Return to Transcripts main page


Brett Seacat`s Defense Claims Wife was Suicidal

Aired June 4, 2013 - 19:00   ET


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell coming to you live.

Breaking news in the Jodi Arias trial. An anguish, an outrage from the Alexander family as tonight is five years, five years to the day that Travis Alexander was slaughtered, and his sisters and brothers and his friends say justice has not been served. We`re going to tell you all about that in a second.

But first, they looked like the perfect couple. Handsome husband. Beautiful wife. Two adorable sons, both toddlers. But behind closed doors, their toxic marriage ended in death. So was it suicide? Or was it a cold, calculated murder by a husband, a killer cop?


BRETT SEACAT, ON TRIAL FOR WIFE`S MURDER: The truth is not that I killed my wife.


BRETT SEACAT: I did not kill my wife.

(via phone): There`s a fire. And my wife is -- she shot herself, but she`s in the fire.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have no idea how impossible it is -- you threatened to burn the house down. You threatened to make it look like she did it.

SEACAT (on camera): That is -- that is bull (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

JOY TROTNIC, VASHTI SEACAT`S FRIEND/CO-WORKER: She said, "Do you think Brett would burn the house down with me in it?"

I said, "Not with the kids at home."

BRETT SEACAT: I`m smart enough that, if I wanted to kill my wife, I could have come up with something better than this.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ex-cop, Brett Seacat, accused of executing his wife, Vashti, in cold blood and torching their Kansas home. She had slapped him with divorce papers three days earlier, and he was sleeping on the couch. But Brett says his wife, Vashti, took her own life after setting the house on fire.

Tonight, extraordinary new footage just in. We`ve got the suspect husband caught on tape, shouting back and forth with another officer, a friend, while his home burns down. Listen.



BRETT SEACAT: Right here!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where are you at?

BRETT SEACAT: Right here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there anybody inside? Is there anybody inside?

BRETT SEACAT: There`s my wife.


BRETT SEACAT: She`s dead. She shot herself. Her (EXPLETIVE DELETED) head is gone. I tried to get her -- I tried to get her out.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. What room was she in, Brett?

BRETT SEACAT: That one right there in the corner. That`s where she sleeps. I started to lift her up and her head fell back. I saw that there was blood everywhere.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: You could almost hear the friend`s voice changing. Unbelievable. Yes.

The husband, who would become a suspect, and a responding cop, are buddies. Did Brett really think that he would get a pass from his friends on the force?

We`re now learning Vashti, his now dead wife, told a co-worker that Brett had threatened to kill her, burn the house down and make it appear as though she did it. A witness testified that she felt her husband felt that he could get away with it because he was in law enforcement, and he knew about those things, and that firemen were basically idiots.

Wow. Last time I checked they were heroes.

Call me: 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877-586-7297.

Alexis Weed, producer for Nancy Grace. We have all this evidence against Brett, and now the defense, we`re just hearing, is starting to claim that Vashti was taking diet pills and was depressed? What do you know?

ALEXIS WEED, PRODUCER, "NANCY GRACE": Right. So the defense, as it started its case today, they were saying that in the home, they found this diet drug. It`s called HCG. It is -- it`s a hormone that is both injected. It can be injected. They found this drug in the refrigerator. This is the defense investigator now talking. This is the investigator that was allowed to go into the home after the state`s -- the local law enforcement cleared the home. They were allowed to go in. They found this drug.

They found a label for it in the trash in the upstairs bedroom of the house, and also, like I said, in the refrigerator where there were vials of this drug. Also in a tackle box that was found in the home. And the question that was being posed today was whether or not this drug was something that was used by Vashti or was this a drug that was used by Seacat?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Or was it maybe -- who knows -- put there, after all this?

Vashti`s friend, Robyn Winzer, joins me exclusively.

And I want to thank you so much for joining us. I know this has to be a very, very tough time for you. You were a dear friend of the dead woman, Vashti. And we`re going to show a photo right now of you and Vashti. And boy, you look so happy.

Let me -- let me talk. I understand that you were in contact with your friend, Vashti, about three months, approximately, before she was killed. What can you tell us about the state of their marriage? What did you think of her husband?

ROBYN WINZER, FRIEND OF VASHTI SEACAT (via phone): Well, the last time I saw her she was in such good spirits. She was so happy. And we had got together for a girls` night, and she was talking about how she -- she was getting ready to possibly go somewhere, take a big trip and she had all these plans.

And the state of the marriage is, you know, she had -- she didn`t really want to discuss it. She was -- that was not -- we were not there to talk about anything that way. We were there to talk about fun things and be -- have a fun girls` night.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Robyn, let me ask you this. How did you feel about this guy, her husband? Were you happy that she was ultimately going to get divorced when you heard about it?

WINZER: You know, that`s a hard question to answer, because I didn`t -- not that we ever condoned divorce, but we were -- I was happy for her if she was going to be happy. And she felt that she was going to be happy, so that`s what -- I wanted what was best for her, and I was going to be...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Why did she feel she was going to be happy by leaving him?

WINZER: I -- you know, I don`t know that I can answer that question. I just know that she was looking for -- you know, there had been -- there had been some ups and downs. You know, there have been problems, but I think all marriages have problems.

And, you know, she had said she finally made the decision. And I was going to stand by her for that decision, and whatever her decision was going to be, and that she was going to -- you know, she talked about it, but she hadn`t -- she hadn`t made a final decision yet.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Did she have any history of depression? And you`re hearing the defense now claim that she was taking a diet supplement that could have made her depressed. What`s your reaction to that?

WINZER: If you knew Vashti, you would know that she just effervesced. Like, she just -- she laughed, and she -- she was a beautiful person inside and out. Depression was something I never saw. And all of -- you know, we met when we were 19. So in all of those years, I have never seen anything that -- that she never had any ups and downs. I never saw her anything but bubbly and happy and excited for whatever was coming. She was ready to face it head-on. That woman -- I always felt like in college that woman could do anything.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Was she taking diet pills, to your knowledge? Did she have a problem with her weight that she would take diet pills?

WINZER: I never -- she never talked about that. I never knew anything about that she would want to take diet pills or that she felt she was fat. I mean, you know, we had both had babies, and so we were talking about losing baby weight, but that`s -- we had not -- we were talking about exercising.

And she was eating healthy. She -- she was big into organic cooking and that kind of thing. So we were -- we talked about healthy eating, but diet supplements, no, never heard anything about that.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And so when you first heard that she supposedly committed suicide and that the house went up on -- in flames, were you suspicious? What was your reaction to that?

WINZER: There`s no way she would have killed herself. No way. Especially, especially with her children in the house. Never. Not Vashti. Not the woman who would have literally -- if she could have, she would have laid her life down for her children. There`s no way she would have ever done anything to endanger those precious boys.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And what do you think of her husband`s claim that, oh, she was depressed and shot herself in the head and then called him and said, "Hey, honey, come upstairs before something bad happens." And he`s running upstairs, and he runs in and the place is already on fire. And he realizes that she`s dead. And then he just gets out with the kids. I mean, what do you think of that story?

WINZER: That`s not the Vashti I knew at all. That`s -- that`s not her. I mean, that she would, you know, if the house was on fire, she would have tried to get her kids out. She would have died trying to get her kids out first. Like, she would have never -- I mean, I just thought that kind of my first thought was that is ludicrous. But you know, I can`t -- that was my thought.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, thank you. If you could hold on a second, because you have so many amazing insights, and, again, we thank you. I know it`s difficult for you to talk about this.

We are expecting the defendant, this Brett Seacat, the husband, to testify in his own defense. Listening to his interrogation, you`ve got to wonder, is that a good idea or not? Listen to this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s our belief that you had something to do with this. OK? You had no blood on you, when you supposedly picked her up in the bed and held her to you close. You had no blood on you.

BRETT SEACAT: No, I didn`t hold her to me close.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You had no fire on bottom of your feet. Now if you walked through the fire you should have some kind of injuries besides a small injury on the top of one of your feet.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Noted forensic scientist, Dr. Larry Kobilinsky, we`ve got photos of his very minor injuries. That he had singed hair on the back of his calves and a little tiny blister on his foot. Is that what a person looks who`d just run into a fire to try to save his wife from the flames?

DR. LARRY KOBILINSKY, FORENSIC SCIENTIST: I think not, Jane. I think that, when you listen to what he says he did, he went into that bedroom. Everything was on fire. The floor was on fire. The bed was on fire. He tried to pick her up.

You would expect his hands to show evidence that he was exposed to flame. His hair would be singed. He would have blisters on his hands. Seeing none of that, it really begs the question as to what really happened.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`ve got to ask Jon Leiberman. I mean, it doesn`t make sense to me as you even put it together. Somebody says, "OK, come upstairs, right?" OK. Here we are. "Come upstairs, grab the boys before something happens."

He`s running up the stairs, boom -- he claims he hears a boom, but then the house is in flames. How does a fire start that quickly? I mean, how would -- running up the stairs, is he going to get to a point where the house is already in flames if she -- you can`t start the fire after you`re dead. Do you see what I`m saying? The timeline doesn`t make sense to me.

JON LEIBERMAN, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: Jane, no, the timeline doesn`t make sense, and it defies logic. For a seasoned investigator, this guy surely didn`t cover his tracks very well in this case. And I`ll tell you this, Jane: it`s going to come back to haunt him, because he`s going to have to take the stand. And I`ll tell you why.

I dug up the transcripts from the preliminary hearing in this case, and he actually -- Seacat testified his wife was both depressed and once -- once asked him if a .44 magnum would be a good gun for suicide. The defense has no defense, and so what they have to do is they have to put Seacat up there, who`s going to say she was depressed, and she talked about suicide once, and he`s also going to say, "I believe that she had multiple affairs." It`s going to be, once again, a case of re-victimizing the victim.

But he`s going to get eaten up on cross-examination because, Jane, as you just clearly stated, his story doesn`t make sense, and the evidence that the cops have doesn`t fit with his story.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Get this: the defendant`s brother is a former cop. His family is very involved in law enforcement. The brother was on the stand today, and you won`t believe what he said. We`re going to play that for you right on the other side. Stay right there.


BRETT SEACAT: She was trying to find something.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was she trying to find?

BRETT SEACAT: Whatever it was she thought we were missing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The problem is, Brett, you`re in love; you`re still in love with her?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And she was going to leave you. There was no doubt about that.

BRETT SEACAT: That`s not why you kill people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, some people do.




BRETT SEACAT: If I didn`t want her around, I would have divorced, just granted her the divorce.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you`d have lost contact with the boys, like you have them now. That`s the whole key to this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Those boys loved their mom. She wouldn`t do that to them.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And testimony that this suspect thought he would get a pass because he`s involved in law enforcement, and his brother is a former cop. It`s his half-brother. And he`s a former state trooper. There he is.

And he testified today, painting a very different picture of Vashti just days before she died. He testified that she was depressed over Easter, even though her friends said, "Oh, she was upbeat and planning for the future." This guy, the brother of the defendant, claims, "Oh, no, she was depressed." Listen to this.


BOBBY SEACAT, BRETT`S HALF-BROTHER: She acted depressed. She looked like she`d lost a great deal of weight. Looked sleepy and acted depressed.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, Justin Kramer, affiliate reporter with KSN-TV out of Kansas city, to me, when I was watching this brother`s testimony, he seemed to me kind of smug and inappropriate, smiling. And what did you make of it? You were in court during his testimony.

JUSTIN KRAMER, REPORTER, KSN-TV: One of the most interesting things about Bobby Seacat`s testimony is it seems to counter when he told police the morning Vashti died.

According to transcripts of his conversations with law enforcement the morning that Vashti died, he had told cops on the scene that Brett and Vashti seemed happy. Those are his words. And that they had no problems at all the prior weekend when the family all got together for Easter.

Now he takes the stand today, and he`s saying that Vashti was deeply depressed that day, that she skipped out on her kids taking part in an Easter egg hunt. So it`s quite different stories as far as what he told the jurors on the stand today, versus what he told cops on the scene two years ago.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. He said, "Oh, she was lying on the couch while her kids were doing an Easter egg hunt," that she wasn`t participating. Well, maybe she was not participating because she wanted to get divorced.

The couple`s marriage counselor -- yes, they went to a marriage counselor in a last-ditch effort to save their marriage. Well, that marriage counselor had a chilling conversation with Brett, the defendant, right after Vashti`s death. Listen to this. Was this a confession? Listen carefully.


CONNIE SUDERMAN, MARRIAGE COUNSELOR: He said, "I killed her. Vashti is dead, and it`s my fault." That`s what he said.

He told me that he knew she was dead because of the pool of blood. He said she had killed herself and started the house on fire.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Wendy Walsh, author of "30 Day Love Detox," psychologist, did Brett just misspeak, or was that a Freudian slip, or was it an accidental confession? I mean, imagine calling your marriage therapist and saying, "Yes, my wife`s dead and it`s my fault. I did it."

WENDY WALSH, AUTHOR/PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, Jane, I think you`ve got something there. I think that words have power, and the way we choose our words, our unconscious helps choose them for us to get the truth out.

I think that very much is a Freudian slip. I don`t think he meant it as a metaphor. Like, I mean, he may have intended consciously as a metaphor, but I think unconsciously, it was the truth coming out.

And also, did you notice the brother on the stand, Jane? When he was saying, "Oh, she acted very depressed," watch his head. He`s shaking his head and even rocking his chair. Like he`s disagreeing with himself. I`m not a body language expert, but that spoke volumes to me.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. And look at the smile on his face. I mean, why is he smiling? This is -- this is not funny. This is an innocent woman, the mother of two little boys, ages 2 and 4, who lost her life. Now Brett...

WALSH: Tragic.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s horrible -- says he picked his bleeding wife up to carry her out of the fire, but he couldn`t because she was dead, and he decided to run and get the kids instead. But he had no blood on his clothes when investigators got there.

His brother says, "Well, that`s because he wasn`t wearing a shirt. Maybe the shirt had the blood on it." And the shirt has disappeared, never been found. Let`s listen.


BOBBY SEACAT: He was wearing black BDUs, and I think when I first arrived, I don`t remember him having any kind of shirt on at all.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s debate it. Could there have been blood on the shirt? One that he, in the course of all this drama, took off, and could that explain why investigators never found any blood on him? Starting with Wendy Murphy.

MURPHY: You know, come on. The mysterious missing shirt excuse for why there was no blood. Please.

Look, he had to come up with a lie about picking up her body, because he needed to explain how the gun got under the side of her, you know, of her torso where it couldn`t have gone, had she committed suicide. So by him lifting her up and flopping her down, he now has an excuse for how the gun got there.

But oops, he forgot that she would have been all bloody, so he should have actually find found a way to smear himself with blood. But he wasn`t thinking about that. So now his brother conveniently appears to say the disappearing shirt trick. Oh, please. The jury...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Mike Gottlieb -- Mike Gottlieb, for the defense, criminal defense attorney out of Miami. You -- is it possible? Maybe the shirt disappeared and that`s what had the blood on it.

MIKE GOTTLIEB, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It`s possible that he was wearing a shirt, and when he picked her up and he took his kids and he took the kids out of the house, perhaps he took the shirt off. Perhaps somebody took the shirt from him. I think anything is possible.

What you have to understand is, all the evidence you`re talking about is circumstantial evidence. There`s really no direct evidence that he committed this crime. It`s all circumstantial evidence. And I think that`s the problem with the prosecution`s case.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Ted Rowlands, CNN correspondent out of Kansas, he was doing suspicious things before and after his wife`s death. What are some of those suspicious things?

TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, first of all, when you`re talking about the suicide note, the prosecution has alleged that that was absolutely forged, and who else would forge it but Brett?

And before his wife died, he gets out an overhead projector. He has some co-workers unearth it from the bowels of his workplace. One of those old, you know, 1990s, `80s overhead projectors you remember from school. And he, according to the prosecution, was using it to trace his wife`s handwriting with an old journal entry. That`s very peculiar. Obviously.

One thing I have to disagree with the panel and a lot of people is, I thought the brother was actually credible and achieved what the defense needed him to do. And that was basically say, yes, she was depressed but also start that classic defense that there was problems with the investigation, and he planted that seed. And I think he did come across as credible in a lot of ways, so I disagree that he was up there lying by any stretch of the imagination.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Ted, on the other side of the break, we`re going to talk to Larry Kobilinsky, famous forensic scientist, about gunshot residue. Was it there? Wasn`t it there? Was it tested?


SUDERMAN: She said she had been told by him -- awakened in the night by him and told that he had a dream that he killed her. It was very disturbing for her. She told me that he had threatened that if she ever cheated on him, he would kill her.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think you need to take some deep breaths right now. You`re getting real nervous.

BRETT SEACAT: Yes, I am. I`m thinking real hard about not saying things.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, if you need to say them, we need to talk about them.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: The defense called that man, Brett Seacat`s brother, a former state trooper, to the stand today. He pointed out one potential police error. Listen to this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was it that you mentioned to Agent (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?

BOBBY SEACAT: I said that I don`t -- well, I said, "We should have GSR done."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Tell us what GSR means?

BOBBY SEACAT: It`s gunshot residue.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After you made your suggestion to Agent Newsom (ph) about the gunshot residue test, what did Agent Newsom (ph) say to you?

BOBBY SEACAT: I don`t recall any response.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Dr. Lawrence Kobilinsky, forensic scientist, did police screw up by not testing the defendant`s hands for gunshot residue? Apparently, the Kansas Bureau of Investigation says their lab, "Oh, we don`t test for gunshot residue, because it doesn`t provide a lot of useful information." What? That makes no sense to any.

KOBILINSKY: Well, it is true that many forensic labs stopped testing for gunshot residue, simply because you can acquire gunshot residue from other places other than from being near a gun that fires.

It`s barium, antimony and lead. If you`re near a gun that fires, you will have it on you. You can wash it away very easily. A law-enforcement person would know you could easily wash it off.

Yes, it`s not just gunshot residue that probably should have been done. There`s also back spatter from shooting a weapon like this. You`re talking about a .44 magnum. This is not a woman`s gun. This is a big-game gun. This is huge firepower. So it would have created back spatter, and that shirt would have had that kind of evidence, a fine mist that would have been created.

Now, obviously besides that, there`s the trajectory that we have to look at in the body. The trajectory of the bullet.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. And apparently, that doesn`t really add up to suicide, either.

So let`s debate it. Wendy Murphy, did they screw up by not testing his hands for gunshot residue? Already they don`t have his shirt. And now they can`t even say that he fired the gun or not.

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Let`s not say they don`t have his shirt, please. The mysterious disappearing shirt.

Look, the jury doesn`t -- Let me just say the jury won`t believe the brother, not because he didn`t come across as a sincere human. Juries always expect family members to lie to save the lives of their loved ones. You know, it`s just the way it is.

But I think Larry`s right, that if you know that a cop knows how easy it is to wash gunshot residue and because he`s a cop, he can always say, "Oh, yes, well, I was cleaning my gun" or "I was at the office, you know, hours earlier." There are so many explanations for it. I don`t think that they went anywhere in the wrong direction by not testing. But...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Mike Gottlieb for the defense.

GOTTLIEB: I think it should have been done. It`s something that should have been done. It`s an investigative technique. It could have shown that there was recent gunshot residue on his hands. Under his fingernails. It`s absolutely something that should are been done.

They also could have swabbed him for her DNA, for her blood. That also wasn`t done and should have been pointed out.

And I disagree. I think that the brother, yes, he might love him. He`s a half-brother, but he`s also a former law-enforcement officer. I think...

MURPHY: He would lie for his brother.

LEIBERMAN: He`s changed his story.

MURPHY: He would lie for his brother.

LEIBERMAN: The brother changed his story.

GOTTLIEB: I still think the jury is going to see him as a former law- enforcement officer...


GOTTLIEB: ... and that gives him...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Got to leave it right there. But we`re going to stay on top of this case. He could take the stand tomorrow.

Jodi Arias, next.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Justice for Travis! Justice for Travis!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Justice for Travis! Justice for Travis!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Justice for Travis! Justice for Travis!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There are two kinds of people that commit them. One type is...




KIRK NURMI, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Did you kill Travis Alexander on June 4th, 2008?



SAMANTHA ALEXANDER, SISTER OF TRAVIS ALEXANDER: To think that someone so loving, so caring, so giving could be taken from us.

STEPHEN ALEXANDER: How much did he scream?

SAMANTHA ALEXANDER: We all miss his contagious laughter.

STEPHEN ALEXANDER: What was the last thing he saw before his eyes closed?

SAMANTHA ALEXANDER: I cannot adequately express how much we will miss our brother.

STEPHEN ALEXANDER: I don`t want to have to see my brother`s murderer anymore.

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


SAMANTHA ALEXANDER: We can never get him back.


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN HOST: 29 stab wounds, stabbed in the chest, his throat slit ear to ear six inches wide, shot in the face -- all of that happened exactly five years ago, five years ago 4:34, Phoenix time. Jodi Arias and Travis Alexander had just had sex, and remember, she`s about to whip out a camera and start taking pictures of him in the shower in less than an hour from now, five years ago.

Five years and still justice has eluded the family of Travis Alexander. Jodi Arias murdered Travis on June 4th, 2008. And now Travis` murderer, Jodi Arias, sits behind bars waiting to hear if she`s going to be sentenced to life or death. If the state decides to seek the death penalty once again, the next phase of the trial, the retrial of the penalty phase, is set to start on July 18th.

But we`ve been told that Jodi Arias` attorney, Jennifer Willmott, has a conflict with that date. And that means that if there is a retrial, it`s going to be pushed back -- again, pushed back if it happens at all. Imagine how the family of Travis Alexander feels having gone through everything that we all went through together for five long months of this trial, and still no ultimate resolution. During the original penalty phase, Jodi pleaded for her life and offered her condolences, in a manner of speaking, to Travis` family. Let`s listen.


ARIAS: And I will concede that with Travis` family, theirs is a much greater loss and I can never make up for it. It`s my hope that with the verdict you`ve rendered thus far that they will finally gain a sense of closure. Stephen said he doesn`t want to look at his brother`s murderer any more. If I get life, he won`t have to.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: So there was a lot of controversy after that. Well, guess what, Jodi has now tweeted a quote from that allocution speech. "I will be sorry for the rest of my life, probably longer," end quote. Yes, Jodi Arias, from behind bars, is tweeting essentially a quote from her own allocution saying, "Oh, yes, I did apologize" because everybody saw that speech and said, what? What a lame apology, if any at all.

She never turned to the family of Travis Alexander and said, "I am sorry, I am so sorry, please forgive me. I did something horrible, please forgive me." What she said is what she ended up quoting, herself, in a tweet.

Straight out to our senior producer, Selin Darkalstanian; you were there in court for the allocution, for the entire trial. What do you make of -- let`s put up the tweet again -- what do you make of this tweet now from Jodi Arias as we sit in this waiting game?

SELIN DARKALSTANIAN, HLN SENIOR PRODUCER: Well, Jane, right when she did finish speaking to the jury -- remember she spoke to them for 20 minutes. Right after she got off, the first thing all of the reporters and all of the family and everybody who was sitting in that gallery that day inside that courthouse, we all turned around to each other and said, "We didn`t hear an apology." That`s the first thing everybody said. We still haven`t heard Jodi apologize. She didn`t say, "I am sorry."

And so it seems as though this tweet that has now come a few days later is a direct response to everybody telling her, why didn`t you apologize? You still didn`t apologize to this family. So this is her way of responding to all of that criticism.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And I have to tell you, we`re going to be speaking to one of the Alexander family`s very dear friends, Dave Hall, in a moment. But guess what he`s doing? Right now, as we speak, he is honoring Travis Alexander by releasing a balloon exactly at 7:30. And he is going to walk in after releasing that balloon -- and there are other balloons being released -- and he is going to talk to us. They are having a ceremony right now to honor Travis Alexander in the Phoenix area.

Now many of Travis Alexander`s siblings were in court, as we all know, every single day. When they finally got their chance to speak on their brother`s behalf, it was very, very emotional. Listen to this.


SAMANTHA ALEXANDER: This was the last time I saw Travis. He talked me in to taking this picture even though I was in PJs. It makes me cry every time I look at it.

STEPHEN ALEXANDER: I`ve had dreams of my brother all curled up in the shower, thrown in there, left to rot for days, all alone. I don`t want these nightmares any more.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Straight out to Dave Hall, a dear friend of Travis Alexander, who is in Utah, actually. And you have just participated in a ceremony involving Travis -- balloons. Tell us about it and tell us what you are feeling on this fifth anniversary day.

DAVE HALL, FRIEND OF TRAVIS ALEXANDER: Thanks, Jane. It`s very somber. We just let go of a single blue balloon kind of symbolizing the exact second that Travis` spirit left his body and went back to heaven at exactly 5:30 p.m. five years ago today.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I want to say that Travis` brother, Stephen, and he was the one who delivered his victim impact statement, posted this on his Facebook page today.

Quote, "June 4th will forever be a dark reminder of who has been ripped from our lives. You will think about all the horrible pain and suffering he went through. That day will always come."

Dave, this has been such a long, emotional heart wrenching journey for Travis` family and friends. What are they going through now as basically we all sit here wondering what`s going to happen next in this case? I mean, I`ll just say for me personally as a reporter, I`m wondering, well, what am I going to do? Am I going to go back to Phoenix? And if so, when?

And I can just imagine how it`s affecting their lives. They have put their lives on hold for five long years. What are they going through tonight, Dave?

HALL: Well, as you can imagine, they`re reliving this very moment right now wondering what happened five years ago in those last seconds of their brother`s life as he fought for his life. But we`re not making a big deal about today, June 4th. What the family would like to do and his friends have all put this together is July 28th was Travis` birthday.

On July 28th, we are going to remember Travis by doing a day of service and kind acts all over the world, whether it`s taking care of the poor and the needy, the homeless -- whatever it might be. July 28th will be Travis Alexander day for doing a kind act for another human being.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s beautiful. I love that. That touches my heart.

Dave Hall, thank you. Stay right there. We`ll be back with more on the other side. What is going to happen next in this case?


ARIAS: I just hope people can get closure. That`s the goal for me. I want them to be able to get closure, get peace.


ARIAS: Yes, very much.

SAMANTHA ALEXANDER: Samantha, Travis is dead.

STEPHEN ALEXANDER: Stephen, Travis is dead.

ARIAS: I never meant to cause them so much pain.

SAMANTHA ALEXANDER: Images of our poor brother`s throat slit from ear to ear.

STEPHEN ALEXANDER: I thought my brother was bulletproof.

ARIAS: I hope it is for them. I don`t know if it`s possible. I wish I could just wave a wand and make it possible.




UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you sorry you got caught? You said you couldn`t answer that at the time.

ARIAS: Well, I couldn`t answer that I don`t know if I would turn myself in. I`d like to think that I would because that would be the right thing to do. On the other hand, it`s -- can you imagine willingly giving up your freedom? That`s a difficult decision to make.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wendy Walsh, author of "30-Day Love Detox," we need a psychologist. What do you think the family`s going through where this woman who slaughtered their loved one is continuing not just to do the interviews that you saw, but to tweet? She is tweeting while they`re waiting to find out whether they`re going to have a retrial on the penalty phase.

WENDY WALSH, PSYCHOLOGIST: I mean, Travis` brother said, Jane, that he doesn`t want to have to see his brother`s killer ever again, but he`s seeing her tweets. Tweets are worldwide. They live forever -- digital communications. She still has a kind of freedom in his eyes, and this can be sort of re-injuring to the family -- re-traumatizing, if you will.

I also want to note the wording of her tweet, Jane. She still didn`t say "I`m sorry". She`s projecting --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You`re so right.

Walsh: -- that she will be sorry at some point in the future, perhaps. That`s really all it says.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You are so right. She can`t manage to spit out those words.

Wendy Murphy, briefly, do you think there`s going to be a penalty phase retrial or not?

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: I think there has to be because not to proceed with the second trial is to indulge her nonsense. You know, the family has a right under Arizona law to be treated with respect and dignity. If I were their lawyer, I would file a motion asking the judge to shut her up and snip the cord on these tweets. I mean it is so disrespectful. They are in so much pain. Not only on this date, every time they take a shower, every time they think about him.

Shut her up. Is that asking too much at this point? Shut her up. Put her in front of a new jury, and please, let that jury not be manipulated by this woman, please.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`ll have to see what happens with this process. Today -- a very sad anniversary for the family. We`ve got more on the other side.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Time for "Pet of the Day". Send your pet pics to

Corona, and Honey (Bunny) -- you are so funny. I love you. And there`s Smalls. He says I might be small but I have a big personality, so there.

And Boo Bear -- so cool, so mellow, chilling like Dylan.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why didn`t you apologize to them?

ARIAS: I did apologize to them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You never said, "I`m sorry".

ARIAS: I said that I`m sorry. That I`ll never be able to make up for what I did. And that I can never replace their loss.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you didn`t use the word "I`m sorry".

ARIAS: Well, then I`m sorry I didn`t say that because certainly I am sorry.

I think in a sense the words "I`m sorry" just seemed meaningless especially since nobody believes what I`m saying anyway.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, she`s right about that.

And now she`s tweeting, quoting from herself during her allocution saying, trying to prove that she said she was sorry. But we all heard it. She didn`t say it.

All right. Mike Gottlieb, criminal defense attorney out of Miami, do you think that there is going to be a penalty phase retrial?

MIKE GOTTLIEB, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think given the notoriety of this case that the prosecution in all likelihood and probably given the wishes of the Alexander family, there probably will be a second penalty phase to this trial, absolutely.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Dave Hall, briefly, ten seconds. Have you heard anything? Have you heard any inkling? What`s the prosecution going to do?

HALL: I know if the prosecution is listening to the Alexander family, we`re going for round two.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, that`s interesting. That is very interesting. They`ve made it clear to the prosecutor they would like to see round two. Thank you all.

On the other side, Nancy Grace and I talk about me going behind bars, her going behind bars. It`s unbelievable.

Stay right there.



NANCY GRACE, HLN HOST: She takes on a personality of what she thinks you want her to be like. And she said as much on the stand, that whatever the man in her life was, that she would be like a chameleon, and she would become like that. And so I`m just very interested in what she projects behind bars.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`ve never talked to her because I kept my distance because I didn`t really care for her. I don`t know her.

GRACE: That`s interesting that you said that you didn`t really care for her. Why do you say that?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mean I don`t know her so I don`t really care.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s a delight for me to have our very own Nancy Grace with us tonight. You have gone behind bars at the Estrella jail, the very jail where Jodi Arias has spent the last five years, approximately, waiting for justice. What did you find out, Nancy?

GRACE: You know what, Jane? It was quite an experience. I was there for days on end behind bars in the Estrella jail with the most dangerous women in the state of Arizona. And when I looked around, frankly, I thought it was too good for Arias. I really did.

When I saw that they could have TV, the pods that I was visiting, for the most part, was hooked into the Food Channel. They were all about the Food Network. They can have books, as many as they want. They can have magazines. They have access to Internet. They can have their own Web site.

I spoke to these women about how they felt about Jodi Arias. They all, most of them, believe her hook, line and sinker, but of course they do. Everybody believes her because she`s such a good actress.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Is she charismatic? Did she win over her fellow inmates?

GRACE: She won over quite a few of them, but a few of them were very wise saying that she`s only showing us what she wants us to see. And also let me tell you, she told different stories to different people behind bars about what happened. I`m sure Martinez already knows that. She told even more versions of the day Travis was murdered to different people behind bars.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I wonder if that could be used in a penalty phase.

GRACE: Absolutely. Of course it can be. I`m happy to turn over what I know.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Love Nancy. "BEHIND BARS", tomorrow and Thursday, 8:00 p.m. Eastern. You`ve got to check it out. Nancy Grace talking to the women of the Estrella jail.

Absolutely fascinating stuff because you know what? When Nancy Grace asks you a question, you answer. So they may not have told anybody these stories until Nancy walked into that jail and said you`re going to tell me what you think of Jodi Arias.

And Nancy is up next.