CNN CNN


 

Return to Transcripts main page

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL

Prosecution Starts Fiery Cross of Final Arias Witness

Aired May 1, 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: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell live in Phoenix, Arizona. It`s 91 degrees here. The temperature is going up. But it`s a lot hotter in the courtroom behind me. Check this out.

This is the Maricopa County Courthouse. I spent the day on the fifth floor. And I`ve got to tell you, it is so intense. This is such a crucial day. What we think is the last defense witness.

Prosecutor Juan Martinez fiery and aggressive in the cross-examination of this final witness. We`re going to go back in the courtroom. But first, check this out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I need all the pieces of the puzzle to fit together to finally get what the picture is.

TRAVIS ALEXANDER, MURDER VICTIM (via phone): Is it wrong that I`m glad that we started (EXPLETIVE DELETED)?

JODI ARIAS, MURDER DEFENDANT (via phone): Well, if it`s wrong, then I don`t want to be right.

(on camera): Sex is sex. There`s just different ways to have sex.

JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: Ma`am, were you crying when you were shooting him? Were you crying when you were stabbing him? How about when you cut his throat? Were you crying then?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They are concerned about the way they were acting sexually.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And there`s Jodi Arias with the most frightening, evil...

MARTINEZ: You`re the one that did this, right?

ARIAS: Yes.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s remember what this is all about. This is about the victim, Travis Alexander, who was stabbed 29 times, whose throat was slit ear-to-ear, who was shot in the face. And because this is such a crucial day, Travis Alexander`s family and his extended family out in force going to the courtroom. So many members of Travis Alexander`s family, it would be hard to tell you all their names right now.

I can also tell you, this was a huge day for the trial watchers. Cane Lady, you remember was famous in her own right, Cane Lady perhaps the best known trial watcher with us today as well as a lot of people, many of whom have traveled from all over the country to be here. I can tell you, I will be here for the duration until judgment day.

Now, let`s go back into the courtroom where prosecutor Juan Martinez is cross-examining Dr. Robert Geffner, who is the last defense witness, and basically, this doctor is trying to shoot down two things: one, that Jodi Arias is a cold-blooded killer with borderline personality disorder; and two, that the gun went off first, when she defended herself. So let`s go back into the courtroom and see what prosecutor Juan does with those two items.

DR. ROBERT GEFFNER, DEFENSE WITNESS: Yes.

MARTINEZ: If I may have it back.

GEFFNER: If you ask me more, I have to look at it again.

MARTINEZ: Is it true, sir, that the trial court found that your testimony in that case was completely without merit, right?

GEFFNER: I don`t remember if he said completely, but yes, generally, that`s true.

MARTINEZ: No, not generally. Isn`t it true that the court said, "His testimony was completely without merit"? Yes or no? Take a look at it again.

GEFFNER: Yes, sir, that is accurate.

MARTINEZ: In that particular case, in the O`Rourke case, you gave an opinion. You were hired by the mother, weren`t you?

GEFFNER: Yes, I was. Well, her attorney.

MARTINEZ: But you were hired on behalf of the mother, right?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: It was a child custody dispute, right?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And you gave an opinion in that case without speaking to the father, didn`t you?

GEFFNER: I gave some opinions, yes.

MARTINEZ: Sir, is it -- let`s look at the opinion about what it says. I want you to take a look at page 5. I want you to read it. Also take a look at the top of page 6 and see what it says.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. A short side bar. We`re going to bring in our excellent debate panel.

We`ve got Jordan Rose right here in a truck down the block, an Arizona attorney, as well as our own Jon Leiberman and Michelle Suskauer for the defense. Starting with Jordan Rose, is the prosecutor going to make mincemeat of this final defense witness? Let`s debate it, 15 seconds each. Starting with Jordan.

JORDAN ROSE, ATTORNEY: I think so. I think so. I can`t wait until the prosecutor takes this guy. I mean, the guy is really, really hard to follow. He`s hard to listen to. He drones on and on. And it`s just waiting for Juan Martinez to pounce on him. I think he`ll do a wonderful job, because he needs to.

(SOUND EFFECT: BUZZER)

ROSE: This is very, very important.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Michelle Suskauer, the prosecutor came out saying, "Hey, you`re a hired gun. You`ve been a hired gun in other cases, and indeed, a judge in another case said that you were completely wrong on all counts." That was pretty strong.

MICHELLE SUSKAUER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: That is strong and that`s tough to face. But, what he has to say is look, stick to his guns and that this is, be very, very solid in the testimony that he gave. Because it`s really a battle of the experts.

(SOUND EFFECT: BUZZER)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jon Leiberman?

JON LEIBERMAN, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: Jane, look, this is a hired gun with a checkered past. This is a man who took the stand and said that context to these tests when evaluating them is important. Well, guess what? He didn`t interview Jodi. He didn`t interview anybody else in the case. He didn`t look at testimony. He didn`t look at police records.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Got to leave it.

LEIBERMAN: So...

(SOUND EFFECT: BUZZER)

LEIBERMAN: ... he has no contest.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s go back into court.

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: Let me have it back.

In that case, sir, isn`t it true that, in your assistance of the mother, you provided an opinion with regard to whatever the issues were involving the children without talking to the father, right?

GEFFNER: Yes.

MARTINEZ: And in fact, you also -- in this case, the opinion is back in 2010, right?

GEFFNER: No, sir.

MARTINEZ: Why don`t you just take a look at...

GEFFNER: That was the case...

MARTINEZ: Take a look at exhibit 648. The opinion, what`s the date of that opinion? At the very top.

GEFFNER: The opinion is dated November 10.

MARTINEZ: Take a look -- take a look at it.

GEFFNER: I did.

MARTINEZ: All right, may I have it back?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: What`s the date of the opinion?

GEFFNER: The opinion is dated November 2010.

MARTINEZ: So it is 2010, right?

GEFFNER: You asked when I testified. I didn`t testify, I believe, in 2010.

MARTINEZ: Sir, the opinion is dated 2010, correct?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: You testified in February a couple years previous to that, correct?

GEFFNER: That is correct.

MARTINEZ: You also were involved in a case in Texas involving an individual by the name of Clark, correct?

GEFFNER: Evidently, I don`t recall that case. But I know that I did according to the records.

MARTINEZ: Isn`t it true that, with regard to that particular individual, you submitted an affidavit, right?

GEFFNER: I did.

MARTINEZ: And in fact, the trial court at that level found that your affidavit lacked credibility. Isn`t that what it says?

GEFFNER: Evidently.

MARTINEZ: You need to look at this to be...?

GEFFNER: No, I know it at the time that I submitted...

MARTINEZ: I`m not asking at the time. I`m asking, as you sit here today...

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: ... isn`t it true that you know that the trial court found in the Clark case that you submitted paperwork that lacked credibility, right?

GEFFNER: Yes, that was the term.

MARTINEZ: At that time, when you submitted that affidavit, that report that lacked credibility, you had a number of years of experience as a psychologist, right?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: You had numbers of years as a neuropsychologist, right?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: You had a plethora of experience, right?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And in fact, even though you had that experience, the court found that you were making things up, right?

JENNIFER WILLMOTT, JODI ARIAS`S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Objection.

JUDGE SHERRY STEPHENS, PRESIDING OVER TRIAL: Overruled.

MARTINEZ: You`re making things up, right?

GEFFNER: No.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So, is this guy a hired gun who is willing to say anything if he gets paid for it, or does he have a valid point? We`re going to continue to debate it on the other side. More testimony.

And with me tonight, a very dear friend of the victim, Travis Alexander, who said he saw Jodi Arias do something very strange at a wedding once. And it involved an ear. Stay right there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARIAS: Everything about the details of your body is so hot. Just want to (EXPLETIVE DELETED). Just want to (UNINTELLIGIBLE). How hot you are, like a prototype of sluttiness.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (via phone): Has he been threatened by anyone recently?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He has. He has an ex-girlfriend that`s been bothering him, following him and slashing tires and things like that .

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you know if he`s ever reported it to the police?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Her name is Jodi.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hello. I am back here in Phoenix, Arizona. I`m here with Sean Alexander, a dear friend of the victim, Travis Alexander.

And we are going to go back into court now for more of this extraordinary final cross-examination. This is the last time we`re going to be able to hear prosecutor Juan Martinez cross-examine in this case, and it`s a doozy. Let`s go back into court.

MARTINEZ: Well, isn`t it indicated here that, with regard to you, you submitted an affidavit and you talked about things that had happened five years prior to the events in question, right?

GEFFNER: That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: And you didn`t review any court records or transcripts of the trial testimony, and yet you still admitted the affidavit, right?

GEFFNER: That is correct.

MARTINEZ: And what you did rely on, is you relied on some records from Pennsylvania, and those were from 1976, weren`t they?

GEFFNER: I believe that`s correct.

MARTINEZ: And in fact, the conduct that you were looking at, you submitted this in 1992, right?

GEFFNER: That part, I don`t remember. I`d have to look. If it says that. I just don`t remember.

MARTINEZ: And in fact, this was based on hearsay that was provided by other people, right?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: You had the same sort of experience in Hawaii, didn`t you?

GEFFNER: Well, that`s -- you`re going to have to be more specific about the same sort of experience. No, they did not say I wasn`t credible.

MARTINEZ: Well, the court in Hawaii excluded your testimony, didn`t it, in the case involving Hawaii vs. French, didn`t they?

GEFFNER: They excluded one small part of the testimony, not the rest.

MARTINEZ: So they did exclude part of your testimony, didn`t they?

GEFFNER: Yes, they did.

MARTINEZ: And so you indicated that, well, when you came in here that you have worked, you don`t know -- you don`t know -- haven`t ever worked with the defendant in this case, right?

GEFFNER: Correct.

MARTINEZ: You indicated that you haven`t worked with the prosecution, right?

GEFFNER: Correct.

MARTINEZ: But you do know Alyce LaViolette, right?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And in fact, you have been the editor of one of her publications, right?

GEFFNER: The book I mentioned, yes.

MARTINEZ: And so you do have some association with her, you do talk to her, correct?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: You have talked to her in the past, right?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And in fact, you`re colleagues, correct?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And one of the things you also indicated in this case is that you`re doing this out of the goodness of your heart, this particular case, right?

GEFFNER: No, I never used such terms.

MARTINEZ: Well, you said that, with regard to this case, the only amounts that you`re getting paid are your salary, right?

GEFFNER: That is correct.

MARTINEZ: You`re not getting any more money out of this case other than the payments that you get as part of your salary, right?

GEFFNER: That is correct.

MARTINEZ: That nobody is paying you any money for this. Right?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: Even though you`re not getting any money for this particular case, sir, you`re still the same individual who will go to court, if you believe in something, and make things up, right?

WILLMOTT: Objection. Argumentative.

STEPHENS: The jury will disregard.

MARTINEZ: Well, sir, even without getting paid, you will come into cases like this, right?

GEFFNER: When asked, yes.

MARTINEZ: And in fact, in this particular case, you told me that you were contacted last week sometime, right, about testifying in this case, right?

GEFFNER: Well, that`s partially what I said. I was contacted long before. I didn`t know until a week, a week and a half ago that I was actually going to be testifying.

MARTINEZ: You were contacted in this case with regard to an issue involving this case in January of last year, is that when you were contacted?

GEFFNER: No, November.

MARTINEZ: Of last year?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And then, after that, whatever issue that was, that issue was dealt with, correct?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And in terms of coming in here and testifying about and criticizing Janeen DeMarte`s work, you were contacted less than a week ago?

GEFFNER: No, sir.

MARTINEZ: Was it two weeks ago?

GEFFNER: Unless you want to keep guessing, I can just tell you.

MARTINEZ: Well, sir, didn`t you and I have an interview?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And didn`t you -- we had that on Monday, didn`t we?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: Right? And at that time I asked you when was it you had been contacted about coming in here and testifying. Do you remember me asking you that?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And you told me it was less than a week before...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, wow. Did you just catch that? Dr. Geffner sasses the prosecutor, saying, "Unless you want to just keep guessing." Shades of Alyce LaViolette. Remember when she said, "Oh, I would give you a time-out"? Wow. They are very sassy, some of these defense witnesses.

This is the last defense witness. It sounds like a movie, doesn`t it? But it`s all too real.

We`re going to take a short break. Back with more testimony and a shocking story involving Travis and Jodi on the other side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTINEZ: You were upset with the prosecution because they weren`t calling you, right?

GEFFNER: No.

MARTINEZ: Isn`t your reputation sir, that you want to make yourself the center of attention?

GEFFNER: Where do you get that from?

MARTINEZ: I`m asking you a question, sir. You don`t get to ask me questions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALEXANDER (via phone): Oh, I love it, the details. (EXPLETIVE DELETED)

ARIAS(via phone): Really?

ALEXANDER: Yes.

ARIAS: I like the same because I always think you make me feel like...

ALEXANDER: It makes you like a super woman.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Right now, on the stand, the very last defense witness, it`s believed. And he has said some very controversial and shocking things.

Travis Alexander was shot in the face, above the eyebrow, and he`s saying, "Oh, that`s not incapacitating. I`ve seen many studies where people can walk around. They`re not incapacitated after being shot in the face." Really?

Well, the prosecutor is coming back with, "Hey, what are you being paid? Have you been discredited before?"

So let`s go into the courtroom as prosecutor Juan Martinez grills him. And he apparently claims, "Oh, I`m only being paid my regular salary, nothing extra." Let`s listen.

MARTINEZ: At that time, I asked you when was it that you were contacted about coming in here to testify. Do you remember me asking you that?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And you told me it was less than a week before that. Do you remember telling me this?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir. Not less. I said about a week ago.

MARTINEZ: So, if Monday is about a week away, and now here we are, Wednesday, that`s less than two weeks away that you were contacted about testifying here, right?

GEFFNER: You asked two different questions.

MARTINEZ: No, I`m asking, sir, isn`t it true that you were contacted and started reviewing the documentation less than two weeks ago?

GEFFNER: No, that is not correct.

MARTINEZ: So you started reviewing then -- when you told me that, you were in error when we had that interview, right?

GEFFNER: No, you asked a different question.

MARTINEZ: Sir, and with regard to reviewing these materials for the critique of Janeen DeMarte`s work here...

GEFFNER: Yes.

MARTINEZ: ... you started that, according to you, less than two weeks ago, right?

GEFFNER: No, sir.

MARTINEZ: So you knew you were going to testify in this case previous to two weeks from now?

GEFFNER: No, sir.

MARTINEZ: And so one of the things that we talked about during that interview was this floating profile, didn`t we?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And one of the things that you regaled us with on direct examination is that you had many students that you have that are part of this editorial board (ph), right?

GEFFNER: Not many. We have four.

MARTINEZ: Right. And these individuals, there are articles that are submitted based on research, right?

GEFFNER: Among other things.

MARTINEZ: Sure. And one of the things that you told us, it`s blind both ways, right?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And which indicates that, according to what you`re telling us, at the place that you`re at, you`re very familiar, if you will, with the, I guess, the state of research as it involves things relating to psychology, right?

GEFFNER: That`s really broad-based. I wouldn`t claim to know everything about psychology and all of the research being published. That`s too broad.

MARTINEZ: OK. How about the floating profile? You did talk about that, right?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: You did talk about the individual named Gatschell (ph) who came up with it, right?

GEFFNER: I don`t know if he came up with it, but he wrote about it.

MARTINEZ: Well, and you -- that`s the person that you referenced for the jury previously, right?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And you`re the same person that indicated that, well, after a time, Dr. Gatschell (ph) repudiated that floating profile analysis or statement that he had made, right?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And when did he do that?

GEFFNER: I believe the publication was around 2008.

MARTINEZ: Actually, isn`t it true, sir, that there`s a publication from 2008 where Dr. Gatschell (ph) indicated just the opposite? Are you familiar with that?

GEFFNER: You`d have to refresh my memory unless he wrote two different publications in the same year.

MARTINEZ: Well, are you familiar with something called the "Rehabilitation Psychology Journal"?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And are you familiar with one that came out in 2008 which talked about this particular issue?

GEFFNER: I thought that was the one I was actually referring to unless there`s two different ones.

MARTINEZ: Are you familiar with somebody named Robbie Haggard?

GEFFNER: Not personally. I just never...

MARTINEZ: Do you know somebody named -- by the name of Anna Stohl (ph)? You know that?

GEFFNER: I don`t know that -- I don`t know the person, no. I just know that that`s the co-author.

MARTINEZ: And with regard to this issue about the floating profile, isn`t it true that he wrote in this article that individuals involved in this or the issue of this floating profile frequently are identified as having an access 2 personality disorder, yes or no?

GEFFNER: I`d have to look at that particular statement. I don`t know.

MARTINEZ: Well, didn`t you do your research before you came in here?

WILLMOTT: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

STEPHENS: Overruled.

GEFFNER: Did I do my research on Dr. Gatschell (ph)?

MARTINEZ: Yes.

GEFFNER: I didn`t research him. No, sir.

MARTINEZ: Well, you didn`t research this floating profile that you were talking to us about?

GEFFNER: Yes, we did look at the floating profile research.

MARTINEZ: What articles did you look at?

WILLMOTT: Can we ask that at this particular time the prosecutor won`t interrupt his answers to get a clear answer?

STEPHENS: Counsel, approach.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And this is classic angry Juan Martinez. And I`ve got to say, first of all, I was outside at the beginning of the show. I almost fainted because it is so hot here in Phoenix. So I came into the shade. I`m here with Sean Alexander, a good friend of victim Travis Alexander. The courthouse is right behind me. And I was inside court.

And it`s interesting, because when the prosecutor is loud inside court, it doesn`t sound as angry as it does on television. It`s ironic. Maybe because you`re watching it from far away, whereas here, we get to see him up close.

A short break, and then we`re going to come back with more of this extraordinary testimony. And does Sean have a story for you, oh, yes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The fact that she`s claiming self-defense, prove it. There`s not -- the evidence does not exist.

We hung around each other all the time. We saw each other all the time. We were at different events all the time. His roommates never saw anything with any evidence whatsoever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARIAS: He makes me sad and miserable, and he makes me feel uplifted and beautiful.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know what, have you ever thought of yourself as being bipolar?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This person is having some major issues with the way they feel about themselves, view themselves, identity issues, self confidence are all being impacted by whatever these traumas are.

ARIAS: You are a sociopath.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It really was an obsession type of a thing. And the way he described it that she was really stalking him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They`re not going to be controlling. They`re going to be the opposite. They`re going to be more submissive if they`ve been traumatized in an abusive relationship.

ARIAS: I didn`t feel very good. I kind of felt like a used piece of toilet paper.

That is so debasing. I like it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Welcome back. Jane Velez-Mitchell here live in Phoenix, Arizona. The courthouse right behind me. I`m here for the duration until judgment day, until we find out what happens, what the jury decides.

And with me -- Shaun Alexander, a dear friend of the victim, Travis Alexander. You were roommates. You had worked at Prepaid Legal. You no longer do. But you then worked at Prepaid Legal and you met Jodi and Travis at a wedding. Tell us about the strange thing that happened.

SHAUN ALEXANDER, FRIEND OF TRAVIS ALEXANDER: So, I met Jodi at a wedding. We were in an LDS church. And I was talking to Travis and she came up behind him while we were talking and just started sucking on his ear, kissing his neck and hanging all over him. It was like dude, what the heck.

I said Travis you got a sloth on your neck. He didn`t really like that, but it was pretty funny, so. Anyways, and he started laughing and my wife`s name is Jodi and my last name Alexander. Her name is spelt the same way. So he goes, jokingly he goes, "Hey, if we get married our wives will have the same name". I go, "They might have the same name, but they won`t have the same character."

And that was the last words I ever actually said to Travis.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow. Now, what was -- I mean who does that at a wedding in an LDS church? That`s the crucial -- the inappropriateness.

ALEXANDER: Yes, it was -- it was really, really awkward, you know. There`s really no other way to put it. We were just talking and all of a sudden she`s just hanging all over him. It was so inappropriate, you can`t even put it into words. It was just bizarre.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Sexually inappropriate because that -- they are trying to figure out and they`re debating and arguing over what is wrong with her? What does she have? Is she a cold-blooded killer with borderline personality disorder? That`s what the prosecution says. And the defense says she`s a battered woman who suffers from PTSD. What do you think?

ALEXANDER: Not a chance. There`s no way. Travis is nice. There`s no way that he`d be anything like that. Not that type of guy on any level. But the borderline personality disorder fits perfectly. It`s honestly -- how many times she changed who she was throughout the relationship, it fits. It`s very simple.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Thank you.

And stay right there. We`ll hear from you but now back into court. This extraordinary cross-examination by prosecutor, Juan Martinez -- watch it. It`s the last time we`re going to see him in action in this case in a cross examination, we believe.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: I know you are looking at something.

ROBERT GEFFNER, DEFENSE WITNESS: I was just looking for that same --

MARTINEZ: What articles did you review?

GEFFNER: One of those was the one you just mentioned.

MARTINEZ: Do you have it there?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: Why don`t you take it out so we can mark it as an exhibit?

GEFFNER: I believe this is the one you are referring to.

MARTINEZ: Go ahead and take a look at page 472, the last column.

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: It`s the second to last paragraph.

GEFFNER: You said second to last paragraph?

MARTINEZ: Second to last paragraph; the one that starts "The fourth profile, analyzed by Gatchell (ph) and colleagues".

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: It does say that in that particular portion that this profile is considered significant for psychological distress and turmoil. Individuals who respond in such a fashion, and it`s talking about the floating profile, are frequently identified as having an access 2 personality disorder most often the DSM for TR Cluster B Category of borderline personality disorder, correct? Isn`t that what it`s saying?

GEFFNER: Yes.

MARTINEZ: And that goes against what you just told us?

GEFFNER: No because you didn`t continue reading.

MARTINEZ: It does say that, "In Colleagues 2006 relabeled this profile as a disability profile", right?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: Just because they labeled it a disability profile doesn`t mean that these people don`t fit the borderline personality disorder. That`s what that is saying, isn`t it?

GEFFNER: I wouldn`t say that is what it is saying either way. It says what it just said, what you just read, which is that particular profile has been relabeled and they are now focusing on another, a different thing. That`s what this says.

MARTINEZ: That`s what it`s saying that it`s been relabeled. It doesn`t say that the diagnosis has changed, does it? Read it again. It doesn`t say the diagnosis has changed.

GEFFNER: No, it does not specifically state that. That is correct.

MARTINEZ: When you say specifically, it looks like you are leaving room. Take a look at that paragraph, again. And that paragraph does not say that just because this has been relabeled, that doesn`t mean that they don`t have borderline personality disorder, right?

GEFFNER: It does not state that but because --

MARTINEZ: Thank you. Sir, one of the other things you talked to us about was the MMPI 2. Do you remember talking to us about that?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And this is exhibit number 631. If I could have that exhibit back?

GEFFNER: Oh, this one? Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: What do you have there?

GEFFNER: I thought you were asking about this.

MARTINEZ: I`ll take that.

Now, one of the things that I understood you was that --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. This is such extraordinary testimony. And I have to tell you I was in the courtroom, jurors are watching everything. They are listening and they have been seen writing down some questions. Because I`m with all the reporters and they go look there`s a question, there`s a question. We are going to get questions as well.

Stay right there. More testimony on the other side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARIAS: We are creative. Seriously, they are writing all about this stuff. It`s for like these lonely women. You and I can just become millionaires.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: A riveting cross-examination under way right now -- prosecutor Juan Martinez grilling this final defense witness. Let`s go back into court.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTINEZ: Now, one of the things that I understood you was that in looking at this, you said that, with regard to Janeen Demarte`s approach, that with regard to her approach, this profile that you have here, to you, that`s more indicative, if you will, of some sort of traumatic event, right?

GEFFNER: No, sir, I did not --

JENNIFER WILLMOTT, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: May we have the rest of the profile, this is just the graphics? Can we have the whole picture on the screen, please?

MARTINEZ: I don`t need it for my cross.

SHERRY STEPHENS, PRESIDING JUDGE: All right. Overruled.

MARTINEZ: Take a look at that. Do you remember talking to us about that?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: Do you remember telling us that you looked at that and you reached certain conclusions and you said that well, to you was not indicative of borderline personality disorder, right?

GEFFNER: That is correct.

MARTINEZ: Well, if we take a look at this --

GEFFNER: Could you tell me what this is?

MARTINEZ: I`ll get to it in a minute, ok.

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: If we look down here, this is the so-called S-scale, right?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: I`ll bring it into focus for you. That`s elevated, right?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And by elevated it`s above 65, right?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And the term that you used is clinical, right?

GEFFNER: Yes.

MARTINEZ: And that means it`s meaningful and it`s something we should look at, right?

GEFFNER: Yes.

MARTINEZ: The other thing that we have here is we have, for example, this is one, putting a number by it, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. You see that? That would be fair to say, right?

GEFFNER: Yes sir. Yes.

MARTINEZ: And you said that with regard to this profile, this is not indicative of borderline personality disorder, correct?

GEFFNER: Correct.

MARTINEZ: Are you familiar with an article known as "Impact of simulating borderline personality disorder MMPI 2, a cost-benefit model employing face rates." Are you familiar with that?

GEFFNER: Not off the top of my head, no.

MARTINEZ: Actually, don`t they indicate --

WILLMOTT: Objection, Judge. He said he`s not familiar.

STEPHENS: Sustained.

MARTINEZ: Let`s take a look at it, then.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Clinical psychologist Jeff Gardere, this witness is saying that the prosecution`s clinical psychologist misdiagnosed Jodi Arias when she concluded that Jodi Arias is a cold-blooded killer with borderline personal disorder. What say you?

JEFF GARDERE, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: I think she looks more like the borderline personality. And you have to know a borderline personality is someone who is impulsive, promiscuous, intense interpersonal relationships, unstable, hostile, love and hate. And that`s everything that we have seen.

If she were PTSD, then their point is that she was traumatized by Travis Alexander. It looks borderline. I have seen that MMPI, too many elevated scales.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Excellent analysis. We are going back in the courtroom.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTINEZ: Question is, isn`t it true that this profile is consistent with borderline personality? By this profile, I`m talking about exhibit number 631. Yes or no?

GEFFNER: No. That`s not the way it would be used.

MARTINEZ: Take a look at exhibit 650 and start with the paragraph that reads "Unfortunately" -- take a look at that.

GEFFNER: Did you want me to read the entire page?

MARTINEZ: I want you to read that paragraph. Once you have read that paragraph, let me know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`ve got to say, to see Jodi Arias in the courtroom is very bizarre -- just very strange dynamic in there.

We are going to take a short break. Back with more of this very, very, very crucial testimony on the other side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARIAS: They said the only thing I would be spitting out is the fact that you were a pedophile in the past and something like that. At the time I characterized it as child pornography. But I realized it wasn`t child, it was just a picture of a young boy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLMOTT: On that horrible day Jodi believed that Travis was going to kill her. He threatened to kill her and given her experience with him, she had no reason to not believe him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Prosecutor Martinez -- his mission: to pulverize and destroy this final defense psychologist. Let`s go back into court.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTINEZ: May I have it back, please?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: Doesn`t that indicate that this profile is consistent with borderline personality disorder?

GEFFNER: Again, just to be clear you are talking about the one we have on the screen?

MARTINEZ: Right.

GEFFNER: No it actually does not.

MARTINEZ: What do you think it says, sir?

GEFFNER: It says for those who have S scales above 96 and have either P or B above 80 or 90 and elevated scales in the other regions are what they are referring to which doesn`t apply to this.

MARTINEZ: Are you saying that this individual doesn`t have an elevated S scale?

GEFFNER: No. I`m sorry, I didn`t mean to interrupt.

MARTINEZ: It does, doesn`t it?

GEFFNER: It does have an elevated S scale but not at the level you just had me read.

MARTINEZ: And with regard to this particular profile, one of the things that you have to worry about is malingering, correct?

GEFFNER: Yes. That`s correct.

MARTINEZ: And malingering involves secondary gain.

GEFFNER: It can.

MARTINEZ: And what is your definition of secondary gain?

GEFFNER: Somebody --

(inaudible)

STEPHENS: Overruled.

GEFFNER: I`m sorry, I didn`t hear.

Secondary gain usually means that somebody is doing something because there is some benefit to them. It could be monetary. It could be social. It could be whatever. It means they have something to gain by how they end up responding.

MARTINEZ: And a person who is in jail charged with a very serious crime has something to gain, don`t they?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: And in this particular case the something to gain can be this over-reporting that we have here on the right side, correct?

GEFFNER: It could be.

MARTINEZ: In other words, what this is indicating is that this person is exhibiting too many symptoms, right? That is one of the dangers of this, right?

GEFFNER: You just said dangers of --

MARTINEZ: One of the things that it indicates here is that these are too many -- this person is exhibiting too many symptoms such that malingering is something to consider, right?

GEFFNER: It is partially right. Yes, it`s malingering is something to consider. The word "too many" is not appropriate except they are exhibiting many symptoms and malingering then should be considered.

MARTINEZ: All right. How many symptoms are we talking about here that are over the threshold? HS is what?

GEFFNER: Hypochondriasis.

MARTINEZ: That`s not over the threshold, correct.

GEFFNER: Correct.

MARTINEZ: D is what?

GEFFNER: Depression.

MARTINEZ: That is over the threshold, right?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: HY is what?

GEFFNER: Hysteria.

MARTINEZ: Is that over the threshold?

GEFFNER: Yes, sir.

MARTINEZ: How about what`s PD?

GEFFNER: It stands for psychopathic --

MARTINEZ: You keep reading something -- aren`t you an expert in this thing?

GEFFNER: I was just following to make sure -- I could not see.

MARTINEZ: Why don`t you look at the screen if you don`t mind?

GEFFNER: I can`t read the screen, you have --

MARTINEZ: Well then, I`ll bring it up --

GEFFNER: If you can put it down then I can see which scales you are referring to.

MARTINEZ: I`m asking you a question, sir.

GEFFNER: Ok.

MARTINEZ: PD, what does PD stand for?

WILLMOTT: Judge, can we approach?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. There you say another side bar. Boy, is this feisty? Is Jodi malingering? In other words, lying?

A short break. We`ll be back with more on the other side. Stay right there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Let`s go right back into court.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTINEZ: Sir, what does PD stand for?

GEFFNER: The technical term is psychopathic deviant.

MARTINEZ: And what does that mean?

GEFFNER: What does that mean or what does that scale mean?

MARTINEZ: What does it mean?

GEFFNER: The scale by itself is usually referring to impulsivity or acting impulsively -- could be rebellion against authority figures, it could have to do with antisocial behaviors. All those things would form that scale.

MARTINEZ: What does MF stand for?

GEFFNER: It generally stands for masculinity and femininity.

MARTINEZ: And PA, what does that stand for?

GEFFNER: Paranoia.

MARTINEZ: PT, what is that?

GEFFNER: Psycho-estimia --

MARTINEZ: And what is that?

GEFFNER: It`s usually an oversensitivity, emotional reaction, those types of things -- sensitive to criticism. All those would go into that scale.

MARTINEZ: And SC, what does that stand for?

GEFFNER: Officially schizophrenia.

MARTINEZ: I`m sorry.

GEFFNER: Schizophrenia, especially.

MARTINEZ: And what is schizophrenia?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. And I am going to continue my wonderful conversation with Shaun Alexander, a dear good friend of the victim Travis Alexander online. Go to hlntv.com/jane for more of our talk.

And I am here for the duration in Phoenix, Arizona coming to you every night live, going into the courtroom and getting all the information, getting all guests. So keep it right here. We are going to bring you everything you need to know.

"NANCY GRACE" is up next.

END