CNN CNN


 

Return to Transcripts main page

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL

Travis`s Former Girlfriend Testifies He Wasn`t Abusive; Drama in Court Over Selling Seats

Aired April 23, 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, tears on both sides of this case. In court, Jodi cries in court, and so does Travis Alexander`s family, but for totally different reasons. We`ll tell you about it.

We also hear for the first time ever about Travis Alexander`s sexual relationship with another woman before he even met Jodi Arias. We`re going to go back for more testimony.

But first, we`ll tell you briefly: his ex-girlfriend, Deanna Reed, took the stand, and she`s spilling the secret that they both broke the law of chastity, a major sin in the Mormon Church. But Deanna also says Travis never abused or degraded her the way Jodi claims Travis did to her.

Then the defense tries to prove, well, just because Travis was nice to Deanna doesn`t mean he was nice to Jodi. But could the shocking nature of the questions by Jodi`s lawyer have backfired? Check this out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KIRK NURMI, JODI`S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Did he ever ask you to wear an outfit like that?

DEANNA REED, TRAVIS`S EX-GIRLFRIEND: No.

NURMI: Did he ever use phrases with you like "you`re the ultimate slut in bed"?

REED: No.

NURMI: And did he talk to you about blowing (EXPLETIVE DELETED) every time?

REED: No.

NURMI: Did he ever (EXPLETIVE DELETED) on your face?

REED: No.

NURMI: Did he ever call you poor?

REED: No.

NURMI: A slut?

REED: No.

NURMI: A (EXPLETIVE DELETED) wonder?

REED: No.

NURMI: Did he ever tell you how he wanted to tie you to a tree and, quote, (EXPLETIVE DELETED)?

REED: No.

NURMI: Must have had a different relationship than he did with Miss Arias, correct?

JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: Objection. Lack of foundation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Were some offended by that line of questioning? We`ll debate it later.

Plus, even more drama today. Jodi breaks down while video of her and Travis is played for the first time in court. Is she really crying, or is she trying to squeeze out a tear in a bid to get sympathy? Give me a holler: 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877-586-7297.

Now, let`s go back into court where Mesa police detective Michael Melendez is on the stand. We`re in the thick of the government, the state`s rebuttal case.

JUDGE SHERRY STEPHENS, PRESIDING OVER TRIAL: The jurors have some questions for you: "Regarding all the electronic seized, did you find any indication of pornography, naked women or child photos on any of the items you examined?"

MICHAEL MELENDEZ, MESA POLICE DETECTIVE: I did not find any of that on any of the items I examined related to Mr. Alexander.

STEPHENS: "Regarding Travis`s camera, just for clarification, all pictures were not deleted, is that correct?"

MELENDEZ: That is correct.

STEPHENS: "The pictures depicting Jodi and Travis in sexual poses and the pictures before and after the killing were deleted, but there were pictures left on the camera, is that correct?"

MELENDEZ: That is correct.

STEPHENS: "If so, do you know how many pictures were left?"

MELENDEZ: From recollection, I believe there were more than 90.

STEPHENS: Any other questions from the jury?

Follow up, Mr. Martinez.

MARTINEZ: Nothing, thank you.

STEPHENS: Mr. Nurmi?

NURMI: Nothing further.

STEPHENS: All right. Ladies and gentlemen we need to take about a ten-minute recess. So please go back to the jury room. We will call you back shortly. Please remember the admonition.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. And I am just getting word that, even though she just said recess, court is adjourned for the day. But we`ve got so much to talk about.

The big shocker today in court, Travis Alexander`s ex revealing Jodi Arias wasn`t the only one Travis had had sex with. Deanna Reed took the stand, Travis`s former girlfriend, before Jodi, and says, "Yes, I had a sexual relationship with Travis long before Jodi ever came into the picture."

Now, the defense and the prosecutor went at it with this witness to prove two very different points. Let`s listen and debate on the other side. It`s kind of shocking.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NURMI: Did you and Mr. Alexander have a sexual relationship?

REED: Yes, we did.

NURMI: And when did that sexual relationship begin?

REED: We had been dating for a long time. We were in love. People within the church are human, and we make -- we make mistakes.

NURMI: Did he ever tell you that the way you moaned, it`s like a 12- year-old girl having her first orgasm?

REED: No.

NURMI: Did he ever tell you about wanting to (EXPLETIVE DELETED) of a little girl?

REED: No.

MARTINEZ: Was your relationship based on sex mostly?

REED: No, it was not.

MARTINEZ: And when you went to the bishop, did you lie to him about the activities that you had engaged in?

REED: Nope, I told him everything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: The prosecutor tried to show, of course, Travis was not abusive with that woman, Deanna, even though they had a sexual relationship. It`s because Deanna testified they were in love, but that they went to the bishop because they had sinned.

The defense using the same witness to try to prove that this previous sexual relationship goes to show that Travis wasn`t the virginal Mormon he said he was even before he met Jodi.

So, let`s debate it with our expert panel. We`ve got a great group tonight. Feisty group. I`m going to start with Jordan Rose, who`s there in Arizona for the prosecution.

There was speculation that some of the jurors and some people might have taken offense to the questions that the defense asked. This woman`s only crime is no crime. She dated Travis Alexander. She`s not on trial, yet she takes the stand and suddenly she gets hit with these, well, at the nicest way of putting it, very rude questions from the defense about whether or not she engaged in this, that or the other deviant behavior.

JORDAN ROSE, ATTORNEY: I think they were incredibly inappropriate -- inappropriate questions. And in fact, they were offensive to the jury. I mean, there was absolutely no reason. He had no reason to go there.

I think the more important thing today was that Jodi was exposed not just as liar who lies to other people, but a liar who lied in the last 30 days to this very jury. And I think they think completely differently about someone who had lied to them directly, as she did with this gas can evidence.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`re going to -- we`re going to get to the old gas cans in a second. But I want to talk first about what this defense attorney did to this woman, Deanna Reed, who -- she dated Travis Alexander. She`s not on trial. Yet, she takes the stand and all of a sudden, "Did you do this X-rated thing? Did he ever want to do this to you that`s X-rated? Did he ever want to do this?" And I think that could have backfired.

I know what he`s saying. I know what his point is. But it almost felt accusatory toward this woman. Dana Swickle, you`re there for the defense tonight. What do you say?

DANA SWICKLE, ATTORNEY: You know, listen, it`s unfortunate, because the longer this trial goes on, the choices that the lawyers are going to make sometimes are going to be right. Sometimes they`re going to be wrong.

As defense attorneys, we walk a very fine line. When we question people, how we question them, what we say, what we talk about, what we don`t. And he made a decision. And maybe it wasn`t a great decision. But you`ve got to live and die by your questions. And he`s going to have to recover from them if they are that offensive.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jon?

JON LEIBERMAN, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: Let`s not mince words here. It was deplorable the way that he was going at that witness, running down the litany of all the sexual terms in the trial when it had nothing to do with her.

Look, we get it. Travis broke the law of chastity. Well, guess what? Jodi Arias broke the law of murder. And it was absolutely out of bounds, I felt.

And I think this witness, this ex-girlfriend was absolutely fantastic for the prosecution, because she testified not only did Travis never abuse her, he never pushed her for sex, he didn`t physically abuse her, sexually abuse her. She didn`t know about any porn. It was a slam dunk for the prosecution.

SWICKLE: Well, whoa, whoa, wait a second. I have to say, hold on, Jane...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: They did have sex. She testified that they did have sex with each other.

LEIBERMAN: Yes, I said -- he broke the law of chastity, so what?

ROSE: They had a sweet relationship. Such a sweet relationship. I mean, she said they had fun together. They were just a loving couple. And there was no evidence that this guy did anything wrong. It was...

SWICKLE: But Jane...

ROSE: And these were pointless. Those questions, what, did he just want to get on TV by saying dirty words?

LEIBERMAN: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

SWICKLE: Listen, it`s very simple. Your client is fighting for her life. You`re fighting for your client`s life right now. We all make decisions as lawyers. And to say that she`s expecting guests (ph), I get it, I understand that.

When you`re in the thick of it, when you`re in the heat of the battle, sometimes things get away from you, and sometimes they don`t. And maybe in this particular case, they did. But this attorney has been doing an excellent job for how long has this trial been going on? So everyone needs to take a step back and recognize...

LEIBERMAN: But Dana -- Dana, to what end. What did -- Dana, what did Nurmi accomplish?

SWICKLE: Saying the same thing about the prosecution when he was attacking people.

ROSE: These questions just serve to tick the jury off. That`s all.

SWICKLE: I`m sure. And maybe it did.

ROSE: It`s a sweet woman.

SWICKLE: And maybe it did but you know what, guys? Sometimes as a defense lawyer you make a decision, and sometimes you don`t make the right one. But he`s got to figure out a way to recover from it and move on.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I think that he feels he has the moral high ground, because he`s, in his mind, trying to save a person`s life, Jodi Arias`s life. And it feels -- he feels he is entitled to do or say anything.

But I want to go to Selin Darkalstanian, because you`re our producer in court. And you have a very good read on how things come off.

I mean, if I had a nickel for every dirty word I`ve heard since January when this trial started, I`d be a multimillionaire, as would all of our viewers. And it almost loses its shock value.

But then it came back today. This woman sitting there. She dated Travis Alexander. The next thing, "Did he ever call you a `bleep hole.` Bah-bah-bah, did he ever this on your face? Did he ever" -- I mean, it`s kind of assaulting. It feels assaulting.

What was the feeling in the courtroom when this was happening -- Selin?

SELIN DARKALSTANIAN, HLN PRODUCER: Well, we knew he was going there when -- when he started asking the questions. Because the defense has done this repeatedly in court.

But in a way, Jane, they`ve said these words so often in court that I have been sitting there every day in court. These words, I`ve become numb to them because I`ve been hearing them. At the beginning of the trial, it was really shocking when we would hear these words being said out loud in court.

But four months in after we`ve heard the defense continuously tell us this, it does not have the same effect on me sitting in the courtroom, and I can`t imagine it has the same effect on the jury. Because they do not react at all when those words are said in court.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And by the way, this is a photo that was shown in court by the prosecutor in his rebuttal case. It`s dated 2007. And it shows look, there is Travis Alexander being very affectionate with Jodi and that she is not his dirty little secret.

And there was also video. Now, the defense might counter this was before they broke up. This was in the time period where they were officially dating as opposed to unofficially dating. To me, you are always dating if you are having sex with each other. That`s my feeling. But, what does it prove?

More on the other side. The calls are lining up. We`re going to take your calls. We`re going to play the highlights of the testimony from today. We`re going to find out what is happening next. This case moving like a freight train, rapidly accelerating towards its dramatic conclusion, judgment day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARIAS: It looks like you don`t even need a good prosecutor anyway.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you want that prosecutor, and I`ve met him, you don`t want him painting that picture.

MARTINEZ: Do you have a problem understanding the question? Ask me that. If you want to -- do you want to spar with me?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because he is good at what he does.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This isn`t a trial about, you know, how good of a Mormon he was or how well he lived up to his religion or what his sexual fantasies are. You know, I think one thing we have to all remember here is this is a human being.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What an extraordinary day in court. And Beth Karas, I believe she has just exited from the courtroom.

And Beth, this trial has now started to move very, very quickly. We are technically still in the state`s rebuttal case, are we not? What can we expect next? What`s going to happen?

BETH KARAS, REPORTER, TRUTV`S "IN SESSION": Well, you know, the jurors were told to come back at 1:30 here, which is 4:30 Eastern Time tomorrow. And I`m still waiting to find out if there`s going to be some sort of hearing in the morning. Because I thought maybe the judge is going to deal with some of the issues that are pending.

The state -- I mean, the defense has filed a motion, seeking surrebuttal. They want to put on a psychologist from San Diego to rebut Dr. Janeen DeMarte.

It is done, surrebuttal. It`s not common, but with the judge`s permission, you can do it here in Arizona. So I`m not sure if there`s going to be a hearing yet. I`m just waiting to find out.

Meanwhile, the pace is back to where it was in the beginning, Jane. The state put on 20 witnesses in nine days in January. The defense case began the end of January. Jodi Arias took the stand February 4. Only three witnesses testified February, march and the beginning of April. And now we`re in, at the pace the state had at the beginning of the case. It probably will wrap up Thursday, if not tomorrow.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. And you know, when the prosecution has its turn, this case moves quickly. It`s when the defense has its turn that this case moves very, very slowly.

So, my personal bet is that the judge is going to allow the defense to put on its surrebuttal. And why is that? Because it`s a death penalty case, and the judge seemed to allow a lot. Somebody said the other day, she`s let in everything but the kitchen sink. That`s not a criticism. That was just a phrase that a prosecutor used, saying hey, this is what you do in a death penalty case, because you don`t want to make a mistake.

Now, you know what happens when the defense gets its chance. And we want to debate with our panel: should the defense get to put on this whole new case called a surrebuttal to argue against the notion of Jodi having post-traumatic -- excuse me, borderline personality disorder. She`s had so many diagnoses. Borderline personality disorder.

So I`m going to start with Dana Swickle for the defense. Do you think that the defense should be allowed to bring on another expert to address this whole issue of borderline personality disorder, because the prosecution raised that in its rebuttal case?

SWICKLE: You know, absolutely. I think it`s the lawyer who`s in there with her who`s in there day in, day out, it`s his decision. And if he decides that it`s going to help her case or, in his mind, that it could do something good, then absolutely.

This is a death-penalty case. We`re not talking about someone going to prison for an extended period of time. We are talking about someone who could be put to death. So I absolutely think that, if it`s allowed and the judge is -- and the judge is going to be asked to do it, then the judge is absolutely going to do it. And I think it`s a strategy by the defense lawyer to...

(CROSSTALK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jon Leiberman, good idea?

LEIBERMAN: Look, I think that the judge is going to let it in, and I think the defense attorney is still grasping at straws. I mean, look, Dr. Samuels brought up borderline personality disorder during his questioning. So it was already entered into the record. The prosecution just went much, much further with it.

It shows how afraid the defense is of the jury believing the borderline personality disorder diagnosis, because they`re afraid that, if the jury believes that, it`s not nearly the mitigator that PTSD would be if the jury believes that.

But look, at the end of the day, I think the judge will let it in. I think it`s a waste of taxpayer money, but as Dana said, and I agree with her, there is somebody`s life on the line here, so I do think the jury will -- I mean, the judge will allow it in.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That means we don`t know how long this is going to go on. Because if they allow that witness to take the stand, how many days was Dr. Samuels on for the defense? How many days was Alyce LaViolette on for the defense? You could be talking a week or more. I mean, it`s extraordinary.

Next, we have a very special guest. Somebody who did get in trouble in court today, but she`s being a good sport; she`s going to talk to us about what she did. But I leave you with this question for a moment. Think about this. Would you pay $200 for a seat in the courtroom? That`s a hint of what went down in court today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTINEZ: Your problem with your memory, is it a recent vintage?

ARIAS: Define recent. What do you mean by that?

I don`t know what you mean? Independent of what?

MARTINEZ: Yes or no?

ARIAS: I was saying no and you interrupted me.

That`s not what I said.

Am I allowed to tell you what I`m trying to say?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DESIREE LEE, REGULAR COURT OBSERVER: A lady was offering $200 for a seat. She had asked a couple people. They were saying no. I said yes, and we got caught. They made me give back the money.

CATHY BROWN, REGULAR COURT OBSERVER: People just want to know. They want to see her. They are here to see her. And so just one glimpse. And this lady is willing to pay $200.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Whoops, somebody got in trouble. We all know trial watchers are selling tickets to see this courtroom drama unfold. People are traveling from all over the country to see this thing play out in person. One woman traveled all the way from Michigan, but she couldn`t get a seat. So she paid a regular court observer 200 bucks for a seat.

And we have those regular courtroom observers with us tonight, two very special guests. We have the lady affectionately known as Cane Lady, who`s Cathy Brown, as well as her niece, Desiree Lee.

So Desiree, a good sport for coming on. Tell us: You got into a little bit of trouble. You were kicked out of court. Is that true?

LEE: I wasn`t kicked out. They had told us we weren`t going to get our seats back. We had to go get back in line.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, that -- that`s kind of getting kicked out, I hate to break it to you. But anyway, tell us what happened. You have these seats. You wait in line every day to get these seats. You got these seats. And you realize there`s people outside that are just dying to get in. They really want to see this case. So tell us what happened.

LEE: Well, the lady was just asking a couple people in front of me if they were willing to sell their seat, and they were saying no. And she next then came to me and said, "Are you willing to sell your seat for $200?" And I thought she was joking at first. I told her no. And she told me again that she was serious. And I said, "OK, sure." I did not know that I could not do that.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And so she hands you, like, just a bunch of 20s. She starts, like, putting 20s into your palm. And then what happened?

LEE: No, no. We -- we got on the elevator. I didn`t -- I didn`t want people to see -- think I was doing something wrong. Because I really didn`t think I was doing anything wrong. We went downstairs. And she gave me two 100 dollar bills as we were getting off the elevator.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And so how did you get caught?

LEE: Actually, one of the -- another lady that`s always here, I guess, went and told on me.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Uh-oh. And then what happened?

LEE: And then security and one of the court people came up and asked us to step into a little room on the side and we did.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And then?

BROWN: I didn`t have anything to do with it.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, yes.

LEE: We were told...

BROWN: I didn`t. Jane, I didn`t. I had no idea. I wasn`t even sitting next to her.

LEE: She wasn`t.

BROWN: I was actually against the wall watching the trial on the computer. I had no idea. We took a break. We both smoke. So we went down to smoke and...

LEE: That`s when I told her.

BROWN: We came up, and they caught us off the elevator. I had no idea what was going on.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You said they caught you. What happened? Did they cuff you? Did they frisk you? Or did they take you by the arm and escort you out?

BROWN: They put us in a little side room, you know. And they wouldn`t really tell us what was going on. I think Desiree knew more than I did at this point.

You know, I`m here to support Travis`s family 100 percent. I`m a courtroom lover (ph), 100 percent. And you know, I would never do anything but I am not her mother. I cannot tell her what she can and cannot do. But I was not aware of -- that this was happening.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Desiree, I want to get to the point. You say they came in. What did they do? Did they escort you out of the building?

LEE: No. They did not.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. What did they do?

LEE: They told -- they told us we -- that they didn`t like that. That you know, they didn`t appreciate it. And they told us that we can go get back in line to go into court, but we could not have our same seats. We had to get at the end of the line.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK.

LEE: We sat there for 20 minutes or so. And then I decided I wasn`t going to go in anyway. And Cathy went in, and she went into the actual courtroom, sat down, and then they asked her to leave.

BROWN: I don`t know why, because I wasn`t involved.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Listen, I know you ladies, your hearts are in the right place, and we all make mistakes. That`s -- that`s part of life. And you know what?

BROWN: That was a big one.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I think you have to just get to the back of the line and try to get in. And I want to say you`re very good sports for talking about it. Because some people might say, "I don`t want to talk about it." So I`m glad that you decided to come clean and just tell us your story. And I wish you the best of luck, both of you.

BROWN: Thank you, Jane.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. We`re going to take...

LEE: Thank you.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... a short break, and we`ve got more explosive testimony on the other side. It involves, you know, gas cans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTINEZ: You have a problem with the truth, telling the truth, don`t you?

ARIAS: I would love to help you in any way I can.

MARTINEZ: That wasn`t the truth.

ARIAS: No, that was not the truth.

MARTINEZ: Why didn`t you tell the truth?

ARIAS: I was ashamed. I didn`t want my family to see me admitting to something like that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: So who is this individual to the upper left hand corner that seems to be doing most of the talking?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Travis Alexander.

MARTINEZ: There appears to be somebody blondish or white on his lap. Who is that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jodi Arias.

MARTINEZ: How often would you see that were they affectionate?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just about every time that they were together.

MARTINEZ: During that time, you and he are dating exclusively then, right?

DEANNA REID, FORMER GIRLFRIEND OF TRAVIS ALEXANDER: We are, from 2002 to 2004.

MARTINEZ: Did he ever curse at you?

REID: No. Never.

MARTINEZ: Would he ever call you names?

REID: No, he did not.

MARTINEZ: Did he ever strike you?

REID: No. Never.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN HOST: It was an emotional day in court. There you see Jodi Arias, the defendant crying. There you see the family of Travis Alexander; they are crying. They are all shedding tears for different reasons. Travis` family crying because of the witness who was on the stand Travis, ex-girlfriend Deanna Reid said that Travis had fond memories of his parents who have taken a lot of heat during this trial. They have been described at meth addicts who were abusive to the children. This has got to be so hard for the family of Travis Alexander to hear.

Jodi was crying because they showed that video of her and Travis at happier times. So a very emotional day in court.

Now, the ex-girlfriend, Deanna Reid, she made it clear when responding to questions from the prosecution that Travis never treated her with disrespect, never physically or verbally abused her. Listen to this then we`ll debate it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTINEZ: Did he ever curse at you?

REID: No, never.

MARTINEZ: Would he ever call you names?

REID: No, he did not.

MARTINEZ: Were there occasions where you and he would have disagreements?

REID: There would be but it wasn`t not very often. We never really got mad at each other. We had a fun relationship. We liked being together.

MARTINEZ: At any point, did he become physical, throwing you down, put his hands on you in any way, shape or form?

REID: Absolutely not.

MARTINEZ: Did he raise his voice in any way?

REID: He never raised his voice. We trusted each other. Our relationship wasn`t like that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, the prosecution making the point that hey, Travis was not a violent guy, that he was not abusive in his relationships. Jodi, of course, claiming that she`s a battered woman, that Travis sexually and physically abused her.

But the defense says you can`t compare these two in terms of the relationship they have with Travis. That it`s like comparing apples and oranges. That one -- Deanna Reid is a born and bred Mormon, and the other is a woman who`s had many other relationships and was simply converted to Mormonism by Travis and that they are two totally different cases. That he`s not going to treat a born and bred Mormon the way he was going to treat Jodi Arias.

Now those are the two sides. We are going to debate it. Let`s start with Tanya Young Williams who`s an advocate against domestic violence. What do you say of the attempts by the prosecution to compare these and two and the attempts by the defense to say you can`t compare these two women and their relationship with Travis?

TANYA YOUNG WILLIAMS, ADVOCATE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Jane, first of all, I would like to say that all of the horrible things that the defense attorney said to this witness on the stand, I think it spoke more to who Jodi is, not about who this woman is. So I don`t think it hurt the prosecution at all if that was his attempt.

When it comes to domestic violence, there`s always a first time, Jane. But very oftentimes abusers they exhibit a pattern of abuse that increases with each relationship. We have had no evidence, no testimony in this case where we`ve sent that Travis has had complete control and power over Jodi.

And that`s what domestic violence is about. It`s about power and control. It`s been absent in this case. Therefore we have to question, was there domestic violence. And now you add on the fact he did not exhibit it with a prior girlfriend, it makes Jodi`s testimony seem even more of a farce.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: The difference between his relationship between Deanna and his relationship with Jodi is that with Jodi he had a kinky S&M relationship as documented in the phone sex, ok. He did not have a kinky S&M relationship with Deanna.

Now in S&M relationship, they`re also called dominance and submission, also called power exchange -- one person has all the power, the other doesn`t for various reasons that can be pleasurable. What the defense is trying to do -- and I`ll throw this to the defense, Dana Swickle for the defense -- is try to take a consensual S&M relationship and morph it into physical and sexual abuse. Those are two different things.

DANA SWICKLE, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, listen, I think the keywords that everyone is talking about is power here. How more powerful could it be to get someone who is not a Mormon to go ahead and now change their religion? That is power. That is some form of mental power that one person has over another. When everyone is sitting here saying that he had no power over her, I beg to differ. He had a tremendous amount of power over her to get her to convert her religion to Mormonism.

And now what we are talking about is something completely different, Jane and I think you brought up a good point. His relationship with Jodi is completely different and I agree with the defense because she is a different person than the other young woman who was a Mormon and has always been a Mormon. We don`t know if he`s known her family for a long time and has a completely different relationship.

He brought Jodi into this so she doesn`t know anything different. So he probably did treat her differently than he treated his ex girlfriend.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: The prosecution wants to show that Travis was a gentleman to his girlfriend he dated for over two years, Deanna Reid. The defense is trying to show his relationship with a born and bred Mormon, Deanna is going to be, by its very nature, completely different than his relationship with Jodi, who he baptized into the church. And I think that perhaps the best evidence of the difference is the sex tape that was made between Jodi and Travis.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRAVIS ALEXANDER, MURDER VICTIM: The way you moan, baby, it sounds like you are this 12-year-old girl having her first orgasm. It`s so hot.

JODI ARIAS, ON TRIAL FOR MURDER OF TRAVIS ALEXANDER: It sounds like what?

ALEXANDER: A 12-year-old girl having her first orgasm. (EXPLETIVE DELETED) this hot little girl.

ARIAS: You`re bad. You make me feel so dirty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I mean Jordan Rose, I think the defense would have if they could have done it legally, smarter to just play the sex tape and say could you ever imagine yourself having a conversation like that with Travis? I can`t imagine Deanna ever having a conversation like that. So instead of attacking this witness, there would have been smarter ways for him to compare and contrast why the relationship he had with Jodi is one that he would never have with a woman born and raised in the Mormon world.

JORDAN ROSE, ATTORNEY: I think you are right. I think that would have been brilliant. That would have saved the defense attorney from looking like such a jerk, really, in attacking this wonderful person who had a fabulous relationship with a man for what, seven years on and off.

I think that, you know, while we can believe that someone acts differently in various relationships throughout their life, it is very difficult to believe that this guy was such a Jekyll and Hyde that in no circumstance in the past has he ever exhibited any sort of behavior that showed any signs of abuse.

JON LEIBERMAN, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: Jane --

ROSE: Or else, my goodness, Jodi`s defense would have certainly put that person on the stand.

SWICKLE: Jane.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Quickly, Jon Leiberman.

LEIBERMAN: Look, you want to talk apples and oranges between these relationships? Here are the apples and oranges. Deanna broke up with Travis when he said he wouldn`t marry. Jodi killed Travis. That`s the difference.

SWICKLE: Oh come on. Jane -- Jane, the difference is, I believe you, you are correct when you say those sex tapes are everything.

LEIBERMAN: The sex is a side show. This is a murder case -- Dana. The sex is a salacious side show.

(CROSSTALK)

SWICKLE: It is not a side show. It is a -- exactly right. And that`s exactly why the defense counsel is doing what he`s doing. He`s got to do anything and everything he can to show that Travis is this other person. And that`s exactly -- those sex tapes are huge because it does show that that was Travis on the other side, he wasn`t this Mormon --

(CROSSTALK)

LEIBERMAN: And it shows that he was involved in a consensual relationship. Ok, he broke the law of chastity, ok. But he didn`t deserve to be murdered.

SWICKLE: No one is saying that he deserved to be murdered --

(CROSSTALK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We are going to take a break. Thank you, we have to turn them down when they get too hot.

Now, as we go to break, we`re going to continue this debate on the other side. Listen to what Jodi said about Deanna when Jodi was on the witness stand. This is fascinating.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARIAS: He warned me that she was emotionally unstable and that she would freak out if she saw him with other girls or if he attempted to move on anytime he tried to date somebody.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REID: He says that he just felt bad for dating me for so long and that this was a time in my life when I should be getting married and that he thought that now I was beyond that point of getting married. So that`s what he felt bad for.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: This is such a fascinating look at the Mormon culture and how it differed -- how different it is from, let`s say, the culture at large. Because she`s testifying that Travis felt bad he dated her so long and didn`t marry her and that she was now too old to get married because there are certain wards and people go from a singles ward to an elder ward where there`s more married people.

And he was also afraid for himself he was 30 and afraid he was getting too old to get married. And yet, in the culture at large, married people are a minority -- statistical minority in the United States today, believe it or not. Tanya Young Williams, I want to throw that at you.

WILLIAMS: Well Jane, listen. I watched and listened. You start to feel more for the person that Travis was, that he did empathize with this woman. And therefore, the question is, the abuser is usually not going to care that much about where you are in a marriage state. It is, when you speak about power and control, when it has to do with domestic violence particularly, you are taking away your partner`s ability to make decisions that are best for themselves. That is a perfect example Jane where he was not abusive in the relationship, didn`t try to control this young woman.

And then when you look at Jodi Arias. She made a choice to become Mormon. She has a 119 IQ. She spoke on the stand on how she made that decision because she believed in what the Mormon book said. So he -- it wasn`t power that he used to get her to convert. Jodi made a very learned decision on her own.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I will say one thing. And I`m not saying this in any way shape or form -- I`m not taking sides here -- but I will say that people do behave very differently in one relationship than they do in another. I think we can all know -- we all know from our own life histories that with some people we did one thing. With another person we did another thing entirely.

WILLIAM: But Jane, with domestic violence --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And so I think that -- go ahead.

WILLIAMS: Jane, what I`ve learned over the years with domestic violence, there tends to be a personality trait within the perpetrator. And although there is a first for every perpetrator or abuser, very rarely do you hear someone who had a perfectly clean relationship where they didn`t really yell or scream and then all of a sudden they`re going to do the extreme act that Jodi says that he did. There are no accidents Jane, but it`s just hard to believe.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What I`m saying is that -- I`m not even using that -- that wasn`t even my thought process. My process is the kinky sex. With one person you might have the desire to have kinky sex, with another person you like -- you want to have vanilla sex. Because --

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Jane, that`s how I started this conversation. It`s more about the different personalities of Jodi and Deanna than it is about Travis. You speak to a lot men --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Exactly.

WILLIAMS: -- they`re going to tell you -- that`s right. So we agree. We agree.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. We are getting to the same conclusion in different words. Let`s go to the phone lines. Somebody who`s waited a long time -- Gwen, Illinois, thank you for your patience -- Gwen, Illinois.

GWEN, ILLINOIS (via telephone): Hi, Jane, how are you?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Good, thank you.

GWEN: I just got a quick comment. It`s not against the law for a man to have sex with a consenting adult, but it is against the law to murder somebody, period.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I think that is an excellent point and let me tell you something. You waited a long time to make it but it was succinct and to the point. And I wish that some of the attorneys had your turn of phrase because they seem to take a lot longer to make their points. Thank you, Gwen, Illinois.

A short break, and then on the other side, the gas cans they were very much in play today -- very significant forensic evidence and testimony. Stay right there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARIAS: When I grabbed the gun, I didn`t mean to fire it. It went off and that made him even more angry. He just became a volcano.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Time for Pet of the Day, send your pet pics to hlntv.com/jane. Tippy, you are so cute, you make me fluffy, Tippy. Peanut -- look at that angelic face, little Peanut is so cute. And Park & Crybaby. Let`s see little Crybaby`s lying on his back with Park, they`re buddies. And Kane, you are making the scene Hollywood style. So cool. So happening.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARIAS: You have the most incredible stamina that I`ve ever, ever even dreamed of encountering. It`s just creepy. Like you have --

ALEXANDER: We`ve had two or three-hour sessions many times.

ARIAS: Yes, yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok. Well, from that to the gas cans. The prosecutor says Jodi planned to murder Travis and got gas cans so she wouldn`t be caught filling up her car in Arizona where Travis lived. Jodi borrowed two gas cans from an ex-boyfriend and bought a third. Then she said oh, I returned this one.

Prosecutor Martinez tried to prove Jodi is lying about returning the third gas can to the Wal-Mart. He questioned a Wal-Mart employee to show there were no returns that matched Jodi`s. Check this out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTINEZ: Was this five-gallon item returned there?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nothing was returned on that register, no.

MARTINEZ: Was that returned at that register?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.

MARTINEZ: How about register number 7?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There was no return on that register that day, no.

MARTINEZ: Any returns?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No there was no returns.

MARTINEZ: Was it ever returned for a refund on June 3rd, 2008?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was not.

MARTINEZ: Would it surprise you that Wal-Mart does not have any record of any refund for a gas can on that date of June 3rd of 2008?

ARIAS: Considering that I returned it? That would surprise me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So Beth Karas, did the prosecutor basically catch Jodi in a lie?

BETH KARAS, CORRESPONDENT, "IN SESSION": Well, if you believe his witnesses, and this is an unbiased witness who took the stand. No, you know, skin in the game here. Yes. He did. Jodi Arias was adamant. She returned the gas can to the same Wal-Mart in Salinas, California, that she had purchased it at. And Martinez put a witness on who went through the entire process of returning an item with or without a receipt. What the records would show, and there was absolutely no record of a return in a 24- hour period on June 3rd, 2008. So yes, he caught her in a lie.

And the evidence of the gas can is, according to the state evidence of premeditation, that she could have enough gas in the trunk of her car so she wouldn`t have to stop in Arizona. But even if you think it`s not a big deal, it`s a lie. And if she lied about that, what else did she lie about?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: On the other side, thank you for that, Beth, on the other side, a shocking new theory of the case. Stay right there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. I was out and about this weekend and Lori from New York approached me and said, "Jane, I have a theory about the case." So Lori, you`re on the phone now. What`s your theory of the case?

LORI, NEW YORK (via telephone): I think she`s definitely a liar about everything. She tells half-truths, and I believe that she didn`t do it alone. I believe that she did it with somebody because the time frame and everything, carrying the body into the shower and all the stuff doesn`t add up. It just doesn`t add up -- the time frame of everything.

I believe also she had her clothes on and sneakers on. If you`re taking pictures in a romantic way, you wouldn`t be fully dressed, at least not with shoes on also.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Lori, excellent questions. Jon Leiberman, do you think it`s possible she had help?

LEIBERMAN: No, I don`t think there`s any evidence that this was anybody`s work except the work of Jodi Arias. And I think the prosecutor did a masterful job today continuing to hammer away at Jodi`s lies and to show that she wasn`t Travis`s dirty little secret.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`ve got an excellent question. Whatever happened to those bloody clothes that she had on? We don`t know, but we`re going to check it out.

Nancy Grace is next.

END