Return to Transcripts main page


Jodi Arias Case Goes to the Jury

Aired May 3, 2013 - 19:00   ET


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST, JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane-Velez Mitchell live outside the Maricopa County courthouse here in Phoenix, Arizona, and the crowds are gathering as word has spread that the jury deliberations have begun. This is a case that has attracted not only national but global attention.

Take a look at the media gathered here, so many people wanting to know what is this jury going to decide? They are deliberating right now. We, today, heard the defense closing argument and then the prosecution`s rebuttal closing argument. But the defense case was all about one big theme, sex, lives, love, dirty little secrets. Check it out.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She didn`t say, dear diary, Travis ejaculated on my face today.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What happened in those three minutes? Either she was there to kill him or she wasn`t.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The whore, slut. Premeditated murder, that`s the ultimate trim.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was a better alternative to his anger, his wrath, his fist. Nine out of ten, I don`t like Jodi Arias.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s so scared of her he`s taking naked pictures of her in his bed. Travis choked, whore, slut, (bleep). She always loved this guy and there`s no evidence to the contrary.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: We are monitoring the front door, because family members and others connected to this case could be coming out this door any moment.

But first, Beth Karas, In session correspondent, who probably knows more about this case than anybody except the prosecutor, has just left court. Tell us, give us the breakdown how long each man did each closing argument.

BETH KARAS, CORRESPONDENT, IN SESSION: Well, first of all right, each spoke for three hours and 20 minutes. But then Martinez had another hour in rebuttal. So, he had a little bit more than (INAUDIBLE). But, I just want to tell you, I left the courtroom a few minutes ago and the judge had Jodi Arias and the attorneys up at the bench. Not sure what`s going on. The jury has been deliberating for about 20 minutes. They were told to pick their foreperson and set their schedule. But, they probably won`t deliberate more than a half hour today. It will be a regular schedule at least today.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Are you allowed to tell us the three who were removed?

KARAS: Yes. Well, the jury panel is now eight men and three women. All the alternates come from the back row, two women and a man. The man who was wearing headsets because he had a hearing impairment, he`s an alternate. But they`re not excused and they are going to be in the courthouse during deliberations because if it is first degree murder, they come back and sit on the next phase.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, you said the key word, first degree murder. That is what the battle is over. Anything less than murder one would be considered a victory for the defense in this case and that`s why prosecutor Juan Martinez in his re-battle hammered home premeditation. Two ways to premeditation. You can even discard all the planning and plotting he says she did with the gas cans and hair and he can still get premeditation within the three stages of the killing, the 29 stabs, the slit throat and the gun. And on the other side of that sound bite, we have a very special guest, a friend of Travis Alexander`s. Check this out.


JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: This particular case, there are two types of premeditation. The one where she thought about it since May, the end of May 2008, and she made the preparations. And the other premeditation when she was at the house. He was killed in three different ways. The stab wound to the heart would have killed him. The obviously slitting of the throat would have killed him. And the shot to the face would have killed him. That, all of it, did not happen in one instance. It took a period of time.

Time needed for reflection is not necessarily prolonged. And the space and time between the intent or knowledge to kill and the act of killing may be very short. It could be seconds. It could be four, five, six seconds. In this case, there was more than that.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: I am here with a dear friend of the victim, Travis Alexander.

Clancy Talbot, you were there in the courtroom. During the most crucial day except for judgment day which is approaching now, take us into that courtroom. So many people care about Travis Alexander. They care about the Alexander family. What was it like for you with the Alexander family in there?

CLANCY TALBOT, FRIEND OF TRAVIS ALEXANDER: It was really hard, especially at the end, because it`s four months of our life straight and we`ve been waiting since 2008. And it`s finally to the point where it`s their decision. And it`s really emotional. And I know they are, you know, they are praying right now and we ask that everybody will pray and it`s hard.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: At that moment, where there`s a lack of power, now there`s nothing that anyone can do. It`s up to the jury. Everyone is powerless. What does that feel like? Does that feel a little helpless?

TALBOT: I think there`s so many emotions. I think there`s, you know, it`s relief. It`s heartache. It`s, you know, scary. It`s just so many mixed emotions because we finally got on the this point that yes, it`s out of everyone`s hands and it`s with the jury. So, it`s just -- it is everything mixed together.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You`re crying. I was sitting behind someone who was sobbing during the portions of the defense closing where they played the sex tape, which was very assaulting. I heard it many times but when you hear it in court. When you hear it in court, there`s something very assault about hearing that.

And let`s listen to the defense attorney in his closing argument, Kirk Nurmi, argue that Jodi Arias just snapped. That`s what he said. And then we are going to hear from Clancy about that.


KIRK NURMI, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Couldn`t it also be that after everything, everything they went through in that relationship, that she threw him down again, that she did grab for the gun to defend herself, that after that, she simply snapped. She may not know it, but she may very well have snapped. If Miss Arias is guilty of any crime at all, it is the crime of manslaughter and nothing more.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, when you were in that courtroom and you heard the defense attorney say, well, Jodi Arias just snapped and she was provoked and all after the humiliation and the sex tape, what ran through your heart and what do you think the Alexander family felt about that closing which is another blame the victim strategy in essence.

TALBOT: That`s exactly what she`s doing and done the whole time is, you know, it is nothing is Jodi`s fault as Mr. Martinez says. It`s nothing is ever her fault. She`s got to blame somebody for everything, so. And the defense is, you know, their argument is pick a, b or c. If a doesn`t work, pick b or c. And it is like I thought that when you had a self- defense claim, I did this in self-defense. It is not halfway through the trial change it to or maybe it was the heat of passion, maybe now she snapped. So, it`s frustrating. But I`m -- we are just all praying the jury knows, sees right through that.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I think that the sex tape, when the family is hearing that, what runs through them? Because I want to play that sex tape and then talk to you and also debate it with our expert panel. We have a top line legal panel on standby. They are ready to debate it. And by the way, you are probably seeing and you should be seeing a deliberations clock that we are going to run as we are here for the duration.

Let`s listen to the sex tape and then we`re going to debate that.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The way you moan, it sounds like you are this 12- year-old girl having her first orgasm. It`s hot.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sounds like what?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I (bleep) everyday, sometimes, two, three times a day.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There have been many times when you have been like miserable and I have like -- rape you.

You cannot say I don`t work that booty.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, let`s debate it with our expert panel.

Wendy Murphy for the prosecution, I want to start with you. Was the defense closing legitimate or dirty pool?

WENDY WALSH, HUMAN BEHAVIOR SPECIALIST: You know, I can`t choose between those two, because I would say that there were times when Nurmi seemed OK. But most of the time I thought he seemed a little dull, almost unconnected to what he was trying to do. I don`t think he believes anything he`s saying and that came across.

Look, obviously his theme was to distract, talk about sex, talk about virtually anything except the really important evidence. I kind of felt like he was in a fog about the fog, because, you know, he never touched on that at all. He didn`t spend any time explaining whether it was even remotely possible that she was in a fog during all the stabbings, 27 stabbings that she has no memory, rather convenient. He knows the jury doesn`t believe it, so he really didn`t talk about it much at all. I don`t think he has confidence in his own client`s case.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Gomez for the defense.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let`s make this clear, this is not an attack on Travis. These are the facts about Travis. This is his voice on the tape. He is admitting he loves the sound of a horny little 12-year-old girl. This are signs of pedophilia, and Nurmi was correct. Does he know? Perhaps he does know what it sounds like, but this is not what a man tells a woman when she`s having an orgasm. Any woman that hears something like that, it`s time to go.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me say this. I want to bring in Clancy, Travis Alexander`s friend. Because the sex tape, one of the things we want to point out is that nobody knows what happened before she pressed play. Nobody knows her setup and why she recorded this. The prosecution believes she recorded it, surreptitiously, and you had an experience with Jodi Arias involving jealousy. You were a friend of Travis Alexander. You were not romantically involve and yet, tell us about that, to give us insight and to put the sex tape in context.

TALBOT: Well, Jodi was jealous of all of Travis` friends. It didn`t matter whether they are male or female. But obviously she was more jealous of female friends. So Travis and I were standing in the lobby of a hotel after a business event. There was probably 20, 30 people there. And he had his arm locked in my arm and we were laughing, and normal Travis joking around, singing songs. And apparently she took that as something that was inappropriate. And the next day she actually got me in the restroom by myself, confronted me and told me that her and Travis were an item and wanted me to know that, wanted me to know that I`m not mad at you, I`m mad at him. She was shaking and just kind of crazy. And my friend came in after a few minutes and said what are you doing because I have been there for so long and she stepped sideways when my friend came in and I went out.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Did she scare you or not?

TALBOT: It was just uncomfortable. I mean, she already scared me before that.


TALBOT: Oh, yes. I got the creeps from her.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know what? We are going to take a break and we are going to hear the other scary story. And thank you for that because I think we have to get the insight on the person who pressed play on that recorder for the sex tape.

And we also have a special guest. I`m so delighted and excited that Nancy Grace is going to be joining us in just a little while. She`s inside the court. Undoubtedly talking to the principals in this case. She is going to make her way down and we are going to hear from her, her insight. Stay right there. More on the other side.


NURMI: Behind which many dirty little secrets were held. Somebody, somebody (INAUDIBLE) it was either going to be Jodi or Travis.




NURMI: If Jodi Arias were accused of the crime, I could not say she`s not guilty of that crime. But nowhere, nowhere in your jury instructions are you asked to convict Jodi Arias of lying. There is no verdict form that you will have to say, did -- is Jodi Arias guilty of the crime of lying or not? Well, of course she is. But there`s no verdict form to that.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: The family of Travis Alexander just walked by here, and obviously this is a very, very difficult, difficult day for them, as their dear friend Clancy just told us, they feel kind of helpless. They have done everything they can and now they are powerless and all they can do is pray.

And other principals, attorneys, various people are going to be coming out of here. You see the national, international media lined up here.

And I want to talk to Susan Constantine, jury consultant, about what the jury might be doing right now. They have just gotten the case, 38 minutes in. We have got a countdown clock running and we will keep up rise. But, what do they do first when they get back in that room?

SUSAN CONSTANTINE, BODY LANGUAGE EXPERT: Well, the first thing that they do is they have to decide who is going to be the foreperson. So that`s going to be decided amongst them. From that point on, they are going to have their juror form there. They may even take a first ballot vote. We don`t know. Because once they are behind closed doors, they get to set the rules, Jane. So there`s not a format they have to go by.

So, at this point in time, basically they are going to get the foreperson, get the verdict form out, talk about it, and then they may even throw in a first ballot, some of them may even throw a name into a little fish bowl. They may open up and talk about the case. We don`t know. Everyone does something different. But, what we do know, they have to pick a foreperson today, because I believe they are only going to be there for an hour, resume tomorrow morning again early in the morning to at least, hopefully, get to a verdict here.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, what we are doing is we are playing the highlights of both closing arguments today, because it was the defense closing argument and then the prosecution came back for the rebuttal. Prosecutor won that the last word. Listen to what he says about, well, stalking.


MARTINEZ: Mr. Alexander got tired of her, and he knew of the history, he knew of the stalking behavior that he had, and he was done with her. So he told her that, that he was done with her. He also indicated that he was extremely afraid because of her stalking behavior.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. The jury now deliberating. They`ve set their schedule.

Beth Karas, you`re getting all the information on your blackberry as we speak. What`s happening?

KARAS: Well, the information we just got out of the courtroom is they have set the schedule for 9:00 to 4:30. So that is noon to 7:30 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday. However, you know, maybe they will stay a few minutes later. They are suppose to pick their foreperson first and maybe they have a few -- maybe they want to take a ballot. They might take a vote and see how split they are. Sometimes jurors will do that. I mean, what if they are not split?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So, you know, this is so -- this is so fascinating to me, because a lot of times I look at the jury instructions and I`m like, you know, case after case, they seem very complicated. So, I would always say well, it`s got to take them at least six or seven or eight hours to get through the instructions.

KARAS: But, there are jurors who tell me that they will take an initial vote right away. And I mean, generally, it is not unanimous right away, but 0-- you know, Juan Martinez had a death penalty case once, not a woman, a man he tried where the jury deliberated for 15 minutes in the guilt phase. So, obviously, it was a rock solid case that went to trial because it was a death case, probably fighting for his life trying to avoid the death penalty. But, you know, it could be fairly quick. And again, this could take days.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, now we are going to go back to the defense closing. Remember, the bulk of the day was used up by the defense attorney Kirk Nurmi, trying to make his points against premeditation. Let`s listen to what he had to say and we are going to debate it and we are also going to go back to our special guest, Clancy, who has a shocking story about Jodi Arias.

Stay right there. Let`s listen.


NURMI: They`re in bed together sleeping. She`s got the gun, she`s got the knife. He`s asleep. What better opportunity would somebody need? You put the gun to his head and you do it. If that`s what you`re there to do, isn`t that what you do? No better timing than he is asleep. He is worn out. He is naked. And his back is to her. His eyes are right against the wall. He wouldn`t have seen it coming. Now, keep in mind, she had the gun, right? She could have just shot him right there if that was her plan.

But there was five minutes in time where he was making these poses. Wouldn`t this be the pinnacle moment, the gotcha moment? No. It wasn`t because she didn`t do it. She didn`t do it there.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Now, this was really, I think, the best point that the prosecution made. I did a little summary, survey of various people, including our own senior producer Selin Darkalstanian. There were a lot of people gave him poor marks in terms of energy and not very focused in a lot of points. But that point where he showed the photos of Travis Alexander with his face to the wall over approximately five minutes and said if she wanted to kill him, she could have did it then. What was the general consensus about that being perhaps the strongest point?

SELIN DARKALSTANIAN, SENIOR PRODUCER, JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL: That was definitely his strongest point because at most of the day he was all over the place. He didn`t go in a linear fashion. You didn`t know what he was going to say next. But he did show a series of three photos with Travis Alexander`s back to presumably Jodi Arias as she`s taking the photos and he was saying if she was planning killing him, well then, why wouldn`t he kill him not at this moment when he had her back to her for a few minutes? For it wasn`t just a second, it was for a few minutes. So that was definitely the strongest point, I think the consensus to the courtroom amongst the reporters was that was probably the strongest point he made today. The rest of it was all over the place.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. It seemed a little disjointed. Thank you for that, Selin Darkalstanian.

And by the way, you have done a wonderful job working your tail off covering this case.

And 45 minutes they have been deliberating. We are going to take a short break and we are back with Clancy, it`s 44 and want to get her myself. Forty-four minutes, we are back with Clancy, Travis` dear friend. And Nancy Grace is coming up in a second.

So, stay right there.


NURMI: She knew his secret. She knew of his interest, (INAUDIBLE), she knew his dirty little secret, and she was his dirty little secret, wasn`t she?




MARTINEZ: So you weren`t going to put up with that either, were you?


MARTINEZ: What it that we`re talking about here?

ARIAS: Which part put up with?

MARTINEZ: Were you going to put up with what we just talked about. Are you having problems understanding what`s going on?

ARIAS: Sometimes, because you go in circles.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, we are here outside the courthouse.

We just want to clarify. So, everybody is on the same page. Deliberations are going to happen during the week. They are not going to happen on the weekends, we are told, primarily for financial reasons. There`s a lot of security involved here, and they can`t give everybody overtime, so they`re going to deliberate during the week, Monday through Friday.

Now, I`m back with Clancy, a dear friend of Travis Alexander.

First of all, I want to get your reaction to this idea that of the most moment for the defense was when he showed pictures of Travis Alexander facing the wall and said this was her best opportunity to attack if she had wanted to at that time.

TALBOT: I don`t think so. I think she wanted to look him in the eye when she was doing it and that`s exactly what I think she did. I mean, she had several opportunities with his back turned, and when she showed that picture, it just made me and some of the family members cry, because that was minutes before she killed him and he had no idea what was coming, so.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I just wanted to give you an opportunity to clarify that and get your perspective. Because it`s true, we are playing all the arguments, the prosecution and the defense. And it`s very emotional. Many guys have strong feelings, a lot of passion here.

But -- here`s what I almost fell off my chair. I don`t know if this gasps were appeal, but I can tell you that there were gasps in the courthouse in the courtroom when Kirk Nurmi, the defense attorney said most of the days he doesn`t like Jodi Arias. Listen to this one.


NURMI: It`s not even about whether or not you like Jodi Arias. Nine days out of ten I don`t like Jodi Arias. But that doesn`t matter. You are like of her or not liking hers do not objectively assess the evidence. It`s about the evidence and what happened?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m here with a group of people who have gathered. They have been following this case very carefully.

Tiffany, we were talking about that moment where Kirk Nurmi, Jodi Arias` attorney implies he doesn`t care for her.

TIFFANY, COURTROOM AUDIENCE: Yes, nine days out of ten he doesn`t like her, I mean, that is his own client, what does that say for her and everything? You know, are they even allowed to do that or are they supposed to do that?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s interesting. I want to debate it with our legal panel.

Now, Brian Silber for the defense, I`m wondering if that`s a no-no for the defense attorney to cast aspersions on his own client in that kind of personal way.

BRIAN SILBER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER: The way I would describe it, Jane, is it`s a cardinal sin. You have to be a champion of your client. You`re not hired to go out there and tell people your personal opinions about the client. You are there to fight their cause and he should have never said it. It wasn`t necessary in this case.

But that being said, his overall point was correct. This is not a popularity contest, and it`s not about whether they like her or they dislike her. It`s about the evidence and the law. And I think in a lot of cases like these, the lawyers get an element of fatigue after trying a case for 55 days and sometimes they are prone to a faux pas and I think that`s exactly what happened in this case.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wendy Murphy, honestly though, I was in the courtroom at that moment and we were all kind of gasped like wow, that is such an odd thing for a defense attorney to say on such a crucial day like this, I don`t like her either.

MURPHY: Well, first of all, I think it was planned, because as we all saw --

SILBER: That`s ridiculous.

MURPHY: It looked very planned to me, number one. Number two, what the guy is doing is trying to get the jury to connect with him, I`m your buddy. You are like me. I`m like you. I don`t like her. You don`t like her. We are on the same team and I can still find doubt with regard to premeditation. So, we are kind of the same. That`s what was going on there.

Look. I thought it was an outrage, because it sounds so stupid. When you`re the lawyer, you`re supposed to be, you know, supportive, championing, as he just said. But when there`s strategic value when in bonding with the jury because you are desperate, that`s what you do. And that is like a reverse on a appeal of no way.

SILBER: But he`s not desperate. There is a lot of good questions to ask in this case. It`s not necessary to go there.

MURPHY: That`s wrong.

SILBER: For instance, a known racist or a Nazi or some --

MURPHY: She`s a known monster. She is a monster.

SILBER: Listen. Don`t call her a monster. Let`s talk about the evidence and the facts her.

MURPHY: Yes. The evidence shows she`s a slaughtering monster.

SILBER: This case is not about name calling. It`s about a man who was slaughtered and the evidence about this case and the law, and whether or not these jurors need to go for first degree --

MURPHY: That`s wrong.

SILBER: That`s wrong? It`s not about a man who was slaughtered? That`s outrageous.

MURPHY: It`s about a woman being perceived as a slaughtering monster and he has to deal with that as a lawyer. It is a problem in the room.

SILBER: This is a question of first and second degree murder or manslaughter.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`ve been deliberating about 51 minutes now. We are going to take a short break. We are going to hear more from Clancy, Travis` dear friend, about when she first met Jodi Arias and was a little, well, put off to put it mildly. And we are also going to hear from our own Nancy Grace on the other side of the break and get her analysis of what went on in court.

Stay right there.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He may get away from her all the way to the sink and may stumble his way down that hallway, but you know, I caught him.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You may fear by how your verdict will be received by those who loved Travis Alexander, by those who love Jodi Arias and by the world at large. Each and every one of are here because all the parties involved believe you are the type of people that will have the courage of your convictions to stand by your personal belief.

Against whatever pressures you may feel. Each one of you is entitled to deliver your verdict to this courtroom. You do not have to succumb to the pressure of a fellow jury who may not agree with you. You can have the courage of conviction to deliver your own verdict.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: You can see we are right outside the courthouse, the jury deliberating. You can see the deliberation clock there. We`re going to be coming up on an hour deliberations pretty soon. You can see more and more people gathering, as well as media from around the United States and the world.

And our own Nancy grace is here, and Nancy, we`re so delighted to have you on this show. It is an honor, as always. I want to ask you about this plea that the defense attorney made to the juries, almost trying to find one juror that might be the holdout and basically, you know, stand your ground.

NANCY GRACE, HOST OF HLN`S "NANCY GRACE": Absolutely, Jane. It`s the oldest trick in the book. I`ve heard it a million times from a million different defense lawyers trying to get just one juror to fight the rest of the jury during deliberations because if we can`t get a manslaughter, he`ll settle happily for a mistrial. He wants a hung jury. Another day of no verdict is another day of innocence under our constitution.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What did you make, Nancy? We just had a big debate over Kirk Nurmi, the defense attorney for Jodi Arias saying basically nine out of ten days I don`t like her either? Was that out of line or just strategy?

GRACE: I think it was strategy.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We can tell you that the jury is going home for the day. So I`m just going to interrupt for one second and say, ladies and gentlemen, the jury is going home for the day. They`re going to be back first thing Monday morning, because Nancy, this crowd as you saw, and they all want told say hi to you when you came out of the court, they`re very interested in being kept up to date. So I want to go to Beth Karas for one second. You have some new information.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, the jury is going home right now. They will be back at 9:00 on Monday morning, noon Eastern. Now did you want to ask about Nurmi?

GRACE: I was going to ask you about Nurmi, but I was going to ask, is there something new about Nurmi?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was whether or not at one point in the course of this case he wanted off the case and that is true. He left the public defender`s office when he had this case and he went into private practice. He said that he could not, as a court appointed attorney in private practice, afford to handle this case because of the county rate, the hourly rate was kind of low. So the judge ordered he be paid higher than the county rate. So he`s paid $225 an hour. It was an issue because of the financial hardship.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, that`s interesting. Back to you, Nancy. There was a lot of controversy of him saying nine out of ten days I don`t like Jodi Arias. We just got some background from Beth. Your thoughts on that, Nancy?

GRACE: If that was his strategy to impress upon the jury this is not a popularity contest or about whether they like or dislike Jodi Arias. They are to render a verdict that speaks to the truth. But I don`t think that strategy was misplaced.

For your own defense attorney to say I don`t like them 90 percent of the time. I detest them. I don`t think that was a good strategy. He`s supposed to be engendering empathy, if not sympathy for Jodi Arias. Not telling the jury he doesn`t like her either.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me say this. We have a very special guest with us, tonight, and her name is Clancy, kind of rhymes. Clancy, you were a dear friend of Travis Alexander. When you met Jodi because we`re talking even her own attorney doesn`t like her. There is something about her, and I heard several people say this. What was your reaction when you first met Jodi Arias?

CLANCY TALBOT, FRIEND OF TRAVIS ALEXANDER: The very first time I met her, she gave me a hug and I turned to one of my friends and I said, she gives me the creeps and she said, I know, me too. We tolerated her because she was Travis` girlfriend. Soon after that, we talked to Travis and tried to explain to him what we were feeling and seeing and it just kind of hurt his feelings.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Some folks are coming out. A lot of times there`s people coming out and we think that they`re significant but it`s the media. As per usual, it`s the media.

TALBOT: I also wanted to mention that for everyone that wants to donate to the family. They need our support now more than ever. So anyone that is interested in donating, it`s

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Thank you so very much for that. Now, we`re going to play one more clip of the closing arguments that we heard today and get more analysis from Nancy Grace. Let`s listen.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m asking you to return a verdict of first degree murder. Not only of premeditated murder, but also of felony murder, because in this case, Travis Victor Alexander was slaughtered by this woman. She slashed his throat. She stabbed him in the heart and shot him in the face and all of that thinking about it in advance. Thank you.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, we just had the public information officer leave. The prosecutor usually goes out the back way or another way.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Juan Martinez is not going out this door anymore after he got busted signing autographs.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That was really not fair. I actually talked to Marcia Clark about that, the famous prosecutor in the O.J. Simpson case. She said you`re really in a no-win situation. If you say no, sometimes when she said no to autographs, people got angry and chased her down the street. Sometimes people are in a no-win situation. They`re damned if they do, damned if they don`t. Nancy, you were in court for Prosecutor Juan`s final words. What did you make of it?

GRACE: Well, I noticed a completely different tactic, Jane and Beth. He had been extremely bombastic. He had been very forceful throughout this entire trial. But I noticed in his final closing argument, he was much more subdued, much more low key. He was going over the jury charges one last time, the law by which this jury is to judge the evidence.

He even had them up as a double whammy up on an overhead. You could look at the overhead and hear his words at the same time where he would go through the jury charges and where murder one applies to Jodi Arias. No single juror looked away from Prosecutor Juan Martinez as he gave his closing argument.

I did notice, and I was watching the jury and Arias, I did notice one of the younger males on the jury, on the front row was wearing a gray hoodie, was stretching and bending. He would occasionally look away as he was doing neck exercises from sitting for so long, but I didn`t see one juror look away from him.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Beth Karas, we want to know, the jury now we understand deliberated 55 minutes before going home for the weekend. What exactly would they have done during those 55 minutes? Give us a rundown.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The judge`s closing instructions to them were to first pick their jury foreperson. So they should have gone around the table and selected one of the eight men and four women to be their spokesperson. That`s the person who will sign the notes, deliver and sign the verdict and lead the deliberations.

Now they may have done an initial ballot and said let`s decide what exhibits we want to look at. Let`s get ready for Monday. So they may have just had a little discussion about generally the issues and where they stand, where they think the points of contention are.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`ll continue to play the most important moments from the closing today, and the rebuttal closing and continue to hear from Nancy Grace. And all the folks here gather in Phoenix, Arizona as we wait for judgment day. Stay right there.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: I know this is very difficult for you. Is there anything you would like to say about how your family has been impacted by this?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not at this time.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Thank you so much.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She may cry now. The jury instructions have told you that sympathy is not to be considered in this particular case. No doubt that she did it. no doubt that she did it. No doubt that he`s trying to get away from her.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: The whole question is, did he, did Kirk Nurmi say anything that might inspire at least one juror on that panel to say, I have reasonable doubt. Let`s debate it starting with former Prosecutor Wendy Murphy.

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: He made a couple of points that were interesting about things like, well, if she really were going to kill him, why didn`t she do this. For example, why didn`t she take the camera with her or shoot him in the head with the gun? I don`t know what the jury is likely to make of that.

See, the problem is, even though he was making tiny points every once in a while, it doesn`t ultimately explain the strength of the prosecution`s case or dent it in any significant way. I think the answer to the question, why didn`t she shoot him with the gun because clearly that was at least part of her plan, although she brought the knife also, but I don`t think she had the confidence.

She didn`t use guns a lot. I don`t think she had the confidence that she could hold down the safety and pull the thing all at the same time. The knife, you can`t miss fire with a knife, but I didn`t hear Martinez say that so I don`t know what the jury will think.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Evangeline Gomez, a reasonable doubt?

EVANGELINE GOMEZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Absolutely. He debunked the prosecution`s theory on premeditation, exactly. This is a covert mission? Everybody knew about it, look at her hair color. Why would she have driven around with an upside down license plate?

He also talked about the position he was killed. There is a lot of reasonable doubt here. A lot of the prosecution`s evidence when it comes to premeditation is circumstantial. What he told the jury was important. Don`t judge us on common sense when you walk into that jury room and you start deliberating.

BRIAN SILBER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Jane, Jane, here`s my issue with this case.


SILBER: This has been the problem that`s bothered me from day one. This crime scene does not say assassination. It doesn`t say someone went there with an intent to murder. It says that this was a person who snapped and exploded and that`s why we have 27, 29 stab wounds, a slitting of the throat, and a gunshot wound and a crime scene that says the body was moved.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s so silly.

SILBER: She could have shot him in the back of the head at any time while he was asleep, but that`s not what happened. If this jury, if they don`t vote for first degree murder, that`s what they`re going to hang their hat on and Nurmi brought that out when he discussed the photographs.

SUSAN CONSTANTINE, JURY CONSULTANT: That`s silly. How can you say that, 27 stab pounds and a gunshot and a slice to the throat? That is an execution. That`s the problem.

MURPHY: It`s not a pre-medicated crime scene. It`s chaotic.

CONSTANTINE: I don`t think that there`s anything that the defense said that cemented reasonable doubt. And not only that, his low confidence and what he was saying really didn`t give a lot of credibility to anything that he even said. So let`s talk about the tone he spoke it in. I don`t think that he was credible at all.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ladies and gentlemen --

SILBER: Who has sex all day before murdering them?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, I turned down all their mics. I think one of the most important points that the defense made, and there were moments where he was very up focused. But I think he did bring home a good point when he used some of the text messages to try to prove that --


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not a day has gone by that I haven`t dreamt about driving my -- long and hard into you, because you`re the ultimate slut in bed. How he wants to -- down her throat. He wants to -- in her face. And he says, you`ll like you`ve been raped, and you will enjoy every delightful moment of it. This is someone he`s supposedly afraid of.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, let`s go back to our very own Nancy Grace. We`re so delighted to have you join us on our show today, very exciting. Your analysis of the defense attorney`s argument that these texts show Jodi wasn`t really a stalker.

GRACE: Well, first of all, Jane, no offense to your panel of lawyers, because Wendy Murphy is the only one that made sense. There is no such thing as a snap defense. So we all know, all the lawyers on this panel know, that premeditation can be formed in an instant, in the blink of an eye.

In the time it takes you to raise a knife and bring it down, that`s all that is required under the law. When he goes on and on, God bless him, because what does he have to work with? Jodi Arias, but when he goes on and on with obviously she was not trying to cover up her activities, this was not a covert plan, because she made this and that mistake.

Even the best criminals made mistakes. Just because Jodi Arias made a couple of mistakes trying to hide her trail on her way to commit murder, that doesn`t convince me she`s innocent. It means she made a couple of mistakes and you can`t have your cake and eat it too. She can`t have that great IQ, comparing herself to Einstein and then tell me she`s stupid in closing arguments. No, no, no, no.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You make an excellent point, Nancy. And Clancy -- again, it rhymes. I have to mention that. Clancy, you have a story you just told me. It`s a very sad story about a crucial moment in this entire tragic ordeal.

TALBOT: Yes, Jodi was supposed to be in Utah on Wednesday, the 4th to meet another one of my friends, Ryan Burns. And she didn`t show up. Everyone was calling and texting. About 11:30 when we were at dinner with Ryan she called and said she ran out of gas and he told me, and we knew she was lying about something. But we just shrugged it off. The next day she came to our meeting. She walks up, gives me a huge hug.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: This is after she killed Travis Alexander, the day after she talked to her?

TALBOT: Yes. We went to dinner. She acted totally normal, laughed. None of us knew anything yet because they didn`t find him for five days. So she was at dinner with us acting normal like nothing was wrong and then went back to Ryan`s house with Ryan.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Did you see the cuts on her hand?

TALBOT: Yes, she had bandage on her hands and she said that she`s a bar tender, so she got them bar tending. I just thought that`s ridiculous. My aunt is a bar tender, she never cut her finger. But the day that they notified us that when Travis was found, I knew it was her, because I knew her schedule.

So I called Detective Flores the next day, gave him the information that I knew. He asked me what their relationship was like. I told him, have you ever seen "fatal attraction" and he went from there.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, good work. Good work that you took action immediately. That`s quite a story and we`re going to take a very short break. You can see that the jury has gone home for the day. They deliberated about 55 minutes and they`ll be back on Monday and we`ll have more from outside the courthouse with our own Nancy Grace. Stay right there.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So he ejaculated on your face and threw you some candy?

JODI ARIAS: Pretty much.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is this hard for to you describe?

ARIAS: Yes, in front of my mom and dad it is.




ARIAS: If I`m 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.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK, we`re here with one of the key supporters of Travis Alexander. There`s a whole group of supporters, and you can see them walking down the street right there, and we grabbed you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. And she has not let me go.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I have not let you go because it`s important. It`s important to hear what you, who have been here the whole time, who have been there for Travis Alexander`s family, what is in your heart as now there`s nothing else that the Alexander family can do. It`s really -- they`re powerless, we have to just wait.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We trust the jury. They`ll make the right decision. Jodi will be found guilty of first-degree murder. She`s what she did. She cold-bloodedly murdered our friend and family. I can`t talk anymore.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s been very difficult for you. Why have you been here so much? Why have you decided to make this sort of your cause?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because I love the Alexander family. Travis was an amazing young man, and the world lost an amazing young man and he will surely be missed.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I want to thank you so much for stopping, and I know you have to go so I`ll let you catch up with your friends. Thank you, Ma`am. I appreciate it, all right.

We`re going to go back to our panel. You hear the passion, the passion in this case. It really almost is hard to describe. People have very, very strong feelings. People who knew Travis Alexander, people who didn`t know Travis Alexander. There is something about this case, even amongst strangers who it makes them have very, very strong feelings about the case.

So I`m going to go back to our debate panel. You also have very strong feelings about the case. It seems to me that the key to this case for the prosecution is premeditation. Anything less than murder one will be considered a victory for the defense. Is that correct, Wendy Murphy?

MURPHY: Yes, absolutely. And not even 1 percent chance that that`s going to happen. Look, this is the thing Martina said, it`s very simple. In order for there to be no finding of premeditation, the jury has to believe Jodi Arias, which they can`t do because she lied to everybody all the time about everything, and as Martina said, she lied to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, about important things in this case. You can`t believe her, therefore, you have no choice but to find premeditation, and he`s absolutely right.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wendy, let me jump in here for a second because I remember during the Casey Anthony case we all had very similar conversations, and that was another pathological liar. I think it`s fair to say that. And we all know what happened there. Is there a danger, do you think, that the same kind of thing could happen?

MURPHY: You know what I`m going to say, Jane. I predicted two years before and up to -- throughout the Casey Anthony trial that she would not be convicted because I do not believe she killed her daughter, and I still believe that, and I`m going to continue --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. That`s the subject for another day.

MURPHY: But it`s a different case, a different case.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Susan Constantine, it is a different case. Susan Constantine, the difference here is Jodi Arias took the stand as well.

CONSTANTINE: She did. And you know what? Her own words are convicting her. All we need, Jane, here, first of all what`s going to happen is if we come with a 50/50 split, six jurors one way, six jurors the other way, chances are there`s going to be a conviction, OK?

Let me tell you something with the 50/50. When we get up to six, seven, eight jurors in the first ballot of guilty, there is almost a 100 percent chance of a guilty verdict. Less than 50 percent, it`s going to slide toward the defense, but I think in this case we`re going to get the majority vote for the state.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`re going to take a short break, and we`re going to be back with more from the courthouse where all of this is happening, where everybody here in Phoenix, Arizona, and around the nation is waiting to find out what will the jury decide. Stay right there.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Nancy, essentially the conclusion is that anything less than a conviction on murder one would be considered a victory for the defense. Now, the prosecution said, you got premeditation two ways. You could believe the entire plan, which they`ve laid out in detail, or even within the killing itself there are elements of premeditation. The defense going for what you can buy Jodi Arias` entire defense story she told on the stand or you can believe that she snapped. Your thoughts, Nancy?

GRACE: Well, I think that Martinez was very wise in giving the jury the choices and really explaining what premeditation is. Because it`s not what a regular person thinks it is under the law. Premeditation does not require long, drawn-out plans such as poisoning someone little by little, day by day for months on end. It can be formed in the twinkling of an eye. But also, he is saying Jodi Arias left a trail of premeditation behind her.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s all yours, it`s all yours, Nancy.

GRACE: Thanks, Jane.