Return to Transcripts main page
PIERS MORGAN LIVE
New Video of Bombing Suspect; Female DNA Found on Boston Bomb Attack; Tamerlan's Russian Connection
Aired April 29, 2013 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PIERS MORGAN, HOST: Good evening. This is PIERS MORGAN LIVE. Welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. Exactly two weeks since the deadly terror attacks in Boston, and we're learning troubling new details about the suspects, the bombing plot and the intelligence failures, they seem to be growing worse by the day.
A lot to get to tonight, including word that the suspects' mother says that she'll travel to the U.S. to see her son after all and tonight, word that the FBI searched the home of the older brother's widow.
Also, CNN is confirming a female DNA was discovered on a fragment of the pressure cooker bombs. What could that mean? We'll get to all that later.
Then there's this. The criminal defense attorney who represented the Unabomber, Olympic Park bomber and Jared Loughner, Gabby Giffords' shooter, now represents Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. And she saved them all from the death penalty. Will she do the same again? I'll talk to my legal expert about this.
And tonight, for the first time, we're hearing Dzhokhar in his own words from a video uploaded on YouTube that shows him talking to his niece.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV, SUSPECTED BOSTON MARATHON BOMBER: Look at me, I said. Get out. All right. Give me a kiss. No, give me a kiss. Atta girl. Now get out.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No get out.
TSARNAEV: OK, OK. Come here. Give me another kiss.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MORGAN: It's a busy night. New developments. Jake Tapper is in Boston and Erin McPike is in North Kingston, the family home of Tamerlan's widow.
We'll begin with Jake.
Jake, a lot of new developments again today on this case.
JAKE TAPPER, ANCHOR, "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER": Yes.
MORGAN: Bring me up to speed with where we are with the latest.
TAPPER: There's a lot, Piers. So get ready. First of all, we know that the FBI spent about 90 minutes in the home of Katherine Russell, that is the widow of Tamerlan Tsarnaev. They were interviewing her and I'm sure Erin will have more on that. In addition, law enforcement officials and other sources say that one of the things that law enforcement is looking into right now is female DNA that was found on one of the trace elements from the bomb.
Now they caution this doesn't necessarily mean anything. It could just mean that a specific female came in contact with ingredients later used to make the bomb, but of course, one of the things they're checking out is whether or not this DNA matches Katherine Russell, Tamerlan Tsarnaev's widow, or even the daughter.
Again, they caution this does not necessarily mean anything, but they are looking at this because this DNA is that of a female.
In addition, we know that the mother wants to see Dzhokhar. She wants to come to the United States, even though there is risk, of course, that there might be some recriminations from that shoplifting arrest that she basically tried to skirt, so she wants to come to the U.S. and see her son, Dzhokhar.
And then there's this other interesting lead from law enforcement that law enforcement is looking into a possible link between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and this Canadian boxer whose name is William Plotnikov who eventually became a jihadi and was killed, I believe, in Chechnya or rather Dagestan last summer. And there's some question about whether or not that had anything to do with Tamerlan's decision to leave Dagestan last summer. So a lot of leads that are being pursued at this hour -- Piers.
MORGAN: And also, Jake, we've got this video which is the first time we've actually heard Dzhokhar Tsarnaev talking. It's a fairly harmless video of him with his niece. But interesting that his accent, his voice, is pretty Americanized.
TAPPER: Yes. He came here at a young age. You know, we interviewed somebody who lived in the same building as Tamerlan and Dzhokhar, and talked about somebody that he knew who was a tutor for Dzhokhar when he was young, when he was in I think third grade, teaching him English. So he has been in this country for a long time.
MORGAN: We'll take another look at that, actually. For those who haven't seen it, this is the video of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev talking for the first time that we have discovered so far. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TSARNAEV: You burped in my face.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I burped.
TSARNAEV: Get out.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No go.
TSARNAEV: Get out of my room.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No room go.
TSARNAEV: I said get out.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No get out.
TSARNAEV: Get out.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.
TSARNAEV: I said get out. Look at me. Get out.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No get out.
TSARNAEV: Look at me, I said. Get out. Give me a kiss.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MORGAN: The voice there of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev with his niece.
Jake, for now, thank you very much indeed.
TAPPER: Thank you.
MORGAN: Let's get -- let's get now to those big new developments about female DNA being found on the pressure cooker bombs the FBI wants to know who it belongs to. Agents took a DNA sample from the suspect's widow.
Erin McPike joins us now with more from outside the house of the family in North Kingston, Rhode Island.
Erin, it's significant, I guess, in the sense that they now have said they found DNA on particles from the bomb and now they've taken on the same day DNA from this widow. Are they potentially connecting the two?
ERIN MCPIKE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They might be, Piers. Of course, as Jake mentioned, we don't know but the FBI has been saying for the past week that they have been very interested in Katherine Russell and today, when they got here around 12:30, about five FBI investigators took what appeared to be a DNA testing kit into her house and when they came out, 90 minutes after spending in this house, they came out with a couple of different things, including a clear plastic bag that had scissors and some other things that looked like a kit inside it and it was marked DNA samples -- Piers.
MORGAN: Do we know how radicalized she may have been herself throughout the last two, three years?
MCPIKE: Piers, we really don't. Katie Russell has not actually lived in this town in about six years. Of course, she's been staying with her parents. Now we've spoken to a lot of people in the community that did know her when she was in high school. She at the time was not very religious. They say she was from a great family, she was -- she was a great student, but when she went off to college in 2007, that's when she met Tamerlan.
Sometime after she was a freshman at Suffolk University they apparently met at a nightclub and sometime along the way she converted to Islam and they married in 2010, and I have talked to a couple of members of this community who said they've noticed a change in her, but of course, she hasn't been here all that much -- Piers.
MORGAN: Right. Erin, thank you very much indeed.
With me now is Congressman Adam Schiff. He's a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence.
Welcome back to you.
What do we make of all these new developments? Seems like every day on this case, new twists and turns. But just from where I'm looking at it, more and more focus back to Dagestan, back to the six- month period that Tamerlan Tsarnaev spent over there where he now, according to some Russian authorities, may have had direct contact with some militant jihadists.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D) CALIFORNIA: Well, and Piers, I think we can expect that it's going to be like this for some time, we're going to continue to get these new developments because we're so early in the investigation and the investigation is so well publicized. But what I find most interesting about the developments you've covered thus far in the program is this possible connection that was revealed in this Novaya Gazeta, this Russian newspaper, between William Plotkin (ph), a Canadian-born Boxer, converts to Islam, joins the jihad in Dagestan.
Seems like a pretty familiar story when you look at the story of Tamerlan. Whether they met or not, it will be very interesting to know what took place in the course of the Canadian boxer's life. But particularly, if his killing by the Russians was the impetus behind Tamerlan's leaving, he may have decided that rather than join the fight in Chechnya with the outcome that took place there that he would return home and then later decided to engage in a plot on the homeland.
MORGAN: Right. And we're also hearing he may have had -- that Tamerlan -- some connection with a man of mixed Dagestani and Palestinian parentage who is being watched by the Russian security services, his name was Makhmud Mansur Nidal. He also was killed in a shootout with Russian security forces. But the more we hear about this, just the less comfortable, I would imagine, authorities on both sides are feeling about the fact that Tamerlan Tsarnaev has gone back for six months and not been picked up by almost anybody despite the fact he may have been consorting openly, it seems, with some quite militant jihadists.
SCHIFF: Well, and also, if this newspaper, Russian newspaper, report is accurate and a lot of these Russian investigative journalists have done very good work in Chechnya and Dagestan, for those that have been critical of the Russian government, it's cost them their lives. But particularly interesting, if Tamerlan went to a Russian agency to get a passport to replace his passport, you would think that all kinds of red flags would have gone off if they didn't catch him on the flight in.
So you would think that the Russians were very much watching what they -- what he was doing, but they may not have. They may have missed it and I suspect we'll be finding out a lot more about it. But it is very interesting coincidence, these two boxers both radicalized. We look forward to learning more about this Mohammed Makhmud Nidal as well. And I think that, you know, we need to take these leads very seriously.
MORGAN: Absolutely. Congressman, Eric Holder, the attorney general, has made it clear, we can play the clip actually, about what he thinks happened in terms of the reading of the Miranda rights to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who's obviously still alive. Let's listen to what Eric Holder have to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: The decision to Mirandize him was one that the magistrate made and that was totally consistent with the laws that we have. We had a two-day period that we were able to question him under the public safety exception so I think everything was done appropriately and we got -- we got good leads.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MORGAN: Now a lot of people are quite agitated about this, saying that, you know, he should have been tried as an enemy combatant or at the very least, the FBI should have had longer time than the apparent 16 hours they got with him, where they were getting lots of information but the moment he was read his Miranda rights, the moment he got proper legal representation, down came the shutters. He said no more. Do you go with Eric Holder on this or do you think there is cause for concern?
SCHIFF: No. I think the attorney general is quite right. There was never really a legal or constitutional basis to hold him as an enemy combatant. This is an American arrested on American soil for acts committed in America. That's about as far from the paradigm of a military combatant that as a foreigner caught on a foreign battlefield as you can get.
You know, I think there are two things involved in -- with Miranda here. One is when there's law enforcement, how long is that public safety exception before law enforcement has to advise the suspect of their rights. And the second is how soon do they have to present the person before the magistrate, and here it looks like that second issue, the presentment issue was really determinative that they might have had more time under the public safety exception.
But when the magistrate said we're arraigning him on Monday, basically that was going to be the end of it. So my sense is that law enforcement probably got about what they were going to get in terms of public safety and that exception which the length and dimension of is protecting the public, and after that, it was going to be pretty close in terms of when the arraignment and the ultimate Mirandizing would take place.
MORGAN: Congressman Adam Schiff, thank you very much again for joining me. I appreciate it.
SCHIFF: You bet, Piers.
MORGAN: Let's bring in now Juliette Kayyem, she's the CNN national security analyst and former homeland security assistant secretary.
Juliette, so much to catch up on again today. Just developments over the weekend and today. Let's start with the DNA aspect because this could I guess be extremely vital or it could be utterly meaningless. And I don't just mean the DNA taken from the bomb fragment but also the DNA taken from the widow of Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: That's exactly right. Just to pick up on what the congressman was saying, we are at the stage of the investigation where there are many roads and some of them will lead to new roads, which might put the case together, and some will be dead ends in some places where this investigation is going to go.
On this DNA, we don't yet know what the source of the DNA was, so could it possibly be some fragment from the person who sold the cookers or any materials to the -- to the brothers. We simply just don't know at this stage. But obviously the FBI, the first guess is someone in the United States, a female, who had contact with the brothers. And that would be the widow at this stage.
So -- but this may be nothing or it could lead to potential proof that he was quite open about the making of the bomb and that the wife knew about it, which then may lead to more co-conspirators. And so at this stage, all the evidence is going to lead to hopefully putting the pieces together, but just to repeat what the congressman said, some of it may go nowhere.
MORGAN: Right. But what is I think most significant, the congressman picked up on this as well, are these two links that have now been established apparently by Russian authorities. One between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and this Canadian boxer, William Plotnikov, who was a Muslim convert, to remind viewers. He fled his home in 2012 to fight against Russian authorities. And then he died in a shootout, but a very similar parallel story to Tamerlan, who was also a boxer, who had come over here to America and then went back to Dagestan and we know what happened after that.
But similar parallels and at the same time, the Russian authorities say, a connection of possible meetings between Tamerlan and this quite infamous Dagestani jihadist, Mahmoud Mansur Nidal. What do you read into these two connections that may have been established?
KAYYEM: Yes, so I think those are both very significant and the problem is right now we're dependent on Russian intelligence authorities for these stories right now. What the Russians -- what we know now is that some, possibly some meetings happened in Russia. Everyone looking at this case knew -- knows now that those six or seven months are significant to figuring out, does this case lead to a sort of radicalization and training by Tamerlan when he's there, he brings that information back and that you have international forces or international group knowing that he was going to come back and attack a U.S. city, or radicalization in which he's meeting with people, you know, wants to sort of get involved but then he comes back and does it on his own.
That's where both sides of the investigation are looking at, which is the most plausible or which is the story that we want to go with.
The Russian evidence right now, I'll tell you, you know, the Russians are coming out with a lot of information after the fact. We now know that the FBI asked them to -- asked them for further information when they said look at this family, look at -- look at this brother. They now have more information. So part of what's unfolding here is Russian intelligence authorities either making amends for failing to give us the information or having kept it in the first place.
But neither is a good story and so I'm very cautious about believing now that the Russian story is sort of perfectly packaged at this stage. And I think there's more to come on the Russian side.
MORGAN: Yes. I'm sure you're right. Juliette, stay with me. We're going to take a short break. When we come back, more from you plus a 9/11 widow's battle to keep terrorists out of the cockpit only 12 years after that fateful day.
MORGAN: Tonight, interesting new clue to what Tamerlan Tsarnaev may have been up to in his six-month trip to Russia. Investigators looking closely at William Plotnikov, a former Canadian boxer turned jihadist who was killed in a gun battle with Russian forces in Dagestan last year just before Tamerlan's return to the U.S. Listen to what the dead boxer's father says about his son's transformation from a normal young man to Islamic radical.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VITALLY PLOTNIKOV, SON KILLED BY RUSSIAN FORCES IN DAGESTAN: He always -- Papa, give me please, you know, credit card, I go to Blue Mountain and ski. And it's like (INAUDIBLE), skate board. Always he has a lot of friends, girlfriends. Suddenly finished. No friends, no father, no mother, only this room and pride. That's it. I don't know what's happened. Who can change his mind? Tamerlan, I think, same problem. Same problem. Somebody changed his mind and religion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MORGAN: Intriguing to say the least. Did the two young men know each other?
We're back now with Juliette Kayyem, she's the CNN national security analyst and former Homeland Security assistant secretary.
Juliette, it really is fascinating because the parallels are obvious. You've got two young boxers who had come to live in America and then become radicalized, one dies in a shootout with Russian authorities, one dies in a shootout with American authorities after blowing up the Boston marathon. But as the father said there, again, the parallel's clear, isn't it, that the son changed dramatically?
And we hear that about Tamerlan, too, that somebody somewhere or a group of people got to these two young men and turned their heads.
KAYYEM: Right. And that's -- and that's a story that has to be investigated and validated. This is a common story. There's also another similarity between the two of them, which is the family members insisting that it just wasn't them. And this is why we need sort of independent validation of what they're saying, because the -- the family members as we see with the mother, have all sorts of incentives to make it bigger than just them. That's not to say there isn't some other puppeteer, right, radicalizing them.
It is just to say that like every investigation, the validity of who's saying what and why has to be really pierced at this stage because everyone has a motivation, as to, as we have been saying in the previous segment, as do the Russians at this stage who clearly knew something was going on but did not share that information with the FBI.
I think, you know, going back to those six months, seven months in Russia, who was he meeting with, why was he meeting with them and what was he learning from them. Because for me, the key issue, sort of -- the thing that's going to separate this from being a real national security problem, you know, implicating Russia and relations and what's going on abroad from another problem but a different one, which is he becomes radicalized through the Internet, through his travels, through his just clear isolation from any society.
And he clearly was disaffected and comes here and builds a bomb. Those are different story lines. We're still not clear which one -- which way it's going to go, and the lessons to learn from them are also significant. So one of the key things the FBI is doing here now is, is there any proof of testing or detonations anywhere in Massachusetts, Connecticut or the surrounding states. That is going to be a key issue, because if these bombs are as sophisticated or if they -- you know, did they just work by luck or were they testing these here? These are the kinds of things we have to find out before we can sort of determine what the next steps are, and more importantly, you know, how can we prevent this again. I mean, that to me is also one of the key things that you want out of this -- out of this investigation. Not simply blame, but also what can we take away from this to learn for the next time.
MORGAN: Absolutely. Juliette Kayyem, thank you very much indeed.
The Boston bombings are the first terror attack in America since 9/11. And tonight, a very strange twist in the 9/11 investigation. Plane wreckage found behind a lower Manhattan building last week are now being identified as a wing flap from one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center.
With me now is Ellen Saracini. Her husband was the captain of United Flight 175. She wants cockpit barricades to be mandatory on all commercial flights. She hopes lawmakers agree.
Welcome to you, Ellen Saracini. First of all, what was your reaction when you heard that a part of a plane, I don't think it was your husband's plane, but a part of a plane that crashed into the World Trade Center was found? Does that bring all these memories flooding back again to you?
ELLEN SARACINI, WIDOW OF VICTOR SARACINI, CAPITAL, UNITED FLIGHT 175: Yes, of course. Solemn reminder how vulnerable we still are. These plane parts are being -- still being found, they're going to be looking for human remains. You know, we have a bombing in Boston. It just goes to show that we're far into this reality about terrorism. It's still happening. It's still around and you find something like this, it's amazing, this many -- many years have gone by and it's just been sitting there.
MORGAN: As you say, they are scheduled to start tomorrow to examine the site where the partial wing was discovered hoping to find more possible human remains. Apparently nearly 1,000 of the 3,000 victims, they've never found the remains and the poor families have never been able to properly mourn their dead.
How important do you think it will be to them that something is found eventually?
SARACINI: Well, I think it could help people to have an ease with being able to have a resting place for their loved one. You know, it's the reason why I'm down here right now working on secondary barriers. You know, we have to make sure that a repeat of September 11th never happens, and it's really important to keep on moving and making sure that we are protected from a breach from the cockpit.
MORGAN: Right. Because the issue here is United Airlines has said they are planning to remove the second barriers that block cockpit doors from the planes. This seems to follow this other crackpot idea, it seemed to me, that they're going to allow a variety of knives and so on back on to planes. That's now been put on hold. But it does seem to be a general air of wanting to relax restrictions when we've just had another example in Boston of exactly why you shouldn't be relaxing restrictions, many would argue.
SARACINI: In 2001, Congress mandated fortified cockpit doors. What they didn't realize was that the cockpit doors were going to open up and when they are, they are not fortified anymore. A study was done, the airline companies and the FAA wanted studies done. It was done and it shows that the secondary barrier which is just simply a gate that is locked into place before the cockpit door is opened, just to allow a few extra seconds so that the door could be closed if there is going to be a breach.
Studies have shown that it is the most cost-effective way and the safest way to protect a breach of the cockpit, and we're here to have a mandation of these secondary barriers.
MORGAN: Well, I'm completely behind you. Good luck with the campaign, Ellen. And thank you very much for joining me.
SARACINI: Thank you very much.
MORGAN: Coming next, Ron Paul slams the Boston Police over the bombing investigation. He compared it to a military-style takeover. I'll ask conservative radio host Ben Ferguson for his take on that and on whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should have been given his Miranda rights at all.
MORGAN: We start tonight with "The Grill," where we turn up the heat and debate stories that matter to America. Tonight with me on "The Grill" for the first time is conservative radio host, Ben Ferguson. Ben, how are you?
BEN FERGUSON, CONSERVATIVE RADIO HOST: I'm doing well. This is appropriately named. I like this.
MORGAN: I can't think of a finer slab of meat to be grilled than you, frankly. So let's get into it. Let's talk about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev because I know you've got strong views about this. Your views I know from my Twitter feed, and if you want to tweet me about it, @piersmorgan, do it now. Your view is he should be treated as an enemy combatant. Under that, he would have then been interrogated for a lot longer than he has been. Why do you believe that?
FERGUSON: Because he would have been interrogated longer than he was and as soon as he was read his Miranda rights, he was then, what did he do? He shut down, said thank you very much, America, I'm a terrorist and you're treating me like I'm not a terrorist now, and I got a lawyer and my lawyer's now telling me that you as Americans are paying for, then I'm not going to talk to you anymore.
I mean, that's a brilliant move by this guy. They've also been trained, we've seen through al Qaeda and things we've learned about them. They have taught them how to not talk while talking, not giving great information while acting like they are and to hopefully run out the time period here.
We know this as a fact. When you don't treat them like an enemy combatant, which is exactly what he is, and that's what we're seeing from all this information from Russia, all the information now we hear from the back and forth with the mother, this is not a normal American. This is not a random act of craziness.
This is a planned, orchestrated terrorist attack against American citizens and more importantly than that, he probably knows a lot more about other things that could be going on and other things that could take American lives. That's why you don't read him his Miranda rights.
MORGAN: OK, Ben, but here's the problem with your argument is that a lot of supposition there on your part, a lot of probablys came out of your mouth. The reality, the factual reality about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is that he's an American citizen who committed a crime on American soil, and he's entitled to his rights under the constitution as you are, and you are the first person to --
FERGUSON: There's a difference.
MORGAN: Hang on, let me finish. You are the first person to jump up and down on me about attacking your second amendment rights when it comes to guns. Isn't he entitled to the very constitutional rights that you hold so dear?
FERGUSON: It depends on if you're pledging allegiance to a terrorist organization and you're working with foreign terrorists and around the world. There are two totally different things here. If you're an American that decides to snap one afternoon and commit a heinous crime, you do fit the mold that you just described, which is you're an American, you commit a crime on American soil.
But usually, that's when the chaos ends. The chaos is not ending with this guy. Proof of it is that we're covering it this many days after the fact. The fact that you just had on a terrorism expert before me talking about the connection to terrorists around the world tells you this is not one crime when you catch the guy, all threats are over.
This is a guy that there are still many threats connected to. There are still many connections around the world that we are having to investigate, which is the reason why you treat him as an enemy combatant and not as a normal guy.
MORGAN: Ben, let me cut you off there because actually, most of what you've just said applies more to his brother, Tamerlan, who's dead. He's the guy that went back to Dagestan. He's the guy that may have had the activity with militants. We don't actually know what Dzhokhar did, if anything, in that respect.
FERGUSON: But what we --
MORGAN: He may have been led on and corrupted by his brother. I don't want to suppose that, either. But here's the point, everything you say applies mainly to his brother in terms of evidential material that's come out. So we're left with Dzhokhar being an American citizen.
FERGUSON: This is where I disagree.
MORGAN: He's surely entitled, Ben, to the normal rights of any other American citizen. The moment you rip it up for him, you've got to rip it up for everybody.
FERGUSON: But here's the difference. We know that al Qaeda has obviously trained, we know this from Awlaki and we know they have been told to travel in - small groups or by themselves, not to travel in large groups if they are planning an attack together so that if one person gets caught maybe the whole plan doesn't go.
This is very much al Qaeda and the way they've done things from what we've learned from al Qaeda since 9/11 happened in this country. So to act as if he's some random guy sitting on the couch playing Xbox and his brother says, let's make bombs and blow stuff up, I have a hard time believing that that he's just some random bored guy that happened to go to school. I don't buy it.
MORGAN: hang on. Why would you find that so hard to believe when you've had home-grown terrorists who have done exactly that, who have exactly done what you just described?
FERGUSON: But this is what we've seen. There's a difference between home-grown random on your own over the internet and what we're now seeing here. Russia tipped us off to his brother and to the possibility of there being some sort of terrorist connections in this country, more than one human being. Not once but twice.
Russia is not a big fan of giving us information, let's be honest about that. So if Russia's calling America, telling us to take this guy and his family seriously, and he was listening in to phone calls of other family members, including a mother which we can also say is even way less guilty than this brother, she just talked on the phone with him, and they were listening to those conversations, that to me is terrorism.
And more importantly than that, I know that I don't want another Boston to happen. I know that you don't. And when there's one person living that we know for sure is connected to that bombing, you don't go and act as if he's some random guy who commits a normal crime. It is naive to believe that he doesn't have connections to somebody else.
MORGAN: Let me ask you this. This has also been puzzling me in the last two weeks, which is why nobody on the gun right side, I know you're one of these characters. Why nobody has tried to use the argument the only way to stop a bad guy with a bomb is to be a good guy with a bomb. Why was that logic of your argument on guns not applying here?
FERGUSON: This is not the fourth of July where I throw a bottle rocket at you and you throw one back and we're playing. This is real terror and you don't throw a bomb at another person that has a bomb if you don't even know who it is. The other thing is, it would be ignorant to throw a bomb into a random crowd because one goes off. That's the reason why no one suggested what you just described. That is this.
MORGAN: But the reason I suggested it, you know the reason I suggested it, is because it's precisely the argument the NRA always use. If somebody had been armed at Sandy Hook, they would have fired into a crowd of people. That's their answer. That's how they would have brought down the shooter. Though actually the parallel --
FERGUSON: There's a difference between --
MORGAN: -- is a logical parallel to make. I just haven't heard anybody make it on the gun side because they know it sounds ridiculous.
FERGUSON: Piers, nobody on the right or conservatives that are gun-toting Americans as we are -- I'm proudly will take that name, said that you should randomly shoot into a crowd at Sandy Hook. They said that if someone had a gun there, to then aim at the person with the gun that is randomly killing a bunch of people in a room, that's a better alternative than having a gun-free zone that doesn't work in America and we have proven it unfortunately, the bad guys have proven it that it doesn't work time after time.
MORGAN: Well, actually, what we've proved was that the bad guys were caught by the police and the law authorities --
FERGUSON: With guns.
MORGAN: Anyway, Ben, it's been good to launch "The Grill" with you. You did not disappoint. Come back soon.
FERGUSON: It sounds good. Good to see you.
MORGAN: Ben Ferguson, nicely grilled.
Coming next, the lawyer who saved the Unabomber and Eric Rudolph from the death penalty is now defending the bombing suspect. I will ask Gloria Allred and Tom Mesereau what they think about it, coming up next.
MORGAN: Tonight a major boost in the bomb suspect's defense, Judy Clark is joining his legal team. She's represented the Unabomber, Eric Rudolph and Tucson shooter Jared Loughner. She's credited with saving them all from the death penalty.
Joining me for tonight's law and disorder, Attorneys Gloria Allred and Thomas Mesereau. Welcome to you both. I can't think of two finer legal minds to debate what is actually a complicated legal issue. We just had a spirited debate with Ben Ferguson there.
Start with you, Tom, if I may. This whole issue of Miranda rights, from where I look at it, he's entitled to the same rights as any other American citizen. Whether people like the fact he's an American citizen or not, he is an American citizen.
THOMAS A. MESEREAU, JR., CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I agree with that. However, we have to strike a balance between individual liberties and freedoms and national security problems. The fact that we're having so spirited a debate as this shows how great America is because we do protect individuals, we protect their liberty, their freedom. We protect everybody under the law as equal.
By the same token, we're at war with terrorism so the question of how you get information without violating someone's civil liberties, not jeopardizing their right to due process and a fair trial is an ongoing debate and it's why our country is so great.
MORGAN: Gloria, let me ask you an interesting question as an overview. I think it's an interesting question. I've been debating what it seems to me constitutional rights almost from the day I got on CNN two and a half years ago. Is there any argument to say that the constitution itself and the amendments should all be reviewed on a reasonably regular basis, every 30, 40 years, precisely to take in a situation like this one, for instance, or some of the gun arguments involving the second amendment? Is there an argument that there should be?
GLORIA ALLRED, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, of course, there's always the right of the people to amend the constitution. They've done that a number of times. But the question is, is there going to be a sufficient impetus in the public to amend it for a situation like this.
After all, there was about at least 48 hours or so that under a public safety exception, the suspect was questioned and apparently some information was gained perhaps not as much as they would have liked, but they did have that opportunity. He wasn't Mirandized from the get-go, from the very beginning, and that would have made a stronger argument that maybe something more needs to be done in order to have an exception to otherwise giving him Miranda rights.
MORGAN: Right. In terms of this hot shot lawyer that has been brought in, the significance is that she gets people off the death penalty.
MESEREAU: She's a brilliant lawyer. She's a legend in the capital defense world. She is someone who has devoted her whole life to taking the most impossible cases and trying to save lives. She's a credit to the legal profession and the fact that our government appointed her and will pay her to defend this guy shows how much we value liberty and freedom and equal justice for everyone.
ALLRED: And after all, if someone is going to ultimately have to face death, I think that Americans feel that there should be a right to a fair trial, to have a defense in which a defendant is afforded due process, to have capable counsel and then if in fact the decision is death, then they feel that at least that was fair. But he may end up entering a plea. We don't know.
MORGAN: Right. ALLRED: And that may be what she is going to try to do, avoid death by helping him to provide some information that would otherwise not be provided if he had to face a trial.
MORGAN: Tom, the Michael Jackson case, just moving to that briefly, because you obviously represented him. This all kicks off, has kicked off today with a bit of legal argument. How do you see this playing out? It will be a star-studded list of people giving evidence. It will be a big show trial in many ways and a judgment as much on Michael Jackson and his lifestyle as anything else. How will it play out, do you think?
MESEREAU: Well, there are a lot of issues there that are going to be very, very controversial. First of all, there's the cause of death and who is responsible for it, the plaintiffs, Katherine and Michael's children, say that AEG was negligent. They didn't intend for him to die, nor did they intend to hire a bad doctor. They just did it. They were sloppy.
They absolutely violated their obligations to him and they violated employment law so the question of who is responsible for his death is number one. Number two, what was his life worth. What's his life worth to a loving mother who lost her son? What's his life worth to three beautiful children who he raised in just the most magnificent way, and that's for them to decide?
You've got to stand in their shoes to figure out what someone is worth. So they're going to go into his business. They're going to go into what his earning capability was. The defense is going to try and dirty him up by trying to say that he was charged with molestation, even though he was thoroughly exonerated. I was his lead defense attorney in that five and a half month trial. He was exonerated from A to Z.
ALLRED: Yes, but except, AEG has arguments as well. AEG's arguments are look, he was not hired by us. He was not our employee. So there was no negligent hiring because there was no hiring. Michael Jackson was an adult. Dr. Conrad Murray was his doctor for his children and for himself long before we ever came into contact with Conrad Murray, and in fact, we were paying him but that doesn't -- that doesn't mean that we were his employer.
MESEREAU: What does it mean if you're paying him and reminding his doctor who pays his bills, and putting pressure on him to have him show up when he's not well? That means you're not his employer?
ALLRED: Their argument is that we're like a Visa or MasterCard. We may be paying the bill, but that doesn't mean that we are the employer. And therefore, there was no negligent supervision because we didn't have any duty to supervise, we had no ability to supervise, he was not under our control or custody. So therein lies the argument. We have to see who prevails.
MORGAN: There's the complexity. There will be some big, big high profile names. This could be very explosive. Thank you both very much indeed for joining me. Coming up next, an NBA star makes history as the first male openly gay pro athlete. Is it a game changer? I'll talk to Tennis legend, Martina Navratilova that's coming next.
MORGAN: Something extraordinary happened in professional sports today. Jason Collins, a veteran center in the NBA announced he is gay. He did an article in "Sports Illustrated" magazine and President Obama said he was impressed by his courage.
In the chair tonight is Martina Navratilova, a tennis legend who won 59 grand slams announced and 21 of them titles. She announced she was gay in 1991. Martina, welcome to you. It must have brought back a lot of memories I guess for you today, under very different circumstances.
MARTINA NAVRATILOVA, TENNIS LEGEND: Yes, slightly different. I didn't get a phone call from Ronald Reagan. You know, when I came out, of course, that was 32 years ago. Times were much different then. I didn't really feel it that badly playing matches. But, still, a lot of crowd were sitting on their hands. They weren't clapping when I came on the court or they were booing or jeering.
The press was roasting me. It was not a pretty site. I would say it was about 95 percent against and 5 percent support. Now for Jason, it's much different. It's I think the other way around. It's 95 percent for and maybe 5 percent against. It's fantastic how much times have changed.
MORGAN: One of the big aspects, I guess, would have done for your mind at the time was the potential financial damage that coming out had cost you and your brand. And I think I've read that you said it could have cost you millions of dollar in sponsorship. That probably won't happen to him. If anything, he's likely to make more money I would think from his brand going forward.
NAVRATILOVA: It's absolutely the fact that he may be getting deals because he is coming out. It certainly wasn't the case for me. I lost who knows how much money, but I was able to play the sport. Nobody was going to take that away from me. I was still able to play tennis, which weren't so different from team sports, athletes.
If they come out and the coach is homophobic or the front office or what have you, they may not get to play. So my livelihood was never threatened, but I certainly didn't make any money on the outside of the sport. But now, for Jason, the case may be different and he may get more money because of it. It's kind of ironic.
MORGAN: It is. In terms of the impact you had on your life, Martina, I mean, did you, despite all the difficulty that it brought you, was it a huge weight off of your shoulders, a huge relief to come out publicly? And will he be feeling that, too, do you think?
NAVRATILOVA: Well, I think for me, I left my country so I could be who I was in '75, and I didn't come out until '81 because I really couldn't be public about my sexuality because that would have disqualified me from, perhaps, being a U.S. citizen. Once I got my citizenship, I could really be out in the open about it.
But I know I would not have been as good a tennis player had I been hiding all of those years. So I was already playing pretty well, doing pretty well. It enabled me to be fully who I am. Now I know that Jason will be playing better ball, as well.
MORGAN: And, as the president said, I just want to read an extract from "Sports Illustrated." I didn't set out to be the first openly gay athlete playing in a major sport. But since I am, I'm happy to start the conversation. I wish I wasn't the kid raising his hand in the classroom that says I'm different. That, just as you were, in 1981, is an act of real courage. It takes guts to do that.
NAVRATILOVA: Well, as I said earlier today, Jason is saving lives. Apparently, I had done that way back when I came out and gave kids some hope that they were not the only ones. Today, one-third of teenage suicides are in sexuality. I think that's going to make a big difference. What more can you ask for? I just hit the tennis ball, he plays basketball. But we're making a difference outside of the sports world and this is fantastic.
MORGAN: Definitely. Martina, thank you so much for joining me.
NAVRATILOVA: All right, thanks for having me. Well done, Jason.
MORGAN: Yes, absolutely. Good for Jason. And we'll be right back.