Return to Transcripts main page


Jodi Arias Trial Continues

Aired April 19, 2013 - 19:00   ET



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can`t do that. He`s not alive.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There was not a pattern that suggested she was a victim of abuse.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I couldn`t do that because he`s not alive.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They tend to either be like someone or devalue them.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So when somebody is not alive, you can`t get any information from them.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: On the plane ride home, Ms. Arias exchanged phone numbers with another male who she then called right when she came home Mr. Alexander`s memorial service.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because he is not alive.


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN HOST, JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tonight, fireworks in court as every second we move closer to judgment day for Jodi Arias. Who is winning the war of words between the prosecution shrink and Jodi`s defense team? And who else is waiting in the wings, and prosecutor Juan Martinez`s arsenal against Jodi.

Good evening. I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell.

In a dramatic moment, the prosecutor`s clinical psychologist reminds the jury, we`re here because Travis Alexander was brutally killed, stabbed 29 times and can no longer speak for himself.

Listen to this extraordinary back and forth between the defense lawyer and the prosecution psychiatrist.


JANEEN DEMARTE, PROSECUTION PSYCHOLOGIST: You wouldn`t want to do any further investigation as to why he might say something like that, right?

ARIAS: I can`t do that. He`s not alive.

DEMARTE: We would want to look at, then, behaviors and investigate maybe whether or not there is any true meaning behind these words, right?

ARIAS: I couldn`t do that because he`s not alive.

DEMARTE: So when somebody is not alive, you can`t get any information from them. Is that what you mean?

DEMARTE: From them directly, that`s correct, because they`re not alive.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: She was repeatedly reminding the jury that Travis is dead, a total blunder by the defense. We are also hearing right after Jodi Arias left Travis` memorial service, get this, she picks up another guy on the way home. Is that something a distressed battered woman would do? Or the behavior of called blooded killer.

Plus, is Jodi such a desperate stalker that she even stole a ring like this one from Travis that he originally bought for an ex-girlfriend.

Straight out to my expert panel, Let`s debate it.

I think one of the big headlines, Jodi comes back from the memorial service and picks up another guy on the plane and called as soon as he has home. She`s killed Travis Alexander. She has the nerve to go to his memorial service, and then, on the ride home, she picks up another guy and calls him as soon as she gets home. Devastating for the defense.

We`ll start with Fred Tecce for the prosecution.

FRED TECCE, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Devastating? That`s like a torpedo right to their mid-shift. I mean, not only did she go and spend time with another guy after she hacked this guy, shot him, and tried to cut his throat. On the way home from the memorial service after she sent flowers, she picked up another guy. I mean, you know that defense -- that prosecution witness kept making it clear. Travis isn`t here. You know why? Because Jodi killed him.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Adam Swickle for the defense.

ADAM SWICKLE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I don`t think it necessarily shows what the prosecution is trying to show. I think we`ve seen consistently throughout this trial that Jodi`s behavior is not something that we can pinpoint as consistent with somebody who necessarily commits a murder. We can explain a lot of her behavior, but I don`t think by doing that, it doesn`t mean she is in self-defense.

TECCE: Which one of the 27 stabbings were self-defense?

SWICKLE: Well, you know, you can talk about how many slashes. We heard that over and over again. There is no debate as to how many time she stabbed. The issue here is did she do it in self-defense, why is she a battered individual, and I think the expert for the prosecution indicated that she has -- excuse, me, that her behavior is consistent with PTSD, and that is something the --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, we will debate that because the prosecutor thinks that a croc.

Monica Lindstrom, for the prosecution, weigh in.

MONICA LINDSTROM, FORMER PROSECUTOR: You know, she did a great job of basically saying the other experts were wrong. She said that when Jodi asked for this phone number from the gentleman on the plane, that is a symptom of the borderline personality disorder which basically discredits everything that Dr. Samuel said. This asking for the number goes from idealizing Travis Alexander at the memorial. So basically, it demonizing or showing that he is bad. So, that may not have anything to do with her actual self-defense at the time, but it discredit the other expert and support this doctor`s conclusion which gives her more credibility, makes Jodi look bad and helps the prosecution`s case in general.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Holly Hughes, sometimes you can take an entire case and boil it down to one behavior. She kills him, she has the nerve to take flower to the dead man`s grandmother, then she goes to his memorial service. And then on the way back, she picks up on a dude?

HOLLY HUGHES, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Right. And what they are going to have to do, because the prosecution`s witness is strong, but it`s going to come down to like most trials, a battle of the experts, Jane. And you know, we can postulate all we want, but we don`t know what`s in the head of the jurors. And it could be something as simple as one juror thinks that because the prosecution is young, it doesn`t have as much experienced that they are going to go with the defense.

The strongest point, I think, that was made here is what they are going to use when they get the sentencing, because they are going to argue mercy for this girl because clearly she is not right in the head. If she does engage in all these inappropriate behaviors. So, they`re going to say look, she`s not a sociopath, she is not a danger to go out and repeat this behavior, so don`t put her to death. So, I think even though the state witness was very strong, her diagnosis may actually mean mercy for Jodi in the end.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Seth Meyers, clinical psychologist, (INAUDIBLE) personality disorder, is that the same as being clinically insane, it doesn`t mean you don`t know right from wrong. That`s why she did plea not guilty by reason of insanity, because she showed moments of premeditation.

SETH MEYERS, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: Absolutely. And you know, I agree with Demarte that almost -- I mean, several of the criteria of necessary for borderline personality, she really shows. At the same time, I have to say I don`t think anyone diagnosis fits Jodi Arias perfectly. I think she has the criteria for several different disorders and that`s part of what makes her so confusing, and the test results really speak to that as well.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. Well, we heard from everything, psychopath, sociopath, bipolar, borderline personality disorder, battered woman, PTSD. Cocoo cocoa puffs (ph). That`s my diagnosis.

All right, you stay this expert panel that is debating? They have nothing on the combat that went on in court. As clinical psychologist Janeen DeMarte really went on it with defense attorney Jennifer Willmott. Listen to these two women going head to head.


DEMARTE: I think you`re using different language than I am. I just told you the once I saw.

JENNIFER WILLMOTT, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I`m not asking to that you don`t have any knowledge about that?

DEMARTE: You are meshing two different things together again.

WILLMOTT: No, no. I just want to talk about what you talked about with the prosecutor about.

DEMARTE: Sure, looking at that broad category that`s not even really related to this case.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jean Casarez, correspondent, In Session, you have been there in Arizona for the duration. How much tension is there any court? How much gut wrenching? How all super juicy in sitting there when everybody in this courtroom appears to hate each other?

JEAN CASAREZ, LEGAL CORRESPONDENT, IN SESSION: It there`s a lot of tension, I`ve got to tell you. And when DeMarte was on the stand, and you see Jennifer Willmott for DeMarte, the look in her eyes toward Jennifer Willmott, I mean, it could just absolutely kill somebody over. That was I think as in tense as when the prosecutor goes out to the witness that seems to coward in his over her seat.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. I`ll tell you, these mega trials, because there`s so much at stake, because the entire country is watching this trial, indeed, the entire world. People in Canada call us all the time with questions. The stake are so high, every little point count and so much of their ego is invested in winning at this point. That they all appeared in despise each other.

Now, we are all familiar with Jodi`s bug at this point. Jodi claims after shooting Travis Alexander, the next thing she remembers is driving to the dessert with blood on her lands.

Defense attorney Jennifer Willmott questioned the prosecution`s psychologist, Janeen DeMarte about Jodi`s files. Let`s hear.


WILLMOTT: You said that you found it unbelievable that when she saw she had blood on her hands, she knew something bad had happened, right?

DEMARTE: No, that`s not what I said.

WILLMOTT: You found it to be unbelievable that she would make that statement that she thought she had killed him, right?

DEMARTE: A perkier report that she had no memory of what happened, I find that unbelievable.

WILLMOTT: She remembered shooting him. It is not as you sleep to assume that something does happened when she sees bloods on her hands.

DEMARTE: That that she did it, I disagree.

WILLMOTT: So, you think that`s not a logical leave, then?

DEMARTE: I agree that`s not a logical leave.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s debate the fact because all of the cook stories that Jodi has told, this one writes right behind the ninjas came in did it with their mask on.

Adam Swickle for the defense.

Does anybody really buys the fact, yes, in this bag, you would have to believe that she deleted photos which we checked there is five step to delete each photo. She delete several photos, then she claims at the crime scene then she gets to her car. It doesn`t just drives somewhere. She has been there a million times, but drives, Adams, to the dessert. Ultimately, to Hoover van, I mean, she is going to do all this in a fog?

SWICKLE: Yes. I actually think that is consistent with what the defense is. Because you got to remember, when you are suffering from the illnesses that they are talking about you, you do go in and out of these facts. You also are remembering things as certain things trigger your memory. So, I do think it is consistent with what the defense is presenting. And I think it could waver very heavily on the jurors.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, you have amused Fred Tecce for the prosecution.

TECCE: Yes. It may be consistent with defense, the problem is it isn`t consistent with the evidence and her own testimony. She only seems to forget the parts that don`t help her and she remembers the part that does. Let`s not forget the fact that she testified that she shot him. He fell on top of her. And rather than look for the gun that she claims she had in her hand -- not the gun that was stolen from her grandmother but a different gun -- she then goes around the house and looks for a knife and then slashes the guy.

You know, it is her story. In order to believe her story in the defense, it takes such tremendous leaps with respect to the facts and the theory that I don`t see it flying.


HUGHES: Well, you know, I personally know police officers who have been involved in shootings, and they`ll tell you, I do remember pats of it, but then, bits of it are foggy to me. So, the fact that she has admitted to the shooting scene, admitted to disposing of the gun, and she even, when she was talking to Janeen DeMarte say, you know, I think that I have the memory of putting the knife in the dishwasher.

So, the fact she`s blocking out a portion of it I find believable, because if she`s saying, I don`t remember anything, I think any jury in the world would have a hard time with that. But she`s admitting portions of it, it`s possible someone on there has been saying hey, I`ve had an experience like that, traumatic car accidents. Some bits I know, some bits I don`t.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Maybe there`s no other juror in the jury box like me who can`t delete photos when we`re not in a fog because it`s so complicated.

All right, we are going to take a short break.

HUGHES: The actual event occurred. She said they were doing something together that they didn`t like.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. But she still has to delete some of them. He certainly can`t delete photos after he`s dead.

HUGHES: I`ll give you that, Jane.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: During the accidental dropping of the camera that is the crime in progress, he`s not deleting those photos.

So, we will take a quick break. We are going to be back with more testimony and more debate. Stay right there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JODI ARIAS, DEFENDANT IN TRAVIS ALEXANDER`S MURDER: Listen, if I`m not found guilty, I don`t have a life. I`m not guilty. I didn`t hurt Travis. If I hurt Travis, if I killed Travis, I would beg for the death penalty.




ARIAS: There`s no reason to be upset over this in my mind. Everything -- I have faith and in the end, everything will be made me known, everything will come out. And in the meantime, smile. Say cheese.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Over the course of this trial, there have been so many hostile questions from the jurors that many people have concluded it`s really bad news for Jodi Arias. It seems like they have made up their minds. Which they`re not supposed to do until they consider all the evidence. Nevertheless, they obviously have thoughts, and those thoughts are reflected in their juror questions.

But for the first time, some questions to the prosecution`s psychologist hinted that perhaps within the jury there is a faction, or at least one person that may be wondering which way to go.

Listen to this.


SHERRY STEPHENS, JUDGE: Hypothetically, if a person suffered PTSD because of a bear attack while hiking, would you throw out their PDS test if they lied and said it was a tiger?

Would the person be answering the question regardless of whether they called the animal a bear or a tiger?

Wouldn`t taking the camera rather than leaving it show more organizational thinking capabilities?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Straight out to Jean Casarez. Look, you have been in court for it. Did it strike you as different this time, these jurors` questions, and if so, why? Spell it out for us.

CASAREZ: Yes, I think it`s very significant, Jane, I really do, because now you see questions that are really -- not attacking her but really giving a cursory look at her testimony, so you look at all the other juror questions, and maybe this is the sophistication of this jury. There were 19 questions. Three of them had to do with her experience or not as much experience as other experts because she`s so young, but the question, really, that second one there, was whether the motor skills just kicked in and there was an automaticness to Jodi`s actions in the bedroom after the killing and the washer.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s debate it with our expert panel. Some questions that might seem like -- and listen, I go back to Casey Anthony. We just don`t want our jurors to be blindsided. This is a hideous crime, and we could talk about it day and night, but the ultimate deciders are the jurors.

And so many people were blindsided by the Casey Anthony verdict. We don`t want that to happen anymore. We want to make sure we are open to all possibilities, and some of these juror questions, and I`ll throw that to Monica Lindstrom. You`re a prosecutor. They were a little bit more open- minded than some of the others.

LINDSTROM: Yes, and this whole act of allowing the jury to submit questions is wonderful here in Arizona. I know people across the country don`t like it, but we`re not going to get blindsided, just like you said. They are checking every possible scenario, they`re asking the questions so it`s just not floating around in their mind. They`re going to go back into that jury room. They`re going to be fairly sure about their decision and the evidence that`s been presented to them. And like you said this and Jean said, this really shows the sophistication of this jury because their questions at the beginning of the trial were just kind of some basic questions. But as we get through this and we`ve gone months and months, you notice that their terminology, their scenarios, their questions are actually becoming more like what a lawyer would ask.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Or a psychologist.

LINDSTROM: Absolutely.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s almost like they`re getting -- we`re all getting an education in psychology and the law. Let`s go out to the phone lines.

Doug, Canada, your question and thought. Doug, Canada.

DOUGH, CALLER, CANADA: Thank you, Jane. Another defense tactic that will come back to haunt them. The sex tapes are dirty pool by the defense. I believe that it is not cover and some time ago I heard over HLN that the defense used another voice to substitute for Travis. Arias is fighting for her life with lie after lie (INAUDIBLE). I look at Travis` family, I brother --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Doug, you make a good point.

So Jean Casarez, have we determined for sure whether that was Travis Alexander`s voice in those kinky sex phone calls?

CASAREZ: Yes, because the prosecution stipulated to the authenticity of the tape being Travis Alexander and Jodi Arias. So yes, we have.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, well, we are to take a very short break.

On the other side, so many crucial developments. What is coming up in this case as we near judgment day? Is Jodi pacing back and forth in her cell right now, saying, all my options are over? The defense, my defense is rested.

Now, it`s the prosecutor`s final chances back. Am I going down? Stay right there.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They think you`re absolutely obsessed. Obsessed is the word they used. That`s the word I hear from everybody. Fatal attraction. I don`t know how many times I`ve heard that.




WILLMOTT: There are no records that actually say she deleted the photos.

DEMARTE: Just that the photos were deleted.

WILLMOTT: And you don`t know when these photos were deleted, right?

DEMARTE: They were deleted when they were found.

WILLMOTT: What I`m trying to ask you is whether or not you have any knowledge of whether these photos that were deleted. If they were deleted before Mr. Alexander came out of the shower and went after Ms. Arias?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: A war of words between the defense attorney and the prosecution`s psychologist. The defense arguing, oh, Jodi killed Travis in self-defense, stabbing him 29 times, slitting his throat and shooting the face because she`s a battered woman. And she can`t remember a thing about the killing because she went into a fog because she has PTSD.

Well, the prosecution`s psychologist said that`s a crock, all of it. None of it is true. In fact, this is a disturbed stalker mind and Jodi Arias is a borderline personality disorder person. She`s got borderline personality disorder.

So let`s listen to that perspective from the prosecution psychologist.


WILLMOTT: You`re saying she told you this.

DEMARTE: She did.

ARIAS: Oh, holy night.

WILLMOTT: You don`t have any evidence of recurrent physical fights, do you?

DEMARTE: No. Just it is not recurrent physical fights, just the time she had kicked her mom.

WILLMOTT: OK. I`m asking you whether or not you have any evidence of constant anger.

DEMARTE: Internal anger, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She called real sweet and ten minutes later she`d call in a rage and, you know, just screaming at my wife.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: We have seen this prosecution psychologist taking us inside the mind of Jodi Arias, laying out what she believes is going inside her head. And it`s absolutely fascinating.

I want to go to Seth Meyers, clinical psychologist.

Does she have borderline personality disorder, in your opinion, and can you explain what that is in people terms for regular folks who aren`t shrinks like me can understand.

MEYERS: Sure. So to start, a personality disorder means that the way your personality is organized, what you expect from other people, how you get along with other people, how you would get along with coworkers. It`s going to be abnormal.

You know, most people, they have some issues, but somebody who is personality disordered, they approach relationships in a very different way. They are difficult to get along with. They are very inconsistent.

Now, borderline personality disorder is a very extreme personality disorder where there is lots of rage, there is a terrible fear of abandonment, a lot of times there is self-injury, there is threats of suicide. A lot of people with borderline personality, they cut themselves. So if you have any personality disorder, that`s really one of the ones you don`t want to have.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But on the other side of the break, are -- we`re going to debate. No question, we are going to debate whether this could be a double- edged sword for the prosecution.

OK, they are saying she`s not a battered woman. She`s got borderline personality disorder, but now could the jurors feel sorry for her? This is a death penalty case. We will debate it on the other side.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Maybe she did do it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can`t even imagine. I just can`t even think about it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How are you doing? Are you OK?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s to be expected, I guess?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I feel like I`m going to puke.




ARIAS: You have a good looking (EXPLETIVE DELETED), you know?

Yes. (inaudible) You`re bad, you make me feel so dirty.

JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: You and Mr. (inaudible) engaged in anal intercourse, correct?

ARIAS: On two occasions.

You make feel so (inaudible). I seriously think about having sex with you every day.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: A battle over diagnosis. Is she a battered woman who got PTSD from the shock of, oh, accidentally shooting Travis Alexander, or is she a stalker and a snooper with borderline personality disorder. Borderlines, as they call them, have a fear of abandonment, and they have problems overstepping boundaries. They don`t know where they end and somebody else begins; where their property ends and somebody else`s property begins.

The prosecution`s psychologist pointed out that Jodi`s snooping through Travis` texts and Facebook is a prime example of her borderline personality.


JENNIFER WILLMOTT, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You talk about her overstepping boundaries because she checked his text messages?


WILLMOTT: That she looked at his Facebook as well?

DEMARTE: Numerous times.

WILLMOTT: Ok. And you`re aware that they actually traded passwords, right?

DEMARTE: Well, that`s what I saw that she had said in her diary and that was in opposition to a conversation that they had in some written form. He indicated that she continued to look at his Facebook account without his authorization.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s debate it with our expert legal panel. If, indeed, the jurors believe what the prosecution psychologist is asserting, that she suffers from borderline personality disorder, is that going to make them sympathize with her, give her something of a pass and not put her to death, rather, if they even find her guilty sentencing her to life -- starting with Holly Hughes.

HOLLY HUGHES, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It will, because we tend to want to feel a little bit sorry for people who have a mental disability or disorder. This comes straight from the state`s witness, and this is out of the DSM IV.

So I do think they`re going to convict her. It`s pretty clear, you know, she did this thing, but this may weigh in her favor where they feel like, hey, lock her up for life but don`t necessarily kill her, because to some extent she couldn`t help herself.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Fred Tecce, former prosecutor, was it smart for the prosecution to focus so much on this borderline personality disorder diagnosis?

FRED TECCE, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Look, Jane, from where I`m sitting, I can`t see the jury, so it`s hard for me to tell you. It`s hard for me to second- guess Juan Martinez. But I would have thought long and hard before I put this witness on the stand at all from a pure strategy standpoint.

I thought the two defense expert witnesses, the two psychologists were so bad, I thought by putting this woman on the witness stand you actually lend some credibility to those two people making it look like you were concerned about what they said so much so that you put this witness on.

Now whether or not the jury thinks that this woman is worthy of their sympathy, I think given her testimony and the hideousness of the crime, that`s a big hurdle to get over. But from a strategy standpoint, I would have thought long and hard before I put this woman on the witness stand.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I think you may have a point there, and I think we might have a shocker here. Adam Swickle for the defense might actually agree with you.

ADAM SWICKLE, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, for the first time, I do agree -- that`s exactly right. But I have to tell you, I don`t even know why we`re even calling these people experts. I have litigated cases of this nature, and I`ve never seen a group of experts -- whether we`re talking about the defense or the prosecution -- that have conflicts, inexperience, unsupported conclusions and they`re opining things that are completely unsupported by the evidence.

So I don`t know what`s going through the mind of the jurors here, but they may even exclude all of this expert testimony and go with what they`ve seen outside of this. But I don`t even know what to say about these experts other than the fact that they`re almost all unbelievable at this stage.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, look, we`re at day 51. Monica Lindstrom, former prosecutor, this case is a runaway freight train because it`s become a national obsession, every sidebar for every little thing because each side is so invested now in winning because their ego is at stake. Is it going to confuse the jury? I often say in confusion there is reasonable doubt. Sometimes I have a hard time remembering what the prosecutor said in opening statements.

MONICA LINDSTROM, FORMER PROSECUTOR: I think when you really listen to their jury questions I don`t think they`re confused at all. And when I`m sitting in the courtroom, I`m watching that jury to see their facial expressions and their body language. I don`t see any sympathy for Jodi. I don`t see them looking over at her with, you know, kind of a look on their face like, oh, we feel so sorry for her.

I see them paying attention, especially to Dr. DeMarte, especially listening to what she said. And when Juan Martinez got (inaudible) and had her clarify some issues, they went right back to taking their notes. So I don`t think with that information she provided to them, the fact that they don`t look sympathetically to Jodi, and with the state getting the last word and showing she had no injuries whatsoever and he had 29 stab wounds, a sliced throat and she shot him, I don`t think they`re going to feel sorry for her during the conviction phase.

There might be a little bit, like Holly said, during the penalty phase, but not before.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jean Casarez, you`ve covered so many cases, we`ve covered some of the same cases where all the experts said, oh, we didn`t see the jury looking at the defendant. I remember that with the Michael Jackson molestation trial. Oh, we didn`t see him when they walked in, they didn`t look at the defendant. Well, found not guilty.

You know, trying to figure out what`s going on in a jury`s mind is like trying to diagnose Jodi Arias. You can go any which way.

JEAN CASAREZ, CORRESPONDENT, "IN SESSION": And in this case particularly there is no reaction from the jury, so every time I`m asked that question, there is nothing to talk about. But you know what makes this case different from the other cases? The defendant`s psychological state is in evidence. And in every other case, almost, you don`t have that because those are sealed medical records, but she`s putting her mental state into evidence by this self-defense. So now the jury will say either she`s got post traumatic stress disorder or borderline personality disorder -- there is some mental affliction that is on the record for Jodi Arias.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And very quickly Jean, she`s never -- she has no criminal record and she`s never been treated by a psychiatrist prior to this diagnosis, correct?

CASAREZ: No, that`s an interesting point. Borderline comes when you`re an adolescent, a child; never taken to a doctor for something like that.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow, Sherri, Pennsylvania -- your question or thought, Sherri, Pennsylvania.

SHERRI, PENNSYLVANIA: Hi, Jane. Nice to speak with you again.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hi. Right back at you.

SHERRI: I just wanted to make a comment.


SHERRI: That I feel during last week, someone had mentioned or a couple of people had mentioned why was he always taking Jodi back? Why would he even when they`d break up even agreed to see her. And it dawned on me, in the type of business that he was, you know, so proud of being involved in, he was a motivator. And he was very positive, and he was on the new road to getting ahead.

Well, I feel that Jodi made him feel wonderful about himself, and she really made -- you know, she stroked his ego, he believed it and he needed that. So I feel that it wasn`t just sex. I feel that it was the motivation and everything, you know, of making him feel wonderful. All the comments -- if I tell you every day during the week how wonderful you are, and how perfect, et cetera, et cetera --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Got it. And you know what; from your mouth to God`s ear, nobody ever says that to me. We`re going to take a very short break. We`re going to be back with more analysis. Everything you need to know about this case right here.


DEMARTE: This fear of abandonment, this tendency to overstep boundaries, to be intrusive. Miss Arias herself notified me that she had checked his Facebook without his permission, read text messages without his permission, engaging in these kinds of behaviors of "don`t leave me, let me see what you`re doing, I want you to be near me".


TRAVIS ALEXANDER, MURDER VICTIM: You cannot say I don`t work that booty.

ARIAS: Never mind. You do know how to work the booty.

I`m a giver.

ALEXANDER: I agree honey.

ARIAS: But I don`t mind receiving while you`re doing the giving.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Was Jodi being degraded or was she a willing participant in those sex games. The prosecution psychologist says Jodi has borderline personality disorder, and she used a stunning example to justify her diagnosis. Listen to this gem, and then we`ll debate it.


DEMARTE: It`s a tendency to have disrupted interpersonal relationships due to the tendency to either idealize someone or devalue them. After the memorial service, the records indicated that on the plane ride home, Miss Arias exchanged phone numbers with another male who she then called right when she came home after Mr. Alexander`s memorial service. That would be an example to show that at some point there was a devaluing.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know, I have a slight problem with all these diagnoses. You could take anything that anybody does and say, oh, you used to idealize somebody then you devalue them. I mean, in a way, Travis thought Jodi was really nice and then he devalued her.

I mean you could apply this to anyone, and I have kind of a problem -- it reminds me of what`s your sign? Oh, you`re a Libra, then you`ve got to be balanced. If you`re a Pisces, you`ve got to be -- I almost think it`s mumbo jumbo. And I want to debate and bring in -- let`s start with Seth Meyers, clinical psychologist because there`s just too much behavior by Jodi to use one example and say that shows XYZ.

SETH MEYERS, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: Yes, I actually don`t see the idealization and devaluation in that example. I think when you look at the behavior that she engaged in on the plane, getting a number, I think that`s where you see that fear of abandonment. I think that Jodi, in a lot of ways, is kind of like a parasite looking for a host. She is so internally empty she can`t exist without a man.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, let`s debate it. Fred Tecce, for the prosecution, you already said, I believe it was you, that maybe it wasn`t such a great idea to call this psychologist -- this prosecution psychologist. The state has such a strong case. The crime was so horribly vicious. Engaging in days upon days of what I would call psychobabble, to put it mildly, is that doing anybody any favors?

TECCE: Well, I mean I think at this point this jury -- I hear what Jean is saying about how attentive they are, but I mean I think at this point they`re probably saying, "Uncle, uncle, let me out. We want to deliberate the case and get on with it." And I think they`ve kind of -- there wasn`t a lot of questions of this defense expert, and I could spin that one of two ways.

You know, a lot of times these questions are from people who think Jodi is guilty and should be executed, and they`re looking to get tidbits of information that they can use against people who they think may not share their opinion.

So it is a lot of psychological stuff. I mean, you know, this is a woman who stalked Travis Alexander. Went after him, went after him, went after him. And then after his funeral, she`s supposed to have broken up and the love of her life is supposed to be dead and she`s turning around getting another -- you know, trying to get another telephone, instead of like doing like the rest of us which is drinking tequila and listen to George (inaudible) for five weeks. So I think that`s what they`re trying to show.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Well, I wouldn`t be drinking tequila because I just turned 18 years sober --

TECCE: God bless you.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: -- but I agree with your premise aside from that.

A short break and we`re back with more.



ARIAS: I don`t know, but if I go to trial for this, and if I`m convicted for this, whoever did this is going to be sitting very pretty somewhere glad that it wasn`t them.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Pet of the Day. Send your pet pics to Rudy and Rusty are just lounging on the couch. We love you. And Buster, you are a fabulous pooch. Look at Trinity. Divine. A runway model. And it`s her fur, as it should be. I love these guys, too. Can`t pronounce them but I love them.



ARIAS: We were struggling and wrestling. He is a wrestler. He`s grabbing at my clothes and I got up. And he`s screaming angry. After I broke away from him he said (EXPLETIVE DELETED).


VELEZ-MITCHELL: How important is it for prosecutor, Juan Martinez to bring it back to the crime on closing? Round robin starting with Adam Swickle for the defense.

SWICKLE: I think it is critical. But the way that I have seen these experts at this point in time is for the prosecution. They are trying to take a square peg and they`re banging it into a round hole. And I think it`s backfired on them. I think they really need to clarify this on closing argument or they are going to have a problem.

Fred Tecce for the prosecution?

TECCE: No. Sure the defense went into motion to change the facts. Juan Martinez will bring this case home like he`s been known to do. Pull it all together, right down from the coded messages that she sent from to all the physical evidence, how it`s inconsistent. I don`t see it being a problem.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Monica Lindstrom for the prosecution?

LINDSTROM: All Juan Martinez has to do is show the 29 stab wounds, the sliced throat and the gunshot wound. That is enough to show she did not act in self-defense and she intended to kill him like she did.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: It has been over 50 days. They have to bring it back to what started in opening statements. What happened to Travis Alexander? We have gotten so far afield of that. Bring it back to the victim. Bring it back to the crime scene. Forget about the psychobabble. Let`s talk about a man`s life lost.

More up next in honor of Travis Alexander, the victim.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Rico, tonight our "Animal Investigations Unit" is taking on the escalating controversy over the meat industry`s push to pass AG Gag bills. These laws make it a crime to go undercover and videotape abuses at factory farms.

Right now as we speak about nine billion, with a b, animals are living out their lives in factories; animals with as much capacity for pain as little Rico here or your dog or cat.

Breaking news, the "New York Times" editorial bars has just condemned these AG Gag bills saying quote, "their only purpose is to keep consumers in the dark to make sure we know as little as possible about the grim details of factory farming", end quote. Meat industry groups counter those harrowing undercover videos present an inaccurate image of their industry.


EMILY MEREDITH, ANIMAL AGRICULTURE ALLIANCE: I am not defending animal abuse of any kind but the activist community like HSUS is trying to make these videos representative of the entire industry and that is completely false. They really have disingenuous motives and that again goes back to trying to mislead the public into believing that they`re food is inhumanely or incorrectly produced. And that is simply not true.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: But animal protection groups say the cruelties are not aberrations but rather industry standards. They point to pigs kept in gestation crates, the size of their bodies, unable to turn around for months, even years on end. Critics say these crates clearly cruel and constitute torture. But they are industry standard.

The Humane Society of the United States says other standard practices include tail docking, cutting off the tails of cattle without anesthesia. And the cutting off of beaks of live chicken without medication.

Another "New York Times" editorial, a law professor calling for factory farms and slaughterhouses to install web cams in key areas of operation and put those web addresses on food packages so consumers can see how their meat is raised.

Joining me tonight very special guest, president of the Humane Society of the United States, Wayne Pacelle; Wayne, as this controversy over these AG Gag bills that criminalize undercover videos grows do you agree with installing web cams in factory farms and allowing everybody in America to see these videos.

WAYNE PACELLE, PRESIDENT, HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES: Jane, we shouldn`t be closing the curtain as agribusiness is trying to do with these AG Gag laws. We should be putting sunlight so the public can see how the animals are raised to produce the food that 300 million Americans consume.

I mean the fact the farming industry wants people to disassociate their production practices from the product on their plate so yes, Jane, we do support putting web cams in the slaughter houses on the factory farms as a part but not the entire package of items that we as consumers and as a country should be instituting in order to really look at how the animals are treated and how safe our food is or is not.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: These AG Gag bills have already passed in some states and are currently being debated in several others. Iowa, one of the several states that have passed AG Gag, anti -whistle blower bills also under debate in California and several other states. So undercover investigations from groups like Humane Society, Mercy for Animals, PETA have exposed a lot of cruelty in these farms, it`s even led to criminal`s convictions.

Wayne, could these bills put an end to these exposes?

PACELLE: You know, Jane, they really do threaten what we do in terms of our undercover investigations. Our investigators don`t disrupt anything. They do their job but they also report what is going on. You know, these spokespersons from the agribusiness say they don`t want HSUS to manipulate this.

These are pictures. They speak a thousand words. We are not manipulating any footage. There is nothing that anyone has ever presented to show that we have doctored footage. This is all just a charade from agribusiness; what they are trying to do is deny the public the opportunity to see how animals are treated in slaughterhouses and on factory farms.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, it is certainly a consumer issue at the end of the day. If you are interested you can go to the Humane Society`s web site. You can get involved because one thing we know, and we can all agree on, little Rico and these other animals they do not speak for themselves. They have no voice unless we speak for them.

Nancy Grace is up next.