LaViolette today is that she is combative. If he just suggests a piece of evidence that is in any way not good for Jodi.

PINSKY: Right.

COOMBS: Instead of saying, OK, I accept that as a possibility, she`s like what are you talking about? I don`t know that.

And that makes her become like Jodi`s protector in court rather than an objective expert at, you know, giving an opinion, which is what she`s supposed to be doing. And I bet you anything, one of those juror`s questions that are mounting in the basket will be Ms. Violet, is there any piece of evidence in the world that would get you to change your opinion to say that Jodi was a stalker.

PINSKY: Loni, very good question. I hope they ask that question.

Thank you guys.

Next up, Jodi says her parents abused her. We`ve got mother mom on tape saying that was a distortion. No way. The "Behavior Bureau" is going to ring in on this.

And later on, what did Jodi say to Travis I`m telling you seconds before she killed him. I got a guest who has a theory, and I think it`s right.

Be right back.



JODIO ARIAS` MOM: I told her one day, I said, you need some help, Jodi. I said you`ve got this fantasy in your head that you had a rotten childhood.

ARIAS: It was a wooden kitchen spoon that she would keep in her purse. If we were misbehaving, she would use it on us. Sometimes she would pull the car over. She would hit us with it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She hit you hard?

ARIAS: It felt pretty hard, yes. It left welts.

JODI`S MOM: Jodi has mental problems. Jodi would freak out all the time. I`ve had quite a few of her friends call me and tell me that I needed to get her some help.


PINSKY: That is a very telling piece of tape. Time for the "Behavior Bureau".

Back with my co-host, clinical and forensic psychologist, Cheryl Arutt.

Cheryl, wooden spoons, welts. I mean, that would be abuse, physical abuse, being hit with an object if in fact that happened.

ARUTT: If`s true, you know? If it`s true, it would be abuse. But I`m not a wooden spoon expert any more than Alyce LaViolette is an orgasm expert. So I don`t know.

What do you think, Dr. Drew?

PINSKY: Cheryl, I think you`re -- well, according to Jenny, you`re an orgasm expert.

ARUTT: No, she was.

PINSKY: Joining us for our behavior panel, "Behavior Bureau", Patti Wood, author of "Snap: Making Most of First Impressions". We also have our juror, Katie Wick, and investigator and author of "Ultimate Betrayal," Danine Manette, and psychologist Judy Ho.

Judy, Jodi paints a picture of this rotten childhood. The mom does not substantiate that. Talk to me about people who distort memories. And let`s assume that she actually has this memory. I mean, she`s not just blatantly lying. Tell me about people who distort memories of childhood victimization.

JUDY HO, PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, Dr. Drew, a fake memory is just like a real memory to our brains. After a while, if you hear something long enough, it becomes a truth (ph). So, if we want to give Jodi the credit, it may be that she actually believes that this has happened.

But the degree of the dramatization, you know, the wooden spoon, we know that Jodi has a track record of being a liar. And so, we don`t know as much about her mother, but we do that Jodi`s manipulated before. She`s lied before. So, I`m not sure how credible this is.

But it is possible that she actually believes these are the things that happened because she created these memories and rehearsed them.

PINSKY: And, Danine, tell me about the kind of person that would create a memory like that. Forget -- let`s assume that she`s not lying, that has sort of intensive distortion going on here, that she distorted in spite of herself. What kind of a person does that?

DANINE MANETTE, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR: She`s crazy. I mean, just top to bottom. She`s just flat out crazy. And honestly, I don`t really even understand why this is even coming up, because she`s not on trial for killing her parents. This is more like penalty phase stuff, instead of guilt phase stuff.

In my opinion the only abuse that really took place was the fact that they knew that in kid was heading down nut job lane and didn`t do anything to get her help. If you want to talk about abuse, that`s abuse.

PINSKY: Yes. Danine, that`s the point that`s most troubling to me. And, boy, please, anybody listening out there, do not let a family member get themselves into trouble because they need treatment. Get treatment works. Get them help.

MANETTE: You`re the parent.

PINSKY: Absolutely.

Patti, any thoughts on this?

PATTI WOOD, BEHAVIOR EXPERT: Absolutely. If you do a content analysis of Jodi when she made those statements, you`ll notice that there were multiple spoon wielding incidents. And it happened to not just her but other people in the car. And for all of us who have heard that parental warning, don`t make me stop this car, it seems unusual that there would be multiple spoon wielding instances.

PINSKY: Yes. Also, why would she hit all the kids with spoons, like some kind of bullwhip, she`s flying around the back of the car? It seems not possible.

ARUTT: Why is there a wooden spoon in the car?

PINSKY: She kept it in her purse, ready to hit her kids with that spoon.

ARUTT: Yes, but that`s usually something you see in the kitchen in a story that has to do with in the family. So the idea -- it just something that just doesn`t --

PINSKY: Or let`s be fair. Again, I want to try to apply some judgment into the Jodi situation. I want to, when we talk about how she actually killed Travis later on in the show. Again, I want us to use our sensibilities.

I can imagine a parent having a spoon if their purse going ah-ha, don`t make me use this. Don`t make me use this. You know what I mean? And that becomes, that becomes I`m be being smacked with a spoon. Maybe she one time she tapped her to give her a sense of what that felt like.

That to me is not abuse. Do you think that`s abuse?

ARUTT: That`s a grain of truth.

PINSKY: Who wants to bring in her? I heard somebody coming in. Go ahead.

MANETTE: That`s me. No it`s not abuse.


PINSKY: Go, Katie.

WICK: Dr. Drew, I just want to say what I`m really afraid of is we saw it in the Casey Anthony trial and now we saw it now. Is this going to be the new norm for people who commit murder, that we can just blame our parents? When are we going to differentiate? Where are we going to draw the line legally as to say that you can`t blame or make something up like this and blame your parents and get away with brutally killing somebody?

PINSKY: Yes. I mean --

MANETTE: She kept blaming.

PINSKY: Danine, you`re saying something there. That`s the point.

MANETTE: She`s just going to keep blaming. This whole blame thing is driving me insane. It`s driving me crazy. She just refuses to take responsibility for anything. And it`s just blame, blame, blame.

PINSKY: And, Patti, did I see you wielding something? Did you scare me with --

WOOD: I brought my spoon with me in my purse this evening. I`m looking, I`m looking and listening -- I`m looking and listening to the mother in her interrogation. And she`s so much the victim. She`s so puzzled.


WOOD: She doesn`t get any of the body language cues of somebody who would be wielding these spoons.

PINSKY: Yes, that`s right. Somebody -- how -- it`s how an honest person -- we all respond to Jodi. How is this possible? How could this be? What`s going on? I don`t understand. We got a question from a caller. It`s Heather in New York. Go ahead, Heather.

HEATHER, NEW YORK: Hi, Dr. Drew and the behavior bureau. Two quick questions.


HEATHER: Is it obvious with Katie in the court how LaViolette keeps looking over as for confirmation to the defense table? And wouldn`t it be advantageous for the defense attorneys to talk to her, because the more she elaborates, the more Juan Martinez has, I guess, fuel to add to the fire to question her and she makes mistakes.

PINSKY: Yes. And Katie, I`m going to let you answer that in just a second, but I believe tomorrow, control room, can I promote what we`re doing tomorrow? Yes. We`ve got a guy coming in. If you notice, we just showed some footage of Jodi whispering something to her attorney. We have some lip reading experts coming in tomorrow.

We`re going to find out what she is talking to her attorneys about. Everybody wants to know this. And we`re going to ask that question. Katie, go ahead and answer Heather`s question.

KATIE WICK, DR. DREW "JUROR": That`s funny you say that, Dr. Drew, because we were saying today, gosh, we wish that we could read lips. But to answer the question, yes, it`s very obvious. She looks over when Juan catches her in something she doesn`t know how to get out of it. It`s very visible to us. And you would think that her defense attorneys would probably say, you know, it didn`t work so well for Jodi and Dr. Samuels to give these elongated answers.

Yes or no. And it was interesting today because Juan and LaViolette have this thing and she says, well, if that`s what you want and Juan Martinez says yes or no, that`s what I want is a yes or a no. And he was great today because he left no stone unturned --

PINSKY: Interesting.

WICK: -- Dr. Drew with getting those yes or no.

PINSKY: Yes. Interesting. Now, Patti, pull up your spoon. Hold up your spoon. OK. You, guys, don`t go away or I`m going to hit you with this spoon. Don`t go away.


PINSKY: I don`t want to traumatize anybody, but don`t go anywhere because we`ve got much more. Jodi`s own dad tells police about her plans to skip town. We got a little footage on that.

And later on, if I have time, I`m going to get myself back on the witness stand and ask -- answer questions from my panel, but, the thing I`m looking forward to most is we`re going to walk through the killing, something that doesn`t seem to happen in the courtroom that drives me crazy. I have a CSI expert who`s going to tell us how brutal this was and how it really went down. He has great evidence and an interesting story. Please stay with us or I`ll hit you with the spoon.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just can`t believe that she`d do this. She came over to the house once, you know, nothing big, not a big deal, and then she went home. And then, that day I called her and she couldn`t even talk. And I go, what`s going on? She goes, Travis was murdered.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did you think?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What the hell? You know, I want to know what she did. And all she could tell me is, you know, later on she kept telling me she was going to leave, leave the area. I go why, and then, she came over one day, I was on dialysis, just got on dialysis. She sat down with my wife and we talked to her for three hours while I was on it, trying to get the question.

She said I can`t tell you what`s going on, but all I know is I got to leave. I go why? Because I might be blamed for something. I go, what? She goes, I can`t tell you.


PINSKY: Can`t tell you, because I did it. Back with my co-host, clinical and forensic psychologist, Cheryl Arutt, and the behavior bureau. Oh, Danine, this stuff is very challenging. Did you catch the way dad was immediately saying, I want to know what she did. You know, he said --


PINSKY: Yes. Did that strike you or it caught my ear a little bit? Tell me about that.

MANETTE: It does. And you know, it`s so funny because this woman thinks that she`s so smart. She thinks she`s like smarter than Einstein, and she bumbles around like Frankenstein.


MANETTE: You know, like nobody knows what she`s up to. If she had half a brain in her head, she would have covered her tracks a little bit better. She would have called from the crime scene and was like, Travis, stop, leave me alone, ah, ah, hang up the phone. You know, just something that would support what what`s saying. Everyone was onto her. Her dad was onto her. Everyone was onto her. She is -- she`s not smart.

PINSKY: Yes. Well, she`s certainly not shrewd, maybe that`s the right word.


PINSKY: Yes. But Patti, are you as troubled as I am about this manifesto? I`ve got to read this thing. That`s going to tell us everything we need to know about how Jodi sees herself in the world. Don`t you agree?

WOOD: Absolutely. And, all through the trial, the way that she smiled, that smear on her face has affected us. I know it`s affected the jury. And we want to know, just like the father, did you notice? He log cabined, and then he reached out. He wanted to know just like we want to know.

PINSKY: And Patti, you said something very interesting when I first met you about how the incongruities about Jodi and how she looks versus the way she lies versus what she has done has us literally off balance. Our bodies sort of react to her. Tell me a little more about that.

WOOD: Yes. We go into the stress response. What we know now is the actual freeze fight fall, or saint (ph) response. When things are incongruent, when we see somebody acting some way, their body language, their non-verbal behavior is doing one thing and their words are saying something else.

So, it makes us feel what`s going on, we`re stressed out, and so we`re locked in. We need to know how to protect ourselves. We need to know whether to run. So, we absolutely are riveted to her testimony, to her behavior, trying to figure her out.

PINSKY: And Jodi -- Judy, I`ve got to wrap this up. I`d let you finish this, but what do you expect to see in that manifesto if we were to read it?

JUDY HO, PH.D., PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, I think it`s going to be really interesting if we read it, because I think it`s actually going to probably destroy the defense. I mean, Jodi`s got so many stories, and they don`t make sense. And these are all things that are coming up in her head. And, if you look at the dad`s reaction, I mean, he knew something was not right with his daughter. Like, what did you do as soon as she said Travis was murdered. And he`s known that girl since she was born, so.

PINSKY: Katie, you want to finish this?

WICK: Yes. I just have a quick question, Dr. Drew. Isn`t a manifesto that sometimes tend to be something one writes prior to maybe going out in a big way? Couldn`t this -- right, but couldn`t this actually, but --

PINSKY: Look, it`s grandiose.

WICK: -- work to the defense?

PINSKY: Well, who knows? It`s grandiose. It`s self-centered. It`s, you know, everyone needs to hear what I`ve got to say. It`s really a disturbing thing that a murderer writes a manifesto. The unabomber wrote a manifesto, guys. That`s what manifestos are in people that think not so well.

Next up, we`ve got an exhibit -- thank you, guys, from the panel. Good job. We have an exhibit made just for us, Cheryl, a crime scene expert. He is going to explain this killing in a way that I just found so compelling. He knew Travis. He knew Jodi. And he`s an expert. And he will walk us through that scene.

Later, my jury is back with some thoughts on the graphic stuff, again, in court today.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you remember when she was in jail up in (INAUDIBLE) and the defendant`s manifesto?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I remember hearing about it. I`ve never seen it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Isn`t it fact that the defendant signed them, according to your note, in case she became famous.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After I`ve inspected the back of the head, I shaved some of the hair away to better show the injuries. And what you have here are deep incised wounds. They`re longer than they are deep, but they are very deep. They`re going all the way to the skull. If you have a very sharp blade it actually wouldn`t take very much force at all to cut the tissue very deeply. Otherwise, the force supply, there was sufficient to cause a divot in the skull bones.


PINSKY: Wow! Back with our co-host, psychologist, Cheryl Arutt, Attorney Mark Eiglarsh standing by with me as well. Now, I warned everybody before we go on. We`ll be showing some graphic crime scene material, not appropriate for everyone, so please act accordingly.

Joining us, pathologist, Dr. Bill Lloyd. He`ll be here by phone. He has some ideas about how Jodi killed Travis Alexander. And now, forensic crime scene expert, Randolph Beasley. He knew Jodi and Travis. And Randolph, you have a specific theory about what went down. Tell us.

RANDOLPH BEASLEY, FORENSIC CRIME SCENE EXPERT: Yes. Dr. Drew, I`m armed this time for Mark, OK. Here, if you can see --


BEASLEY: OK. Mark, and I thought about bringing a 25 auto, Mark, but instead, this is a photo, exhibit 1, showing the last two photographs of Travis alive. The famous shot of his face where he looks upset, and then as you can see here, the photograph of him in the shower, one minute and ten seconds later.

Now, this fits in for what the prosecution, I think, should go for more suffering for Travis. You want death penalty? You want suffering? Let`s look at the evidence, because what he did was he got shot in the shower.

PINSKY: So Randolph, and Mark back me up if you think this is right. I think Randolph is saying that she tormented him. He docked (ph) in the shower like coward in the shower, and then she stood over him and shot him in the face. Does that make sense to you, Mark?

MARK EIGLARSH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It makes sense that`s one theory that is a possibility. The good news is, in the court of public opinion, it`s great to try to come up with some theory. In the courtroom, they don`t have to prove exactly how it happened. Thank, God.

PINSKY: OK. All right. Now, Dr. Lloyd, you`ve had taken issue with this point of view. You felt he was stabbed in the interior vena cava first.

VOICE OF DR. BILL LLOYD, PATHOLOGIST: Round up basically in the experienced (ph) investigator. He`s successful because he can think outside the box. But as I have lectured to investigators and special investigators in the past, whenever you go outside the box, be sure to bring an anatomy book with you.

The problem with this theory is blood. And there wasn`t any blood, because the blood was already gone from the stab wounds.

PINSKY: Well, now, we`re looking at pictures of the sink. And I thought myself, if you look near the spigot, you don`t see blood splattering, you see blood sort of aerosolized, like somebody coughed it out. There it is to the left of the spigot. You see that? And that, to me, fits with Randolph`s theory that he could have pulled himself up to the sink with a bullet in his sinus. And did -- the question, Randolph is, did it hit his brain? That`s where Dr. Lloyd and I were struggling with. Tell me about that.

BEASLEY: OK. Dr. Lloyd, with all due respect, I understand what you`re saying. I brought someone in the box with me. I brought a pathologist friend of mine in the box, 9,000 autopsies. And if you look really closely here at final summary, exhibit 2 on page 8. It says the injuries of the skull and face, no blood is because there was no major bleeding in the brain.

It was a bone injury. My pathologist friend said an injury to the bone is not going to bleed like an injury to the brain. That`s why you do not have the injury and the blood in the skull.

PINSKY: And Randolph, take us through then what happens next. He gets up to the sink and then you think she started stabbing because he wouldn`t die? Very much like her story, Cheryl, with the ninjas. The ninja shot the guy and then the guy wouldn`t die.

BEASLEY: OK. With photoshop and some Twitter friends of mine, if you look at Travis` body in the shower. Event number one, Jodi shoots Travis. Event number one, the gun jams. Jodi goes to get a knife. Exhibit no. 3, if you will, is Travis coughing out blood in two locations of the bathroom. Not an impact. There`s no cast off stain there.

I would expect cast off blood. Travis is on his hands and knees, screaming because his head is pounding. And he`s coughing out blood, just like the ninja story. And then, event number three, he`s coughing out the blood at the sink. And then, the stabbing occurs in the hallway where, at the end of the hallway, where she eventually slits his throat, drags his body back.

The physical evidence fits this scenario to a T, and it explains why, with a 25 auto, a low caliber weapon, it didn`t even penetrate his head, because it was such a low caliber, no force behind the bullet.

PINSKY: And Mark, then why wouldn`t they contemplate this, at least, since it would go for more toward the death penalty, wouldn`t it?

EIGLARSH: Yes, but they can`t, they can`t take facts that don`t fit. Now, his passion rules the day. He sounds wonderful. I`m no expert. But the state`s expert who I thought was credible and believable at the time has a different theory. And if his theory is inconsistent with something that might actually advance the prosecution`s case, I would argue he`s more credible --

PINSKY: I`m going to wrap it up with this. I want to remind everybody about the Casey Anthony case where so much focus was on the tape around the --


PINSKY: Yes, I know. The tape around the child`s head. They got so focused on that as the murder weapon. They wouldn`t let go of that theory. They wouldn`t be flexible about it. And that`s why she got off. They didn`t contemplate something outside the box, which may be a better way to go, guys. Thank you for these opinions. I think it`s very interesting.

Next up, my jurors got an earful today in court. Cheryl, it was orgasms and orgasms -- more anal sex. And I think this may have been one of the craziest days in court.


PINSKY: According to Jenny Hutt, we`re all orgasm experts.


PINSKY: We`ll be right back with our jury after this.


PINSKY: Time once again for Drew`s jurors. With me, my co-host, psychologist, Cheryl Arutt. And our jurors, Katie Wick, our resident juror, and back with us again, high school student and future defense attorney, Kjerstin Pinc. All right. Katie, what do you think of all the explicit material in court today?

WICK: Well, how did we go from Snow White to "When Harry Met Sally?"


WICK: And, I just want to say it`s insane. It`s -- everything -- I just want to say that it`s not working and it got way off again. And Juan brought it back. Hopefully, we`re going to stop talking about orgasms and sex and get to premeditated murder, sometime.

PINSKY: Cheryl, your question?

ARUTT: Yes. Hey, Kjerstin and Katie. Kjerstin, you want to be --


ARUTT: Hey. You want to be a defense attorney. What did you learn watching the way things went today? What would you do when you get older and you want to do this?

PINC: I actually have thought really, like I`ve thought a lot about being actually a prosecutor first. We`ve talked about this. Me and Katie have talked about this. I mean, it would really give you kind of like a leg up if you wanted to be a defense attorney, eventually.

And I`ve talked -- I mean, we`ve talked on the show about other defense attorneys who have been prosecutors. So, I think that`s actually have taken that advice and thought about it.

WICK: I`m working on her just to be a prosecutor, though.


WICK: I`ve got some time.


WICK: I`m trying to sway her.

PINSKY: And Kjerstin, have you -- has your opinion of Jodi and what happened here evolved at all or have you been pretty much have your same opinion as when you started watching this case?

PINC: I think it has. I don`t believe that she was abused like she says she was. I don`t -- I mean, I just don`t -- I don`t buy into it, so.

PINSKY: That`s an 18-year-old telling us she doesn`t buy the lies. OK, guys. Stay with us. We got to take a break. We are back with our jury with their last call after this.


PINSKY: Back with our last call for the jury. Dr. Drew jury still with me. Guys, has the jury -- has the character of the jury changed since juror number five was kicked off the jury? Anything different?

WICK: I really don`t notice anything different, Dr. Drew, as far as there`s not as many notes. I can`t really say whether that correlates with juror number five not being on there. For the first few days, it was really awkward, but now, it`s back to the norm.

PINSKY: And Kjerstin, you`re in high school. A, do your friends think it`s weird that you go to court and watch this thing, and B, any jealousies about you getting on television?

PINC: Well, yes, they do think it`s weird.


PINC: They don`t understand like why I`m so fascinated by it, but I mean, it just really captured my attention. You can`t just stop going once you start.

ARUTT: What a great opportunity, though, to pursue something you`re passionate about Kristen, don`t you think? Kjerstin, sorry. Don`t you think that`s a great chance to really dig in?

PINC: Oh, yes. For sure -- definitely benefited me, so --

PINSKY: All right, guys. Thank you, Katie and Kjerstin for giving us your thoughts and watching carefully on the courtroom there. Cheryl, thank you for your good work today. We really do appreciate it.

ARUTT: Thank you.

PINSKY: And thanks to all my panel members. Thank you for watching. And thanks to those of you who have called. Again, Scott Safon (ph), I hope you`re healing up OK. I know you had some difficulties recently. But again, I`m going to cheer you up tonight by referring you and our audience to a new hit show, "HLN After Darks," and that show begins right now.