Return to Transcripts main page

Piers Morgan Live

Oscar Pistorius Murder Case; Remembering Reeva; New Details Emerging About Life of Nancy Lanza, Mother of Sandy Hook Shooter Adam Lanza

Aired February 20, 2013 - 21:00   ET


PIERS MORGAN, CNN HOST: Tonight, the blade runner's big day in court. Will he be a free man tomorrow?


ARNOLD PISTORIUS, OSCAR PISTORIUS' UNCLE: He is not a violent person. He is a peace maker.

MORGAN: How strong is the case against Oscar Pistorius? I'll ask the man who defended Claus von Bulow, Alan Dershowitz.

Plus, an exclusive and emotional interview for someone who knew Reeva Steenkamp better than most.

KIM MARTIN, REEVA STEENKAMP'S COUSIN: We spoke intimately about all parts of her life.

MORGAN: What her cousin says about the woman gunned down by Pistorius.

MARTIN: I believe Reeva's life and her death is not in vein.

MORGAN: Also, a debate about guns and women.

JOE BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT: So, Jill, if there's ever a problem, put that double barrel shotgun and just fired two blasts outside the house.

MORGAN: Where do you draw the line of self-defense?

And American tragedy. A close friend of Nancy Lanza opens up about her life of guns and her son, Sandy Hook killer Adam Lanza.



MORGAN: Good evening. Right now Oscar Pistorius is in a jail cell. This time tomorrow he could be a free man. It all comes down to closing arguments in his bail hearing. And today from the chaotic courtroom the defense slammed the government's case and what experts call a key victory for the blade runner who is accused of intentionally killing Reeva Steenkamp, his model girlfriend.

In a moment I'll talk to Reeva's cousin who is as close to her as a sister.

But first CNN's Robyn Curnow in Johannesburg with the very latest on this sensational murder case.

Robyn, it's a -- case is now gripping the whole world, and it really comes down, I guess, to whether you believe Oscar Pistorius, with what appears to be a convoluted, implausible version of events. And yet as saw today when the police chief was cross-examined, his version of events began to unravel, too. Where are we left here, do you think?

ROBYN CURNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: When we were listening -- we're in court this morning and we were listening to the state's case, you know, we were all thinking, oh, you know, that's it. Oscar -- it doesn't sound so good for Oscar, then after lunch, you know, it just -- the sentiment just absolutely switched when you started hearing the defense literally pick apart the state's case, so it has been quite a rollercoaster day in terms of just trying to form an opinion based on the kind of information that we've all been getting.

I mean, and how -- how implausible is Oscar's story? Well, on paper many people found a lot of holes, a lot of questions about it, but in a sort of quite dramatic statement, the chief prosecutor who is investigating this case, the investigator who works for the police, actually said that he found no inconsistencies in Oscar Pistorius' version of events, so, you know, it seems like in a way he is buying it as well.

MORGAN: Some of the stuff that's been leaked to the media has turned out to not be what we thought, and that's been part of Oscar Pistorius' problem, I think, in the way people have interpreted what may have happened.

Let's start with some of the facts. We were told that -- from that a leaked information from the police that he'd been found with steroids. The police chief, when he said that today was then asked what these steroids were, and he downgraded it to testosterone. And the defense kept going at him and eventually they said, look, it was a herbal remedy, perfectly legal. Not a banned substance. And the police chief seemed to squirm. He didn't seem to know what the hell it was.

CURNOW: Absolutely. And I mean, it's a classic case. If -- you know, if you've got some crucial evidence, it's always good to perhaps double check what it is, and it had a quite complicated pharmaceutical name on the box that started with Testa -- something, and the police chief just sort of assumed it was testosterone, but according to the defense, he said, you know, if you had just taken this to a pharmacy or to chemist, they would have told you this was a herbal medicine.

Now whether or not it is, I mean, this substance is still being tested, but, you know, the defense seems pretty sure that Oscar Pistorius certainly wasn't doping.

MORGAN: And we know that there were other evidence today. The body of Reeva Steenkamp didn't show any signs of a struggle. Her bladder was empty, consistent with Pistorius' account that she had gone to use the toilet. We're going to find out tomorrow whether Oscar Pistorius will get bail, but for now, Robyn, thank you very much indeed. We'll talk again tomorrow.


MORGAN: Joining me now from Cape Town for an exclusive interview is Kim Martin. She is Reeva's cousin. She also lived with Reeva and said they were as close as sisters.

Welcome to you, Kim Martin. First of all, I'll extend to you my very deepest condolences on the loss of your cousin. It is a harrowing story for anyone to digest, but for you and her family and friends I can only imagine the torment you've been going through.

What kind of woman was Reeva? I know that she was a law school graduate. She's obviously very bright. She was a model. She was a reality TV actress. She has such this multi-facetted kind of career that she was building for herself, but what kind of woman was she?

MARTIN: Reeva was -- she was exceptional. I mean, you've heard in the media what an amazing person she was, but she really was. I mean, from a young age there was something magical about her. She had this kind, nurturing soul, and doesn't matter if you were 20 years older than her or 20 years younger than her, you always felt like she was mothering you and looking after you.

I mean, she continuously gave me advice for life, and if I had questions or was unsure, she would be advising me on what to do, and she did the same thing for my young children. There was something really, really special about Reeva.

MORGAN: How did you hear that she had died?

MARTIN: That's very hard. My husband and I were driving to work in rush hour traffic. We were stuck in traffic. And I was tired. I hadn't slept much the night before, and I remember I was lying back on the car seat. I had rolled it down, and the -- we were listening to the radio, and the DJ came on and said he had breaking news, and he was taking long to get to the story. And he was saying we can't confirm it, it's just come in, and they were going on and on, and I still remember my husband said, oh, come on, well, what is it? Get out, spit it out.

And then the next moment I heard Oscar Pistorius, and I just jumped up, and I was, like, what the hell could be wrong with him? And then the next minute they say his girlfriend, and that was not -- the last thing I expected. And the thought to me to this day is surreal. I mean, we turned around in this bumper to bumper traffic. We couldn't even get out. We turned around. And we drove, and I just remember thinking the whole time that there's no way.

This is not -- somebody is playing a joke, and they're going to -- the radio guy is going to come on and say that this is a big joke, and I just remember that we drove straight to my mother, and she opened the door, she was crying, and I realized, no, this is real. And it's -- it's real, but it's not real. You know?

Yes, Reeva is not supposed to be dead. Reeva had her whole life ahead of her. She was going to be doing great things.

MORGAN: Yesterday Reeva was laid to rest with her family and friends gathered in Port Elizabeth for a private funeral. It must have been incredibly emotional there. How would you sum up the atmosphere given the appalling circumstances of her death?

MARTIN: It was terrible. It was heartbreaking. You know, you have to remind yourself the whole time that you were there because of Reeva. You know, you wanted to -- I kept going in and out of forgetting that I was there for Reeva, and you look up, and then you look around, and you see your uncle sitting there, and you look up and you see the photo of Reeva, and then it was unbelievable. It really was. I -- how do you -- how do you feel on a day like that?

MORGAN: When did Reeva tell you that she was dating Oscar Pistorius?

MARTIN: Well, I saw it in the -- in the news first, and that was about only two months ago. When it first came out there was rumors. When she attended the one function with him. And I remember I sent her a message, and I said, is it true, cuz? And at the time she said no, but he is a very nice guy, and that's basically it. She never really spoke much to me about him other than that.

MORGAN: Do the family feel angry towards Oscar Pistorius? How would you describe the family reaction to him?

MARTIN: I think the family are devastated. They are heartbroken. I think it's going to take a long time to even sink in what has happened. I just think they want Reeva back. That's it. You know? They -- they're not concentrating on how it happened. At the moment everybody is just in shock that Reeva is not going to be back tomorrow.

MORGAN: Did any of the family express to you when you caught up with them or since Reeva's death that they had any concerns prior to what happened about her relationship with Oscar Pistorius? Any suggestion that it was a volatile relationship or anything about all that?

MARTIN: No, Piers, you know, we were all in shock that Reeva died the way she did. You know, for us, we are just coming to terms with the fact that she's not here and the fact that she died so horrifically and so tragically is a big shock to all of us. We can't understand how this happened. We don't -- we can't understand why this happened to Reeva.

If you knew Reeva, you would understand why I'm telling you this because we can't understand that anybody could want to hurt her.

MORGAN: As you've been talking, we've been seeing some beautiful pictures of Reeva with your family that you very kindly allowed us to have. She was a beautiful, very intelligent young woman. There appears to be nothing in her background which could explain any kind of situation where anyone would deliberately harm her, as you say.

People are saying that Oscar Pistorius' version of events is implausible, it's convoluted and so on. But there is an argument that it makes much more sense that Oscar Pistorius may have mistaken Reeva for an intruder. However crazy that may sound. And that he was reacting to somebody he thought was invading his home. Do you or do the family think that is a possibility?

MARTIN: You know something, Piers, I -- that is what in my heart I hope and wish is the truth because I would not like to think that my cousin suffered. I don't want to think that she was scared or she was frightened or that she was fearful for her life. I don't want to think that. I just -- that is my wish that that is the truth, but at the end of the day we'll find out the truth, and I believe Reeva's life and her death is not in vain.

MORGAN: And finally, Kim, how would you like Reeva to be remembered?

MARTIN: For her sense of humor, for her kindness, her magical presence. When she walked into a room, she made you feel special. She had this glow about her, and she was going to save the world. She loved everybody and everybody loved her. You know, people were drawn to her beauty, but then her sense of humor would grab you, and her kindness and, you know, she became that beautiful, approachable girl next door that you could joke with, you know, and we were so proud of her. She never ever, ever let her beauty interfere with anything she did. She never let it go to her head.

MORGAN: Kim, I'm -- again, I'm so sorry that this has happened to you and your family. It's heartbreaking, to be honest with you, listening to you, and I share your view. I hope it turns out to have been a terrible accident, and at least that would be something I think that would be more bearable than the alternative, which is that she was murdered in cold blood and I'm sure that we will find that out when it comes to a trial, but I really appreciate you joining me tonight.

MARTIN: Thank you very much. Thank you for having me.

MORGAN: When we come back, I'll talk to legal experts Alan Dershowitz and Vinnie Politan about this Pistorius case. That's coming after the break.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's not a violent person. He is a peacemaker. He has always been a peacemaker, and that's his nature. He looks tough, and he looked like the superstar and held himself in public domain, but he is actually a very, very kind, soft person.


MORGAN: Defending the "Blade Runner" accused of murder. That's the uncle of Oscar Pistorius. Prosecutors call it murder. The defense maintains Pistorius thought he was shooting at an intruder. Who do you believe? Tom Foreman goes inside the home for an exclusive look at both theories.


TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You have to consider the layout of this apartment to understand the competing views of what happened here. This is Oscar Pistorius's view. He says he and his girlfriend were in bed when he got up in the middle of the morning, the early hours of darkness there, and went out to the balcony to close a window and bring in a fan. Unbeknownst to him, she got up and went into the restroom.

When he came back into the dark room, he says he heard a noise over here and feared a break-in. So he grabbed his pistol, he ran on into the bathroom here, began yelling out for the intruder to leave and to warn his girlfriend back in bed. Then shot through the door. Only after he came back and realized she was gone did he think, no, I must have shot her. He ran and grabbed a cricket bat to smash down the door and start yelling for help and to bring her back. That is his version of events.

But now think about where the evidence was. Think about the layout of this apartment. And listen to the prosecution's version because it is different. They're saying that essentially the evidence from neighbors hearing a fight and everything else, as the prosecution would put it, suggests there was some kind of ongoing dispute for quite some period of time, at which point she went into the restroom and locked herself in. Then he came around and either used a cricket bat to try to smash the door down to get at her or whatever the case may be, and ultimately pulled out his pistol and shot through the door in an attempt to kill her.

That is essentially the difference between the two stories. There are a lot of details involved, but the bottom line is, when you look at the evidence and the layout of the room, the prosecution says there's nothing in their version that directly controverts Oscar Pistorius' version. That's going to be the huge challenge as this goes to trial.


MORGAN: Tom, thank you very much.

Can Pistorius prove it wasn't an accident? Joining me now is attorney Adam Dershowitz who defended Claus (INAUDIBLE), who was found not guilty of trying to murder his wife. Also with me, former prosecutor Vinnie Politan and the HLN host. Welcome to you both.

Let me start with you, Alan, if I can. I feel like the family of Reeva. I watched her brother being interviewed tonight. I obviously here interviewing her cousin. My view has swayed and fluctuated over the last week. I interviewed Oscar Pistorius about two months ago. I find it almost impossible to believe that he could have premeditatedly planned and carried out the murder of this apparently intelligent, decent, nice woman from an intelligent, decent nice family. Where are you with this?

ADAM DERSHOWITZ, LAWYER: Well, obviously I don't know. Until the forensic evidence comes in, I'm going to maintain an open mind.

But I'll tell you what the question is not legally. The question legally is not what's the most likely explanation of this. If that were the question, we could have competing views, and we could say the most likely explanation is probably not the government's, that is a carefully premeditated plot, nor the defendant's complete accident based on mistaken belief that she was in bed. Maybe something in the middle. Something impulsive, something unplanned. The prosecution may have overcharged. The defense may be overdefending.

The thing that gives me some level of confidence that he may well be innocent is he has a very good lawyer, and his lawyer did something that no reasonable lawyer would ever do unless he was absolutely certain of his client's innocence. Put his story in an affidavit. Because if there's anything in that affidavit that is contradicted by one single bit of forensic evidence, the case is over. So this lawyer, to get his client out on bail, which he might very well do, put his case forward in writing. and that's an extraordinarily risky tact, but it may pay off.

MORGAN: Okay. Vinnie, let me bring you in, because you think Pistorius is guilty of murder. What evidentially have you seen which can be backed up by any apparent fact which actually says he did murder her?

VINNIE POLITAN, HLN HOST: Well, let me start with the affidavit, and this is like a little inside dirty secret in the legal profession. What is an affidavit? What it is is a carefully crafted document written by an attorney. And if this is the best they can do in their version of what happened, it's virtually laughable when you break it down what he says actually happened here. It's preposterous the whole scenario.

So let's break it down to just commonsense. What do we know? We know he had a gun. We know she was shot to death. We know he did it. They admit that he shot her to death.

Now, why did he do it? Do you have to prove a motive? Not necessarily. Premeditation, how much of a plan do you have to prove? Premeditation can happen like this. From the time that you decide to grab the a gun to the time you decide to shoot and kill someone. So, it doesn't have to be this grandiose plot that he's been planning a long time. It can happen a lot quicker.

But when you look at what he alleges in this affidavit -- which, remember, his attorney, his great attorney that he has, wrote all of this, and then he swore to it. If that's the best they can do, really? Piers, really?

MORGAN: Well, I mean let me come back to Alan. I mean, actually, when I read that affidavit, I thought, however implausible it may seem to the outside world, to me, my gut feeling -- and I might be completely wrong about this, but having interviewed him and gotten to know him a little bit -- of the two versions, of the state's version that somehow he premeditatedly murdered her or his rather elaborate version based on a fear, which we knew he had of being invaded in his home, that's why he had the guns there. If you accept that he had that genuine paranoia, then how far-fetched is it that he woke up in the middle of the night, that he heard somebody in the bathroom, and that, you know, he was not on his blades, he was on his stumps, we now know walking on the stumps in the middle of pitch black and that he panics and he shoots? I mean, is it completely --

POLITAN: Was it dark enough for him not to be able to find the gun? He found the gun in the pitch dark. How could he not see his girlfriend in the pitch dark? That's what I don't understand.

MORGAN: OK. Well, let me go to Alan. I'll ask you again, how far-fetched is this, Alan, from a legal perspective?

DERSHOWITZ: Well, the issue is not, again, what's the more likely explanation? The issue is whether or not he put forward an explanation that at least raises a reasonable doubt about the premeditated murder charge. And there's going to be a lot that will have to be validated. The angle from which the guns were shot is going to be very -- the gun was shot is going to be very, very important because you say he was wearing his prosthetics. We don't know that for sure. We don't know --

MORGAN: No, I think we were told -- no, I think correct that. I think we've been told that he wasn't on the prosthetics. In his affidavit, he says that he was actually without them. And the significance --

DERSHOWITZ: That's his claim.

MORGAN: The government case is that the bullets were fired from an angle which would imply he was wearing them.

DERSHOWITZ: But there's no videotape, and the judge -- remember, there's no jury here. There are judges. Let me tell you about the judges in South Africa. I know the judges in South Africa. It's a very politically correct judiciary. It's not one of the finer judiciaries in the world. This is a post-Mandela judiciary filled with people from the ANC and supporters of the ANC. This is a judiciary that will be very different from American juries. And they may very well be sympathetic to this defendant.

And the issue for them is going to be not is his story more plausible than the prosecution's story, but is there any conceivable plausibility to it that is not undercut by the forensic evidence.

Look, if there is forensic evidence that undercuts the affidavit, then his lawyer made a terrible, terrible mistake, and sometimes clients put pressure on the lawyers saying, look, I want to get out on bail. I don't care what happens later. I want to get out on bail. Write me an affidavit that gets me out on bail.

This affidavit may have done that, and his brilliant cross- examination of the policemen both may have done that. But the long- term implication if there are any inconsistencies between what he said and the forensic evidence may sink him.

MORGAN: Vinnie, very quickly, finally, just tell me the one thing that you have heard which you believe points to his guilt as a cold- blooded murder?

POLITAN: He shot first and asked questions later is his explanation. We know that he shot and killed her. His explanation, unreasonable.

MORGAN: But there are people all over America watching this who will say that that's the purpose of having the firearm at your home. You know? Americans' Second Amendment right to defend himself.


DERSHOWITZ: He is going to put South Africa on trail. He is going to say that if you knew how dangerous it was there and how many break-ins there were, and me without legs to run away, there but for the grace of God, go you. Put yourself in your situation. I panicked. I was scared. I made a mistake. I'm sorry, but I didn't intend to kill her. That may very well --

MORGAN: We've got to leave. I have to leave it there. Well, the mere fact that two legal minds are so split about this is exactly how I think many, many people feel around the world.

POLITAN: He's a lot smarter than I am. Alan's a lot smarter than I am.


MORGAN: Well, he's smarter than most of us. But it's a fascinating case, and I think it will all come down to new evidence and facts when we see them. Thank you for both. Thank you very much, indeed.

Coming up next, the life of Sandy Hook killer Adam Lanza and his mother, Nancy. My emotional and candid interview with Nancy's good friend.


MORGAN: More two months after the Sandy Hook massacre, and we still don't know why Adam Lanza did what he did. We also don't know a lot about the life he shared with his mother, Nancy Lanza. Tonight, we get some answers. And they're revealing and surprising.

Joining me now is Nancy's good friend, John Bergquist. Welcome to you, Mr. Bergquist. Where were you when you hear the news about what Adam Lanza did at Sandy Hook School?

JOHN BERGQUIST, FRIEND OF NANCY LANZA: Piers, I was at work when I -- I had I heard the -- the, you know -- the ongoing coverage all day long, but I was at work when I found out about Adam Lanza and, sadly, my friend, Nancy, who I knew then, who was no longer with us.

MORGAN: What was your reaction? Did you know Adam Lanza? Had you seem him interact? We're getting a picture of somebody pretty disturbed who his mother was struggling to deal with really. Was that your impression?

BERGQUIST: I just -- you know, I knew she loved her son. She was devoted to him. And certainly that he was capable of doing anything like this was an absolute shock. I never would have believed it. And I believe that she had no idea that something like this would have been possible.

MORGAN: You knew her well. What kind of woman was Nancy Lanza?

BERGQUIST: She was a wonderful friend. I looked forward to seeing her at the restaurant. And you know, her smile lit up the room. She was a great friend to me. She was a terrific mother. She was a good person. She was involved in charity work at the women's shelter. And she made regular donations to the food bank -- monthly donations to the food bank.

MORGAN: The obvious question, I suppose, is why would somebody like Nancy Lanza, given everything you have just said -- why would she feel the need to have so many guns and high-powered weapons in her house? We believe at least five, including this Bushmaster AR-15 Rifle. Why would she feel the need for all that?

BERGQUIST: I don't know that it was that she felt she needed them. It was one of her hobbies. It certainly wasn't her main hobby. She enjoyed shooting. And it was a sport that she did share with her two boys. And it's just an activity she enjoyed.

She certainly -- one thing I would like to add is she was described as some sort of gun nut or survivalist. And that simply, you know -- it wasn't the case. It was a hobby. It wasn't her main one, but it was something that she enjoyed.

MORGAN: Right. But if you have a son like Adam Lanza, as she did, who we know had serious problems interacting socially with almost anybody else -- he spent huge amounts of time in his basement room playing violent video games. Why would she take somebody like that to gun ranges and encourage him to use guns? And what does that tell you, I guess, about the problems with dealing with mental health perhaps in relation to gun violence?

BERGQUIST: Well, as far as Nancy goes, she was -- you know, she was trained in how to use a gun and in proper gun safety. And that's something she also instilled in her children. You know, as far as her son being violent, she never had any indication of that. She certainly at least never said that to me.

You know, she never had any indication of violence. She never feared him. So at the time, it seemed like a perfectly -- I'm sure to her it seemed like a perfectly reasonable activity to do. In retrospect, you know, he clearly had other plans. MORGAN: Do you know if she was actively trying to get him any kind of treatment? Because there are conflicting reports about that.

BERGQUIST: I had heard this as well, that she was trying to get conservatorship over him, maybe have him committed. I don't know. She never spoke of that to me.

MORGAN: It's a sad story for so many people. And I feel sorry for you that you lost a friend. It wasn't Nancy Lanza that committed this atrocity. It was her son. He is also dead; 26 other people were killed, including these 20 poor little children. It's an awful, awful story.

But I'm grateful to you, John, for joining me tonight and for sharing some of your memories of Nancy. Thank you.

BERGQUIST: Thank you so much, Piers.

MORGAN: Coming up next, Vice President Biden tells women to get shotguns for self-defense. Is he right?



JOE BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I said, Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house. I promise you, whoever is coming in is not going to -- you don't need an AR-15. It's harder to aim. It's harder to use. And in fact, you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself.


MORGAN: These are words of the vice president telling his wife to use a shotgun to scare away intruders. Is that really the best way for women to be safe? With me now is Paxton Quigley, author of "Armed and Female, Taking Control." And also joining me is Sandy Phillips, the mother of Jessica Ghawi, who was killed in the Aurora mass shooting. Welcome to you both.

Let me start with you, Paxton Quigley. What was your reaction to what Vice President Biden had to say?

PAXTON QUIGLEY, AUTHOR, "ARMED AND FEMALE": Well, I was rather shocked that he said such a thing because basically I've taught about 7,000 women how to shoot. And they prefer to use a handgun, and so do I, because most women are really afraid about being home alone at night, sound asleep when someone breaks into the house. And they're not ready to get a shotgun underneath their bed.

They would like to have a smaller gun and be prepared to defend themselves.

MORGAN: Right, but a particular point he was making, by way of comparison, was why would anyone need an AR-15, which was, of course, the weapon used at Aurora and, again, at Sandy Hook, and, indeed, in most of the recent mass shootings in America. What would your response be to that?

QUIGLEY: Well, I agree with him that I think an AR-15 is not something that the normal, average citizen should have. And indeed, he is right that if you had a shotgun and you pull the trigger, it's going to -- it's going to scare somebody. There's no doubt about that.

MORGAN: Sandy Phillips, you're in a better position than most because of the appalling tragedy of losing your daughter at Aurora. When you heard Joe Biden say what he said, what did you think of it?

SANDY PHILLIPS, MOTHER OF JESSICA GHAWI: Well, as you know, I am a gun owner, and I do own a shotgun. And I have to say that I agree with him. Just the sound of a shotgun can deter a lot from happening to you. We do know that the more guns we have in this country, that's not the answer. It's important to have our background checks that we're pushing so hard for, so that the wrong people can't get access to the guns.

So I kind of agree with him? If you're going to own a weapon, that's a great weapon to own.

MORGAN: I mean, part of the problem I have is there's a kind of -- well, A, there's a massive increase in the number of women buying firearms. Secondly, the way manufacturers are marketing them, I think, is -- it makes me uncomfortable. They're making them very commercially desirable, almost like a fashion accessory.

And Paxton, you know, I want to play your little clip here. This is a woman describing a special ladies holster.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The one that I have right here is actually meant to put into your bra.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This one goes in your bra?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This goes into your bra. So it actually fits underneath and hides right into your cup. And that is the flash bang.


MORGAN: CNN's Ed Lavendera there. I mean, the flash bang, it goes in your bra and so on. This reminds me of an interview I did with a Texas gun store owner who said to me that, you know, female teachers should have guns holstered in their bras too. And I find this whole kind of arguing really offensive.

But Paxton, what do you say to him? Are you content that more and more women buy weapons through this kind of direct marketing that they're like the next Chanel handbag? QUIGLEY: No. As a matter of fact, that's not what happens. In most cases, I would say that women go to a gun store. And even before they go to a gun store, they first learn how to shoot and they're not shooting pink guns. And they're not putting their guns in between their breasts.

Most of them, if they're carrying, will be carrying in a purse and usually in a special purse, or they might be carrying in their pockets. I think that it's overblown that women are going in this crazy direction. And I don't think that is really true.

I think they're marketing that way, but I don't think women are following in that way.

MORGAN: Well, I'm not convinced by that, because the amount of ownership is rocketing with women in particular in America. And here's what I would also say to you, Paxton, is this, is that the New England Journal of Medicine study found that female gun owners were twice as likely as the rest of the population to be killed by a gun, because women purchase handguns for protection against violence from an intimate partner, and those guns are then used by the partners against them.

So it could be that by the mere fact of arming themselves in an apparent self-defense purpose, they are increasing the risk of being shot.

QUIGLEY: In most cases, it's the man that has the gun rather than the women owning the gun. Most of the women who are buying guns today are living alone. You see, the whole culture has changed right now. They're more and more women who are living alone or are heads of households or are traveling or have jobs in which they're traveling late at night.

There are a lot of nurses, for example, who have guns. So just because there's a gun in the household doesn't mean that it's necessarily also a woman's gun. It could be the man's gun. There's a lot of statistics out there about the abuse of men against women, rather than women against men. For example, you never hear about --


QUIGLEY: But you never hear about women massacring hoards of people, do you? Never.

MORGAN: No. There's a point -- the point that I was making --

QUIGLEY: Only men.

MORGAN: Right. I think you misheard me, Paxton. The point I was making is there's a higher likelihood of a man shooting a woman who has acquired a gun and put it at home to defend herself from a violent partner, that that's the statistic which alarms me.

Final word to you, if I may, Sandy. Again, the solution to everything appears to be more guns, that more women should be armed, teachers, nurses, and so on and so on. I just don't agree with this. What do you say to people that believe that is the only solution?

PHILLIPS: I don't agree that's the answer either, Piers. Seven months ago today, I lost my daughter in that theater with 11 other people that were great people that should still be here. And as you know, the young man that was with my daughter has a concealed carry weapon here in Texas. Of course, he didn't have it with him in Colorado. And one of my first questions to him was, if you had had that gun, would you have been able to have helped? And he said no. It would have caused more chaos and more people would have been killed.

More guns is not the answer. It's just simply not the answer. We need to be sure that we're getting these background checks. We need to be sure that we're getting laws in place to stop the loopholes, so that people can't get their hands on the guns when they're not responsible gun owners.

MORGAN: I agree with that. Sandy, I have to cut you off, sadly. I'm sure we'll talk to you again. You always are a terrific guest on the show. And you speak with great eloquence. And I know why. Thank you, too, Paxton as well. I do appreciate it. Thank you.

QUIGLEY: Thank you.

MORGAN: And we'll be right back.



LARRY HAGMAN, ACTOR: I hope I'm not dropping by too late.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I already heard. Someone from the state attorney's office called. We both still have our contacts apparently. J.R., I don't know what you did and I don't want to know, but I am very grateful.

HAGMAN: Darling, if I can still throw my weight around this town after all the crap I've pulled, then you'll bounce back just fine.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And that's all you're getting.

HAGMAN: That's the gal I know.


MORGAN: A tender moment between J.R. Ewing and Sue Ellen from the new season of "Dallas." One of my all time favorite T.V. moments was sitting down with Larry Hagman last year. He very sadly passed away a few months later at the age of 81. But there's actually no one else quite like him on television.

And joining me now are two of his really closest and dearest friends, Patrick Duffy and Linda Gray. They're the stars of the new "Dallas" on our sister network TNT. Welcome back to you both.

I've got to say, I feel very tinged with sadness today having you back on without Larry, because it was such a special day for me when all three of you were here last time. To lose him a few months later was a real body blow to all his fans, but I think particularly having understood from the pair just how close you all were, it must have been really difficult for both of you.

Patrick, how has it been dealing with his loss?

PATRICK DUFFY, ACTOR: It's -- it's a mixed sort of bag of feelings because, you know, the three of us, we're the best of friends. And the good news about that is nothing was left unsaid between the three of us. We were with Larry literally right up until a couple of hours before he passed. So there's none of the, I wish I could have said or I should have made him understand this. None of that's there.

But it's the day to day experience of being able to be in his presence that leaves an empty spot that you just can't fill up. You just wish he was there, because he was so much fun. He was the biggest person I know in terms of being able to include everyone in his life. Those are the moments that will never come back. And so I have to rely on the memories. But the memories make me smile.

MORGAN: Linda, I want to play you a clip from our last interview and then come you to after this.


HAGMAN: I wouldn't be doing it without them. We wouldn't be doing it, would we?


HAGMAN: No. Somebody approached me and they -- would you like to do the show. And I said, are my friends going to be on the show? And they said sure. And I said let's see a script. Then we all -- we talked about the script. We liked it very much.


MORGAN: How do you feel, Linda, when you see him talking like that? You knew him 30 years and were so, I guess, just completely positioned with him career wise for so long, because of that fabulous role that you had opposite him. How do you feel when you hear him talking?

LINDA GRAY, ACTOR: Well, it's that wonderful bittersweet. I can hear him talking all the time. His presence is everywhere, Piers. Like Patrick said, he's just part of us. He's part of the thread of our lives. We began together. We were known as the Three Musketeer. When Cynthia Cedray (ph) and Mike Robin cast us all, they called us the big three. So it's always been that dear constant friendship connection. And he's always with us. He's always in our hearts. And his humor -- I just laugh about the things that we did together. It's like he's not here physically, but he's always with us. So that's the joy of having Larry Hagman as a friend for 35 years.

MORGAN: Patrick, like you said, you were all there with him right until the end. And I heard that even right to the end, he was cracking jokes. He was still the hilarious Larry Hagman that we knew him to be. I mean, tell me about those last few days. Because it sounded although obviously tragic that he was dying, at the same time, he had everyone that loved and cared for him around him.

DUFFY: Yes. And when he was still conscious and being able to have a conversation with us, it was life as normal, even though I think he knew even more than we did that it was a matter of days. But he was talking about what the future was going to be, that he was going to get this car and then he was going to take it to Los Angeles.

But then the other side, he would say, you know, I don't have very long. We would say, oh, Larry, yes, you do. And he would say, no, I'm OK with that. I took a lot of mushrooms in the '60s. He said, I've been to the other side. I know what it's all about. It's all good.

And he actually meant it. He really did feel that he was OK with that because it was not going to be that much different than what he was experiencing at the moment. But it's very interesting to see and hear clips of him, because it reaffirms that, yeah, my memory is right. That's exactly how I remember him. That's how I remember his voice.

And it's the same reason I don't delete his voicemails out of my telephone now, that are always going to be there. Because I just can't -- I always want to be able to refer back to that and go, yes, that's the voice. That's my friend.

MORGAN: Yeah, I completely understand that. Lovely to talk to both of you again.

GRAY: You, too, Piers. Thank you.

DUFFY: Thank you, Piers.

GRAY: Bye.

MORGAN: And we'll be right back.