CNN CNN


 

Return to Transcripts main page

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL

Is Domestic Violence Expert Ignoring Facts Not Helpful to Jodi?

Aired April 9, 2013 - 19:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST: Tonight, a raunchy, triple-X-rated day in the Jodi Arias courtroom. Fireworks in the battle between prosecutor Juan Martinez and the defense domestic violence expert as the war of words turns to talk of kinky -- and I mean kinky -- sex. In a jaw-dropping moment, Juan asks Alyce LaViolette if she is, quote, "an expert in orgasms." What? Listen to this before we get right back to the testimony.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: So she has an orgasm on two occasions, and he has an orgasm on one occasion, right?

ALYCE LAVIOLETTE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EXPERT: Yes.

MARTINEZ: So based on that, they`re enjoying each other, correct?

LAVIOLETTE: My expertise is in domestic violence, not in orgasms.

MARTINEZ: Then why did you answer the question the way you did if you`re not an expert in orgasms?

LAVIOLETTE: If you were in my group, I would ask you to take a time- out, Mr. Martinez.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Whoa! But it wasn`t just Juan and Alyce with outbursts. Jodi, the defendant, showed her own frustration in court today. And you`re going to see her rolling her eyes and speaking out. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

JENNIFER WILLMOTT, ATTORNEY FOR JODI ARIAS: Objection.

MARTINEZ: Correct?

JODI ARIAS, MURDER DEFENDANT: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. Yes. Let`s go back into this unbelievable cross-examination. That was an imitation of Jodi Arias, by the way. As Prosecutor Martinez continues to hammer battered woman expert Alyce LaViolette over her alleged bias in favor of the defendant. Listen.

MARTINEZ: And it would cause you problems with regard to the -- all the other entries, right?

LAVIOLETTE: Depending on what I had collaboration to defend.

MARTINEZ: But if you only had the journal entries, and one of them turns out to be untrue, it could then be, if you will, a cancer that is spread throughout all of these journals, right?

WILLMOTT: Objection. This journal entry is untrue. It`s a statement rather than a hypothetical.

JUDGE SHERRY STEPHENS, PRESIDING OVER TRIAL: Overruled. You may answer.

LAVIOLETTE: If I`m assuming this -- this is untrue...

MARTINEZ: Right.

LAVIOLETTE: ... that it would make me look much more carefully at the other journal entries and look to the other collaborative sources.

MARTINEZ: And wouldn`t it cast down, then, on whatever statements the defendant gave to you if they corroborated that, right?

LAVIOLETTE: If they corroborated...

MARTINEZ: What`s in that journal right now.

LAVIOLETTE: I would look at all my corroborating data, Mr. Martinez.

MARTINEZ: Did you talk to the defendant about that particular trip to (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?

LAVIOLETTE: Yes.

MARTINEZ: And she told you that what`s in there is correct, right?

LAVIOLETTE: Correct.

MARTINEZ: So if, for example, in this case, Daniel Freeman came in and testified and indicated something different than that, that would be problematic, wouldn`t it?

WILLMOTT: Objection.

STEPHENS: Overruled, you may answer the question.

LAVIOLETTE: Is this hypothetical, because I have no evidence of this?

MARTINEZ: Right. You were not here when he testified. But assume hypothetically that he said something different.

LAVIOLETTE: If you propose a hypothetical that I have no evidence of, you want me to say what I think about that hypothetical I have no evidence of?

MARTINEZ: Sure. Sure, assuming that person came in and testified to that in this courtroom, hypothetically. All right?

LAVIOLETTE: Yes.

MARTINEZ: Under oath.

LAVIOLETTE: Yes.

MARTINEZ: What if Mr. Freeman came in and said that the fight was actually started by him? I want you to assume that.

WILLMOTT: Objection jeopardizing testimony.

STEPHENS: Overruled.

MARTINEZ: Assume that.

LAVIOLETTE: Miss Arias does not say that Mr. Alexander started the fight, just that they had a fight.

MARTINEZ: I understand that. Assume that it was Mr. Freeman that started the fight, correct? Can you assume that for me?

LAVIOLETTE: I can.

MARTINEZ: And assume that there was an argument because of something that Mr. Freeman did, correct? Can you assume that for me?

LAVIOLETTE: OK. You`re asking me to make a lot of assumptions based on information I don`t have.

MARTINEZ: Absolutely. That`s what I`m doing. Can you do that for me?

LAVIOLETTE: I can go along with that.

MARTINEZ: Assume those two facts, just those two facts, those aren`t written in the September 13, 2000 entry is it -- 2007 entry, are they?

LAVIOLETTE: No.

MARTINEZ: And if they were true, wouldn`t that make that entry incomplete?

LAVIOLETTE: No, not necessarily. I mean, it`s not a detailed -- it`s not a detailed entry.

MARTINEZ: Aren`t you providing an excuse and aren`t you siding with the defendant, again, saying, "No, it wouldn`t make any difference what this other information that you gave me."

LAVIOLETTE: No, I`m not saying that.

MARTINEZ: Are you not looking at both sides equally when you say to me, "Well, it wouldn`t matter in this case, those two facts that you`ve added."

LAVIOLETTE: What I`m saying is that I tried to look at the big picture --

MARTINEZ: I understand you want to look at the big picture.

LAVIOLETTE: And that this particular...

MARTINEZ: Ma`am, I want you to look at the small picture. September 13, 2007...

WILLMOTT: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

STEPHENS: No. Next question.

MARTINEZ: Look just at that entry. I don`t want to talk about any other entry, please.

LAVIOLETTE: All right.

MARTINEZ: With regard to that entry, if you found that it was incomplete and didn`t include the reason for the fight, wouldn`t that be important to note?

LAVIOLETTE: It doesn`t include the reason for the fight.

MARTINEZ: I know it doesn`t. But what if? Wouldn`t that indicate that it`s incomplete, because it doesn`t indicate the reason for the fight?

LAVIOLETTE: It`s just a journal entry.

MARTINEZ: And that journal entry means nothing to you, does it? Or it does?

LAVIOLETTE: A stand-alone journal entry doesn`t mean as much to me as when I look at the big picture.

MARTINEZ: I`m just talking this one. And I understand what you`re saying.

LAVIOLETTE: It`s incomplete, I will agree with that. There`s not any description of the fight or anything.

MARTINEZ: So if it`s incomplete with regard to that and you`re relying on it, it would appear that you`re relying on something that`s incomplete, correct?

LAVIOLETTE: You`re -- I`m not sure that you`re looking at how I rely on things.

MARTINEZ: Well, you read it, right?

LAVIOLETTE: Yes, I did.

MARTINEZ: You put it into your brain, this brain that you use to go through this continuum of aggression, right?

WILLMOTT: Objection.

STEPHENS: Overruled.

MARTINEZ: Right?

LAVIOLETTE: That I...

MARTINEZ: You put that information, after reading it, assimilated it into your brain, and then made a decision based on this continuum of aggression that you talked about, right? That`s what you -- that`s part of what you did with regard to this, right?

LAVIOLETTE: I told you the way I used the continuum. So I`m not putting it into the continuum. I`m putting it into the big...

MARTINEZ: All right.

LAVIOLETTE: ... big barrel of information that I have.

MARTINEZ: So you took this entry and you put it into this big barrel of information that you have, right?

LAVIOLETTE: Correct.

MARTINEZ: What if that`s a cancerous, if you will, or invalid entry that you put in with the remain -- with the other information that you have there? That won`t affect your view or opinion in this case?

WILLMOTT: Objection. (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

STEPHENS: Overruled.

LAVIOLETTE: Anything can affect...

MARTINEZ: All right. Specifically here in this case, we both agree or you agree that the reason for the fight is not there, correct?

LAVIOLETTE: Correct.

MARTINEZ: And so that`s an omission on the writer`s part, correct? To put that in there. For whatever reason, the writer didn`t put it in, right?

LAVIOLETTE: Correct.

MARTINEZ: You don`t know the reason why the writer didn`t put it in, correct?

LAVIOLETTE: No, I don`t.

MARTINEZ: It could be that it would reflect badly on the writer, right?

WILLMOTT: Objection. (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

STEPHENS: Sustained.

MARTINEZ: Well, with regard to this case, assume that Mr. Freeman came in and testified that the reason that the fight started was because the defendant was being unreasonable as to the items that she was going to take on the trip. I want you to assume that.

WILLMOTT: Objection. (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

STEPHENS: Overruled.

MARTINEZ: Assume that. Will you do that?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. They are debating, and essentially prosecutor Juan Martinez is saying that this defense expert, who argues that Jodi Arias was a battered woman, is only taking information, Jodi offered ignoring information that might benefit the victim.

And check out these sex photos, because sex is the biggest area where prosecutor Martinez says that this expert is ignoring the other side of the story. Namely, that Jodi enjoyed the sex as much as Travis did and to whit, exhibit A, the infamous sex tape. Let`s listen again, and then we`ll debate it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARIAS: Oh. It`s like -- it just -- it just moves and it goes so (EXPLETIVE DELETED). It felt so good. You went just where I needed it. Just went where I -- I just needed it bad. You (EXPLETIVE DELETED) me so right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And they are even debating in court whether the orgasms that both of them appeared to, on an audio basis, have were real or fake. Let`s debate it with our expert panel of this case getting triple-X- rated once again.

Jordan Rose for the prosecution, is prosecutor Martinez making good points that, even when it came to both of them sounding like they were enjoying this sexual encounter on the phone, this defense expert only seems to acknowledge facts that benefit Jodi.

JORDAN ROSE, ATTORNEY: I think that`s right. I mean, I think Martinez has obliterated her. In fact, she`s gone almost from being the champion, the hero of the defense, the New York Yankees to the Chicago Cubs. I mean, she`s an absolute train wreck, and he`s crushed her completely. There are -- there`s no credibility to this witness.

(SOUND EFFECT: BUZZER)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, Jayne Weintraub for the defense.

JAYNE WEINTRAUB, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: He`s chasing around like a dog. He`s getting lost in his own minutia. He argues with her, and he`s not making points; for example, why didn`t she listen to the father, who said that she lied when she was 14 years old and a teenager. First of all, what 14-year-old doesn`t lie? And second of all, what does that prove...

(SOUND EFFECT: BUZZER)

WEINTRAUB: ... that the father-in-law abused her.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Jon Lieberman.

JON LIEBERMAN, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: He argues with her. She`s the one that told Mr. Martinez he needed a time-out. That is so out of line, coming from a witness to a prosecutor.

WEINTRAUB: Well. So disrespectful.

LIEBERMAN: Let me say this. She has no credibility, because she refuses to acknowledge that, in any sense, Jodi can be deceitful or lie.

(SPECIAL EFFECT: BUZZER)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: The big point is she didn`t talk to other people about Jodi. Just 44 hours of talking and interviewing Jodi.

A short break. More debate and more testimony right on the other side.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(SOUND EFFECT: BELL)

LAVIOLETTE: It`s not really a yes or no question. I said that I did.

MARTINEZ: So you don`t know.

LAVIOLETTE: I said that I did.

MARTINEZ: Judge she`s not being responsive.

LAVIOLETTE: I don`t know where you go with this.

MARTINEZ: So are you saying you did believe her or not? Which of the two.

(SOUND EFFECT: BELL)

MARTINEZ: That`s not what I`m interested in.

LAVIOLETTE: Sure, you can take that any way you want.

MARTINEZ: Yes or no, that`s how I want to take it.

(SOUND EFFECT: BELL)

MARTINEZ: I`m not asking you for context. Do we understand each other?

LAVIOLETTE: You were saying a problem. I had a question.

MARTINEZ: I`m really not asking you to go into that. And if you don`t mind not going into that.

I want you to answer my question.

(SOUND EFFECT: BELL)

MARTINEZ: Your standards, personal standards, are unimportant here. Correct? I`m not asking you about you. I`m not asking about me. I`m asking about her.

(SOUND EFFECT: BELL)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: They clearly despise each other, each believing they have the moral high ground. Prosecutor Martinez believes this woman is a shill for a manipulative liar and killer. And this woman believes she is trying to save this woman`s life, a woman who was the victim of domestic violence.

Let`s go back into the courtroom and hear more of this astounding exchange.

MARTINEZ: Assume that. Will you do that?

LAVIOLETTE: Once again, you have me assuming facts that I have no knowledge of...

MARTINEZ: Yes. Absolutely.

LAVIOLETTE: And no evidence for.

MARTINEZ: Not no evidence. You don`t have any information. You weren`t here when Mr. Freeman testified, were you?

LAVIOLETTE: No, I was not.

MARTINEZ: So assume, for purposes of looking at that journal entry, that the reason the fight started was because the defendant was being unreasonable as to the items she was going to carry on this trip. Assume that.

WILLMOTT: Objection. Mischaracterizing the testimony of Mr. Freeman.

STEPHENS: Overruled. This is a hypothetical.

MARTINEZ: Assume that.

WILLMOTT: Should be phrased as a hypothetical and not that Mr. Freeman came in and said those things.

STEPHENS: Sustained.

MARTINEZ: Assume the hypothetical that I just gave you.

LAVIOLETTE: OK.

MARTINEZ: Assuming that, wouldn`t that cast doubt on the validity of that entry?

LAVIOLETTE: Yes.

MARTINEZ: And additionally, also assume -- also assume that with regard to this fight, whatever it was, that this fight then escalated at some point and they went somewhere else, the two of them. Assume that. Can you do that? A different part of the house. Assume that, hypothetically speaking.

LAVIOLETTE: All right.

MARTINEZ: It doesn`t talk about them going to another part of the house in that entry, does it?

LAVIOLETTE: No, it doesn`t.

MARTINEZ: It doesn`t talk about what happened at the other part of the house in that entry, does it?

LAVIOLETTE: No.

MARTINEZ: And it doesn`t talk about what was said between the two people, if anything was said, when they were in that room, does it?

LAVIOLETTE: This is all hypothetical?

MARTINEZ: Hypothetically.

LAVIOLETTE: Hypothetically -- hypothetically, you`re giving me a lot of things that I don`t have any reason to believe, but I will go with the hypothetical, if that`s what you want.

MARTINEZ: Does it say anything there about anything happening in a bathroom?

LAVIOLETTE: No.

MARTINEZ: Does it say anything in that entry about anybody cursing at anybody else?

LAVIOLETTE: No, it does not.

MARTINEZ: Does it say anything else about how that argument was resolved, if it was resolved at all in the bathroom?

LAVIOLETTE: No.

MARTINEZ: So, you don`t have any information -- that entry is an example of something that is very incomplete, right?

LAVIOLETTE: Yes.

MARTINEZ: And so, did you talk to the defendant about this?

LAVIOLETTE: I did talk to the defendant about it, but I`m not recalling all the details. I`m recalling that there was -- I`m recalling some of the things that the Freemans said and some of the things that Miss Arias said. But I would need to look at the Freemans` statements about this particular...

MARTINEZ: That`s not my question. Isn`t it true that you talked to the defendant about this? That was my question.

LAVIOLETTE: Yes. Yes, I talked to the defendant.

MARTINEZ: And you discussed this particular entry with her, right?

LAVIOLETTE: Yes.

MARTINEZ: And even though you discussed this with her and even though you had the Freemans` statement in front of you, whatever that statement may be, you still found there was nothing invalid about this particular entry. In other words, it`s something that you found -- according to your truth gate-keeping ability, you found that one to be true, correct?

LAVIOLETTE: I found it to be one piece of information that I -- I didn`t put that in the -- if you`re looking at it and saying that I put that in the mix with domestic violence, no I didn`t.

MARTINEZ: I`m not -- I`m not asking you that, if you put it into the mix with domestic violence. Are you clear about that?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, to explain this, Jodi Arias, the defendant, wrote in her journal, which is hundreds and hundreds of pages, about a fight that she had with Travis Alexander when she was going on a trip with Daniel Freeman and I believe it was his sister. And her backpack was too heavy, and they had a big fight about it.

So what the prosecutor is saying is you didn`t talk to Daniel Freeman. You didn`t talk to his sister. You couldn`t talk to Travis. He`s dead. You just took the journal entry, and Jodi Arias`s word and accepted that as true. And what the prosecutor`s saying is Jodi`s a pathological liar. You can`t do that. So that`s what they`re talking about.

Short break. We`re going to be back with more on the other side.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTINEZ: How is it that if it just happened, you can`t even remember what you just said?

ARIAS: I`m more focused on your posture, and your tone and your anger. So it`s hard to process the question.

MARTINEZ: So the answer is again, it`s the prosecutor`s fault, because you perceive him to be angry, right?

ARIAS: It`s not your fault.

MARTINEZ: Is somebody asking you whose fault it is?

ARIAS: You did.

MARTINEZ: Well, you seem to be pointing it at the prosecutor. Right? So you believe the reason that you can`t be effective on the witness stand is because somebody is asking you questions in a way you don`t like.

ARIAS: I think that was a compound question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That was smart-aleck Jodi Arias on the stand, butting heads with the prosecutor. And this defense witness is kind of mirroring the defendant, also butting heads back and forth and kind of sassing the prosecutor.

Selin Darkalstanian, you`re there in court, our senior producer. Again, these unbelievable confrontations. What`s it like to be in court for this?

SELIN DARKALSTANIAN, HLN PRODUCER: Jane, I don`t think I`ve ever seen this much tension in the courtroom since Jodi was on the stand. There is so much tension between this domestic violence expert on the stand and Juan Martinez.

There was at one point, she told Juan Martinez that, if he was in her group, she would put him on a time-out. In which, he turned to the judge and asked for her to be admonished for that and then the judge asked her not to speak like that to him.

There is so much tension, not just because of those two. You see Jennifer Willmott. She`s rolling her eyes. She`s angry. She`s asking to talk to the judge every minute. She`s opposing what Juan is doing.

But you can tell these two do not like each other. They do not like each other.

And every time they go to break, Alyce walks down from stand. She still has entourage, her supporters sitting there in court, like, "Alyce, are you OK?" I heard that -- saying this, "Are you OK? You`re doing great." This is truly like a boxing match.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: It absolutely is. And this is day eight of this woman on the stand. And so they`re both emotionally exhausted. And it could be bringing out the worst in both of them.

Let`s go back into court. More of this grilling by prosecutor Juan Martinez of Alyce LaViolette, the domestic violence expert who says Jodi was a battered woman.

MARTINEZ: I`m not -- I`m not asking you that, if you put it into the mix with domestic violence. Are you clear about that?

LAVIOLETTE: No, I wasn`t clear about that.

MARTINEZ: I`m asking you, because you say that you take the items and you look at items that you think are true, and then you decide to do something with them. Did you decide that this was either truthful or untruthful given the way you approach this?

LAVIOLETTE: I decided that it wasn`t incredibly important, but did I believe it? I thought something happened and that there was an argument and that I believe that Mr. Alexander apologized. Yes, I do.

MARTINEZ: I`m not asking they question specifically. You read the entry for September 13, 2007, right?

LAVIOLETTE: Yes, I did.

MARTINEZ: It`s the written version, correct?

LAVIOLETTE: Correct.

MARTINEZ: I`m asking you if you believe the written version in that exhibit. Yes or no?

WILLMOTT: Objection. (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

STEPHENS: Overruled.

LAVIOLETTE: Did I believe -- did I believe the limited information that was given there?

MARTINEZ: Yes.

LAVIOLETTE: Did I believe there was an argument?

MARTINEZ: No, I`m not asking you that. I`m asking you about that black item that`s to your left. Do you see that?

LAVIOLETTE: Yes, I see it.

MARTINEZ: The book. Ma`am, let me do it this way. It`s a journal, correct?

LAVIOLETTE: Correct.

MARTINEZ: In that journal, there`s an entry for September 13, 2007, right?

LAVIOLETTE: The 13th, not the 23rd.

MARTINEZ: The 13th, correct?

LAVIOLETTE: Yes.

MARTINEZ: Do you believe that entry for September 13, 2007, in that black book that`s to your left, yes or no?

LAVIOLETTE: Do I believe...

MARTINEZ: The...

LAVIOLETTE: That it was just -- do I believe there was an entry that said -- I`m not sure what you`re trying to get here.

MARTINEZ: When you said that you evaluate what`s being told to you for the truthfulness. Didn`t you tell us that earlier today?

LAVIOLETTE: Yes.

MARTINEZ: I`m asking you to tell me, based on your statement that you evaluate things for the truthfulness of it. I`m asking you to tell me, whether after conducting this evaluation for truthfulness, you find that to be truthful or untruthful. That`s all I`m asking you.

WILLMOTT: Objection. Can we approach?

STEPHENS: Yes, you may approach.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. We`re taking a quick break as they take a side bar. Remember, this defense team has been extremely upset with prosecutor Juan Martinez`s tone, including using it as grounds for requesting a mistrial, which hasn`t been considered yet. I called it the mistrial du jour. That was yesterday.

So is this sidebar because they`re upset, again? And I have to say, I think he must have some kind of zinger because he`s so intent on "you believe this journal entry." Does he have proof that the journal entry is false? Was there something that Dan Freeman said or his sister said about it didn`t happen that way, the way Jodi is telling it in the journal. We know the journal is replete with lies.

A quick break. More testimony right on the other side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARIAS (via phone): You have a good looking (EXPLETIVE DELETED), you know.

TRAVIS ALEXANDER, MURDER VICTIM (via phone): (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

ARIAS: Yes. It`s -- it`s like, oh, oh. (EXPLETIVE DELETED). So good.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: Do you remember that you told me in our interview that you didn`t ask certain questions of the defendant because you were old-fashioned and you were embarrassed.

ALYCE LAVIOLETTE, DEFENSE WITNESS: There were sexual questions I did not ask because they do not come easy to me to ask.

MARTINEZ: You indicated you were inhibited in your questioning of the defendant.

LAVIOLETTE: I said I hadn`t asked if she used KY or not.

(CROSSTALK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: This is an extremely sexually-charged trial. We, of course, have these photos of Jodi and Travis naked from right before he was killed. We have heard the sex tapes. My panel, we are going to debate it 15 seconds each during the sidebar before we go back into court.

Given that this trial is all about all various forms of sex, most of which I can`t even repeat on camera. Should Alyce LaViolette have demanded from Jodi specifics of everything including the most embarrassing sexual details?

I`ll start with Jordan.

JORDAN ROSE, ATTORNEY: Alyce LaViolette should have taken into account other testimony, whether it`s these tapes, whether it`s the testimony or the discussion from Jodi`s best friend, for goodness sake, who says she`s a liar. Alyce LaViolette disregarded all of the evidence against Jodi except for the discussion with Jodi. And that`s wrong.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Jayne Weintraub for the defense.

JAYNE WEINTRAUB, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The bottom line is that this witness is never going to admit to him that she did something that is going to change her opinion as to the bottom line that she believes Jodi Arias was a domestic violence victim. And why? Just because there were intermittent periods of time that she enjoyed herself or that they were good together, does not mean that she was not a victim of domestic violence.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jon Leiberman.

JON LEIBERMAN, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: Alyce won`t even admit that Jodi Arias is a manipulative person. I mean she said that on the stand. That should tell you everything you need to know about the credibility of this witness.

But I agree with Jordan, she had a hypothesis going in that Jodi was a victim of domestic violence. And she only used things to corroborate that.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I wonder. A detective told me today that domestic violence experts are not detectives. They are not there to really analyze whether somebody`s lying. They take a story and they deal with it on face value. That is the disconnect here is that she took her story on face value when she is somebody who stabbed somebody 29 times and slit their throat.

Let`s go back into court.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTINEZ: The entry on September 13, 2007, you read it correct?

LAVIOLETTE: Correct.

MARTINEZ: Do you believe everything that is written in the entry of September 13, 2007?

LAVIOLETTE: Do I believe everything?

MARTINEZ: Yes.

LAVIOLETTE: I believed the essence of it.

MARTINEZ: No, I`m not asking whether or not you believe the essence. I`m asking whether or not you believe everything that is written for the entry of September 13, 2007.

JENNIFER WILLMOTT, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Objection --

SHERRY STEPHENS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Overruled.

LAVIOLETTE: I believe that --

MARTINEZ: Is that yes or no, ma`am? And then you can explain?

LAVIOLETTE: Yes, I have no reason not to believe that. Ok.

MARTINEZ: Thank you.

Now, one of the things you told us in taking a look at the defendant`s journal was that you saw no evidence of jealousy, right?

LAVIOLETTE: Correct.

MARTINEZ: And that would assume that if you saw no evidence of jealousy was that all of the entries would be complete and truthful, correct?

LAVIOLETTE: Not necessarily.

MARTINEZ: Well, if some entries were incomplete and untruthful, wouldn`t that cast doubt on the completeness of the writings?

LAVIOLETTE: Yes, it could.

MARTINEZ: So, in this case, you took a look at all of the journals and all of the writings in the journals and in response to the question on direct examination, you said I found no evidence of jealousy, correct?

LAVIOLETTE: That wasn`t just about the journals, Mr. Martinez, that was about the other evidence as well.

MARTINEZ: Right. Assume that you looked at the other evidence, too, correct?

LAVIOLETTE: Correct.

MARTINEZ: Part of what you used to look at was the journals, right?

LAVIOLETTE: I did use the journals as well.

MARTINEZ: And I want you to focus on the journals only for the purposes of my next question, correct?

LAVIOLETTE: Ok.

MARTINEZ: And this is the journal that has this law, whenever the defendant writes, she applies this to all, correct?

LAVIOLETTE: The law of attraction.

MARTINEZ: Right. The law of attraction, correct? So that she wouldn`t put anything negative in there, right?

LAVIOLETTE: She did put some negative things in the journal.

MARTINEZ: I know that you indicated that she did put some negative things in the journal, but she didn`t put anything about Mr. Alexander hitting her, correct?

LAVIOLETTE: Right.

MARTINEZ: Didn`t put anything about Mr. Alexander choking her, correct?

LAVIOLETTE: Correct.

MARTINEZ: Didn`t put anything of any physical violence from Mr. Alexander to her, correct?

LAVIOLETTE: Correct.

MARTINEZ: Didn`t indicate anything about this masturbatory incident to photographs in the journal by Mr. Alexander, correct?

LAVIOLETTE: Correct.

MARTINEZ: So if you look at these journals, they are incomplete, the way you view them, right?

LAVIOLETTE: Yes.

MARTINEZ: And you view them as incomplete because it`s your position that she didn`t want to write anything negative in there because in part of the law of attraction, right?

LAVIOLETTE: In part.

MARTINEZ: So she was censoring herself as she was writing things in there, right?

LAVIOLETTE: Apparently.

MARTINEZ: No, that`s what you believe though, right?

LAVIOLETTE: I believe she censored herself, yes.

MARTINEZ: Right. And in censoring herself in applying the law of attraction, wouldn`t it also be fair to say, if we were looking at the other side of the coin, that in terms of the question involving jealousy that she probably was jealous and she just didn`t write it down, right?

LAVIOLETTE: I have no evidence that she was jealous.

MARTINEZ: I know you have no evidence of that. Because of the law of attraction she`s not going to put down something that is negative. That would be negative energy to say "I`m very jealous of Mr. Alexander with all these women." That would be a negative thing under the law of attraction as you know it, right?

LAVIOLETTE: Saying that you are jealous would not necessarily be a negative thing.

MARTINEZ: No, writing it down. We are talking about the written word, right?

LAVIOLETTE: Saying that she was jealous would not -- would not interfere with the law of attraction saying that maybe she wanted to handle the jealousy that would be -- she could do that within those parameters.

MARTINEZ: So being jealous, incredibly jealous --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. And now they are talking about the infamous law of attraction, which is the excuse that Jodi gave for not putting facts in her journal that she later told people, which the prosecutor says are not facts, are lies because, oh, the law of attraction says, I shouldn`t discuss anything that`s very negative because it will come back to haunt me.

Let`s go to Jean Casarez, correspondent "In Session". You just walked out of the courtroom. What is it like in there during this extraordinary, knockdown drag-out?

JEAN CASAREZ, CORRESPONDENT, "IN SESSION": You know, Jane, sometimes it`s stressful because just the tone of the voice gets to be back and forth. Sometimes it`s calmer. Sometimes it`s exhausting to just keep going on and on and on. But I look at the jury, they don`t seem like they are fazed by it. They are writing some notes, they are looking, they`re intent, they`re focused; they don`t seem like they`re affected at all.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, well I think they are fascinated by it. And it`s become like their life right now.

You saw juror number five when she was thrown off, she was sobbing when she left the court when she was thrown off. She wanted to be a part of it so badly she came back and sat on the gallery. So they are obviously fascinated by this. I mean this is -- you don`t get more fascinating testimony than this. And they are invested in this story.

Question is which way are they going to go? Short break, back with more testimony in a moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JODI ARIAS, ON TRIAL FOR MURDER OF TRAVIS ALEXANDER: I haven`t found the guy or the man that I want to marry, the person I want to spend my life with. But, in my mind, Travis did and I was happy for him. I thought there was also a part of me that felt if I stay I`m going to jeopardize that for him as well. We both deserve to be happy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRAVIS ALEXANDER, MURDER VICTIM: Everything (inaudible) your body is so hot. (EXPLETIVE DELETED) just like -- it`s just like -- seeing how female you are. How hot you are. Prototype (inaudible). And then, most of all, oh, I love it how much detail (EXPLETIVE DELETED) you have.

ARIAS: I don`t like the things because I have always been self- conscious about those things and you make me feel like --

ALEXANDER: It makes you like a superwoman.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: If you listen to the phone sex tape and only listen to Travis Alexander, it can make him look like kind of a sadistic guy into S&M. But if you listen to the whole tape and hear what she has to say -- she`ll say things like, "Oh that`s so degrading, I like it."

So is she a victim of abuse or is she a willing participant, an adult woman engaged in consensual activity that just happened to be sexually degrading? That`s really at the heart of the entire case.

Let`s go back into court where the prosecutor, Juan Martinez is grilling this expert for the defense who says Jodi is a sexually degraded and battered woman.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTINEZ: So being jealous, incredibly jealous, that`s a good thing?

WILLMOTT: Objection --

STEPHENS: Overruled.

MARTINEZ: Right?

LAVIOLETTE: I didn`t say that.

MARTINEZ: Well, that`s my question, isn`t it true that being jealous is a negative thing with negative energy associated with it, right?

LAVIOLETTE: Correct.

MARTINEZ: You see that in your business all the time, don`t you?

LAVIOLETTE: I see what?

MARTINEZ: Jealousy? In couples that you counsel, don`t you?

LAVIOLETTE: Yes, I do.

MARTINEZ: It`s a real negative emotion, isn`t it in the people that you care also, right?

LAVIOLETTE: It depends.

MARTINEZ: Well, ok, so it`s positive in some of the couples that you counsel?

LAVIOLETTE: No, it`s not a pattern in some of the couples that I counsel.

MARTINEZ: I`m not asking about pattern. I`m asking about emotion, of jealousy. In your experience, isn`t that a negative emotion?

LAVIOLETTE: It`s a human emotion.

MARTINEZ: So but it`s a positive emotion then. I`m asking you to put a perspective on it for me. Do you view it as somebody who does this forensic evaluation in domestic violence -- do you view it as a positive emotion, jealousy?

LAVIOLETTE: I view it in regard to the behavior it generates. So if it generates negative behavior, then it becomes negative. It`s an emotion. An emotion in and of itself doesn`t have to be particularly negative unless there is very negative behavior associated with it.

MARTINEZ: Give me examples where jealousy generates positive things. Give me an example.

LAVIOLETTE: There are people that get jealous and out of that jealousy, they step back, they figure it out; they then approach the person in a positive way.

MARTINEZ: You are talking treatment. I`m not interested --

LAVIOLETTE: No, I`m not talking treatment. I`m talking about what people do with jealousy.

MARTINEZ: Right, I`m not asking you what people do with jealousy. I want you to tell me a situation for example where a woman is very jealous of a man. Tell me in that circumstance where a women is very jealous of a man of all the couples that you have treated where she, that woman has done something positive so that we can hold jealousy as a virtue right up there with love.

WILLMOTT: Objection -- argumentative.

STEPHENS: Sustained.

MARTINEZ: Give me an example of someone who has -- who is afflicted with this incredible jealousy where they do positive things with it.

LAVIOLETTE: You are talking about two different things. You are talking about someone who is afflicted with jealousy and someone who has become jealous. Those are very different things.

MARTINEZ: Let`s assume the defendant -- you can`t tell us the defendant was not afflicted with jealousy, can you?

LAVIOLETTE: I can tell you I have no evidence in collateral data that she is and not just in her journal.

MARTINEZ: Well, I`m talking about the journal. If a person -- if the defendant were afflicted with jealousy that would be a negative energy kind of thing in violation of this law she subscribes to, yes or no?

LAVIOLETTE: What do you mean by afflicted?

MARTINEZ: What do you mean by afflicted? Isn`t that the term that you used just now?

LAVIOLETTE: No. You used the term afflicted.

MARTINEZ: You didn`t -- you didn`t say a person is afflicted with jealousy?

LAVIOLETTE: I said it after you said it.

MARTINEZ: You believe I was the one that started this then? Ok. There are two types of emotions with regard to jealousy. Do you remember describing them to me just now?

LAVIOLETTE: I said there`s a difference in a pattern of jealousy. That`s basically the whole context of this testimony is that there is a difference between for instance somebody being angry and somebody having a pattern that is destructive. There`s a difference between somebody feeling jealous, which human beings feel and them acting out in a jealous way and having a pattern of jealous behavior.

MARTINEZ: Let`s assume a pattern of jealous behavior.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So, we talked about fairytales in this case, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, are we now on "Alice in Wonderland"? This witness, Alyce LaViolette, they are going back and forth to the point where if you don`t stay 100 percent focused, it`s almost like a couple having an argument. And one of the arguments about and how does it relate to whether this woman murdered Travis Alexander or whether she killed him in self- defense?

We are going to debate that on the other side. More testimony as well. Stay right there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARIAS: It`s just -- it just moves and it goes so (EXPLETIVE DELETED). It felt so good.

You went just where I needed it. You just went where I just needed it bad. You (EXPLETIVE DELETED) me so right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Is prosecutor Juan Martinez decimating this defense domestic violence expert, or is this one more day where this jury unconsciously or consciously ends up bonding with this defendant with whom they`ve spent so much time? Let`s debate it -- 15 seconds each. Jordan Rose for the prosecution.

ROSE: Honestly, Jane, I think this was the very best day arguably for the prosecution of the entire trial because he`s decimated her only hope. It`s a fault of both the witness not being prepared for this cross- examination and potentially having just the wrong witness.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Jayne Weintraub.

WEINTRAUB: The jury sees through his antics, sees through the irrelevant minutia that he`s going around and around in, and he hasn`t even touched the big picture, and that is, she`s a qualified expert in domestic violence, and she, based on her assessment of Jodi and the texts of the victim of Travis to Jodi has made an expert opinion that there was domestic violence.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jon Leiberman. Jon Leiberman.

LEIBERMAN: This expert won`t even admit that jealousy is a negative emotion. This is why Martinez is getting so frustrated. She`s evasive. She won`t answer any of the questions directly.

And in closing, mark my words, you will see Juan Martinez put everything together and show that Travis is the real victim, not Jodi Arias.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: On the other side. Stay right there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tomorrow right here at 7:00 p.m. Eastern along with more gripping testimony I get interrogated by two top detectives who used their special techniques on me to get me to break down and confess the truth to them -- fascinating stuff.

Nancy Grace with more testimony right now.

END