(?) [inaudible] what happens today, in terms of where he goes and the county? >> well right now, mr. tsarnaev will remain in custody of the u.s. marshals. there is another proceeding, a huge proceeding that remains to be completed. and that is a sentencing hearing. there will be a sentencing hearing that will be scheduled. we don't know when. as you heard in court the judge scheduled the status conference, a death status conference, i would hope and expect that they would discuss when the sentencing hearing will be scheduled. at which point victims and survivors will have an opportunity to make an impact statement in writing. we've already solicited written impact statements from victims and survivors. but some obviously will be given the opportunity to be heard in court. so we'll figure that out. but there will be a sentencing hearing. the judge will then formerly issue a sentence, and then the

defendant will go into the custody of the federal bureau of prisons. then they will determine whether he goes to atx or terror haute. we have nothing to do with that. the federal prisons will be in charge. (?) >> you or the law enforcement -- [inaudible] -- something that you found -- the death penalty detail about what they saw about tsarnaev that made them think, we need to give greater punishment? >> when you look at the crimes that occurred here. the heinous gravity of the crimes, the number of deaths. you know, a child was murdered with a weapon of mass destruction. another young -- two young women as well. a police officer was executed in the line of duty. and so when you look at the

gravity of the -- of the harm and in particular as well, the many many victims who became amputees and many others suffering with many other forms of injuries. then you look at the motives. as we said in our case, the political motives. really, this was an act of terrorism. then that process began. and the department of justice approved a path that provided for the severest of punishments. a severe punishment for a severe crime. oh, i'm sorry. [inaudible] >> comments about the -- >> i don't hear the last part of your question. >> can you comment -- what is your reaction to the jury's finding on the count number one. [inaudible] the sentence there versus -- [inaudible] >> at this juncture, i won't

comment on what you're asking me. it's really to go into the jury's deliberations. obviously, they had taken their time. they were deliberate in how they made their findings. only to say that as we said, we are gratified with the jury's verdict. and we very much respect how they concluded it. yes. [inaudible] >> the district when it comes to the death penalty. are you confident that they would go for death? or are you surprised? >> you know, how i feel about it really isn't at issue here. i think that you make a very good point in terms of the type of state this is. but you have to realize that when -- when you're in court and you're sitting as a jury and you're listening you're the only ones that really have full access to all of the evidence, all the key factors that should be considered, you have the law to follow. i think that that has much more of a controlling factor rather

than what your opinion may be. but clearly, never any decision decision -- what i was confident of and what proved to be true was the tremendous work that the prosecutors and of the investigators did in presenting this case. i thought that they, first of all, in terms of the investigation, they left no stone unturned. in terms of the presentation of the evidence, i feel very gratified and proud that we were able to show exactly what happened here, provide motives for what actually did happen so that the jury could render a just and fair verdict. >> were you surprised at all in the overall time -- [inaudible] >> i don't want to comment on that. >> a referendum of the death penalty? >> michelle. >> very emotional. during the presentation of the

evidence. can we hear a little about their reaction today. you know, this is an investigation. they got emotional. can we hear about their reaction? and how the verdict was rendered? >> do you want to hear -- bill, do you want to speak? well we're not going to talk about -- we have had private conversations with victims. we've met with them throughout the process the very beginning of the trial. i had meeting sessions with them. with the trial team. self-directly. i personally met with many victims and families. and those conversations are private. what we tried to do is show support and really try to prepare them for this incredible process. >> at some point -- they were emotional. this is an emotionally charged case. what are their reactions? >> i think they want to hear. bill, why don't you take a stab

at it? >> well, on behalf of the prosecution team, i think i can say that we feel very privileged to have represented the united states in this case. we're grateful to the us attorney and the department of justice for entrusting us with an important case and it was our goal to make sure that the jury got all the information they needed to make a fair and impartial decision in this case. we wanted to make sure the victims had an opportunity to tell their stories and we want to make sure that -- that the entire -- the entire story was told. and we are grateful for all the people who assisted us in that endeavor. it's been a long haul. we think that we did our best. and we're grateful for the opportunity that we had to do that. we're grateful for the jury's hard work in this case. and it is an emotional experience to be a part of.

but part of your job as a prosecutor is to put your emotions aside. follow the law. do what the job requires. that's what we tried to do. >> you wanted to tell the whole story. [inaudible] >> well, we can't comment on anything that isn't in the public record in this case. but it's always the job of prosecutors in prosecuting a case in trying to make sure the story gets told and that the jury has the information they need to achieve a fair verdict. >> so is there an answer in all of the -- that you wish today -- [inaudible] >> you know the four of us standing up here along with many other people who aren't standing here, but who were every bit as much partners with us in this case as we were -- have spent the last two years working night and day researching the facts of this

case trying to understand what happened. and i think that we have as full and clear a picture of what happened as we could hope to have. [inaudible] >> nobody can see into another person's mind. and it's often the case in criminal cases that you have to prove that somebody had an intent to do something or a motive to do something. and you do that the only way you can as a prosecutor. you look at the facts. you look at the things that they said. you look at all the evidence in the case and you present it to the jury. and ultimately, it's for them to make those judgments. i'm not a mind reader.

but, you know, we -- our job was to try and recognize the facts and the evidence that would help the jury make that decision for themselves and that's what we tried to do. >> last question. >> mr. tsarnaev showed little to no remorse throughout the trial. what, if anything, does that tell you? >> well i'm not going to comment on mr. tsarnaev or anything he did or said or anything like that. that wouldn't be appropriate for me. again, the issue of remorse was an issue that was put before the jury. they heard evidence about it. and they rendered their judgment on it. and i think it's their judgment and not our personal view on anything that really matters. >> what about the idea that the trial was in boston? >> do you want to talk to the commissioner? absolutely. >> hello everybody. and welcome. i'm gerri willis. this is the willis report. we begin this hour with two very

big breaking stories. first, you just saw a jury sentence boston marathon bomber dzhokhar tsarnaev to death. the verdict coming after 14 hours of deliberations. also the ntsb holding its final news conference on that deadly amtrak train crash. we'll get to that in a minute. legal analyst lisa weil and senior judicial analyst andrew napolitano join us with their analysis. welcome to you both. we've been listening to carmen ortiz, the us attorney speaking. she said that this was not a religious crime. that was being prosecuted here. but purely political crime to intimidate and coerce the u.s. lisa your reaction? >> that's part of terrorism. the prosecution needed to show that all the way. i want to comment on the news report that we heard from the prosecutors. they're going by the book as to what they can say and what they

cannot say in the ethical codes of prosecution. that was critical for the prosecution's case to show this was terrorism. not some kind of religious belief. >> judge napolitano please weigh in. i want to hear your thoughts on what we heard on the us attorney. >> lisa is correct and the us attorney was correct. the evidence was not one of religious federal fervor taken out of control. in federal law, terrorism is defined as the use of violence to change the policies of the government. so in this case, this was a classic by--the-book -- in which they demonstrated horrific violence in order to scare the public into inducing them to change the policies of the government. (?) obviously it failed. and the -- the victim -- the surviving perpetrator of this is subject to the best form of due

process and the fairest prosecutorial system on the planet. but there's no evidence of religious fervor as animating either of the tsarnaev brothers from my understanding of the facts in this case. gerri: i want to get to something carmen ortiz had to say. she said the team did not come lightly to the decision to go for the death penalty. and, as you know, there were two choices in this case. the death penalty or life in prison. those were the only two options being considered. lisa to you. so this is difficult for massachusetts. >> this is. >> this is a state that does not like the death penalty. >> they don't have the death penalty in the state. she talked about process. let me tell you about that. i've been part of that process. as you're a federal prosecutor. you cannot just say in your own office. you can say to the us attorney. i want to prosecute thisas a death penalty case. it doesn't work that way. they have to go through a funnel. a system all the way then to attorney general

holder to say yes, you can prosecute this. it's not something done by one office. it's a long process. it's rarely done in the federal system that you go for the death penalty. >> back to the judge if we still have him there, your view on this, the death penalty and boston and the jury, 14 and a half hours. what does that tell you? that seemed like a very quick decision-making process to me. >> lisa and i were discussing this earlier on liz claman's show. and i was surprised at the verdict because the population base here is so stridently and has been so consistently against the death penalty. and in the case of the chain of command that lisa described, you have the former attorney general, eric holder himself against the death penalty. he's been the subject of a lot of criticism, particularly by our colleagues. certainly by lisa and me. (?) he put aside his moral view of the law and

looked at the standards of the application of the death penalty. and concluded that the facts in this case if they could be proven and we now know they were, fit within the federal guidelines for the death penalty and he authorized it. gerri: i want to bring something up here. because we're talking about dzhokhar tsarnaev, the tsarnaev brothers over and over again. there are victims here. four people dead. two young women. a boy. a baby. 8-year-old martin richard. sean collier a police officer. i believe we have the pictures of the victims here. we shouldn't lose sight. people died. people were maimed. >> hundreds were injured. 270. right. gerri: and as we look at this, has justice been served here, lisa? >> i believe so. i believei believe that if we're a country with a death penalty, whether you're for it or not the point is we do. in the federal system there are many obstacles to get to the signing off of the death penalty as the judge pointed out. if we have a death penalty and you look at

the heinousness of the crime. the aggravating factors. the age of the boy killed. the mit officer and all that. the lack of remorse gerri. there was no remorse on this man's face. at one point he looked emotional. not remorseful. but emotional. when his aunt took the stand. because she missed him. not when the victims or the families took the stand. he showed no emotion then. i think that's what the jury saw. >> we'll to have leave it there. lisa and judge napolitano, thank you so much. we're awaiting the press conference on the ntsb from the latest on the train derailment. children are still getting poisoned at a high rate by those laundry pods. what can be done to keep our families safe? stay with us.

gerri: we're still waiting on that ntsb press conference on on the amtrak collision. more details possibly coming out tonight. we'll monitor that for you. and get back to it as soon as we need to.

in the meantime, another concern. growing health concern that is. over laundry detergent pods. while they're increasing in popularity, they're also poisoning americans at an alarming rate. we've got details from the director of the georgia poison center gaylord lopez. gaylord, welcome back to the show. explain these pods. what we're talking about is detergent. in tiny little plastic baggies. why is this so dangerous? >> these are very attractive to young children. they think it's candy. they think it's something to play with. and parents are just not aware of the problems that these things can cause. gerri: and, you know, i understand children getting into these and thinking they're candy. what about adults? >> yeah. i mean, we've had cases where adults have had issues where they've accidentally or even intentionally eaten these things. i brought a couple with

me. you can see they're very attractive in color. and they're easy to put in the hand of a 2-year-old, a 3-year-old and next thing, you know, you have -- gerri: mom and dad don't typically put it in their hands. the kids find it themselves and they think it's candy and try to eat it. is the material inside under pressure, and does that create some additional problem? because sometimes -- sometimes children eat detergent anyway. they don't get harmed. in this case they do. why? >> we think it's mainly due to the concentration. you put these into the hands of a kid. a father was asking their 2-year-old kid to help with the laundry. handed the pod to the kid. instead of throwing it into the laundry chute, ate it. so it happens. gerri: all right. so that's bad. let's talk a little about procter & gamble. it's the biggest player in this space. with adults who know how to use this, they're very very popular. we could not get a comment from them. what do you view as the

best case solution to this? do moms and dads need to make sure it's up on a high shelf so kids can't get to it? >> that's one thing. think about it, in the last two years the cases to poison centers have doubled. we're seeing 1,000 a month across the country. now manufacturers can do a lot more than they're doing now. putting on tighter safety locks. maybe even individually packaging these things so they're not easy to get into. gerri: oh, my goodness. we had 13,000 cases of detergent poisoning in 2014. that's up 20%. so it is an issue. it's a myit's a problem. at the end of the day, don't parents just need to be more vigilant and make sure their kids are doing the right thing? >> they do. keep these things out of their reach. don't play around with this like it's something they can handle. certainly don't confuse it with something they can eat. these things are colorful. they smell great. but they're packed with

a lot of chemicals. packed with a lot of detergents. and these kids are getting sick. >> gaylord, thank you so much for coming on the show. >> thank you for having me. gerri: up next, the latest fallout with the clinton foundation. and a big abc news personality. stay with us. ♪

♪ >> george stephanopoulos scrambling to contain the fallout of his failure to disclose his donations to the clinton foundation. on abc's good morning america. he tried to make amends with viewers. >> over the last several years, i've made substantial donations to dozens of charities including the clinton foundation. those donations were a matter of public record. i should have made

additional comments on-air when we covered that foundation. >> here to weigh in, dan, of the wall street journal and adam goodman. a republican strategist. welcome to you both. dan, are you buying this excuse? are you buying what he's saying here? >> not entirely. i mean, i don't think people should have to disclose all their charitable contributions. but all of us in the media, newspapers, television stations by and large there are rules that you can't make contributions to political campaigns. this isn't quite that. it's the clinton foundation. but, on the other hand, it's not the macarthur foundation. it's not the ford foundation. it's his former boss. >> we knew hillary would run for presidency. and clearly the clinton foundation would have some role in that. adam, to you. do stephanopoulos comments, do they ring true to you? >> he's in a bit of a mess here. already there are people on capitol hill,

republicans who don't want to go on the stephanopoulos show because they don't think they'll get a fair break. his problem is that he's now in a position where you have to ask, how could he report the truth when he's hiding something that's essential to the truth. that was not something that was disclosed. we did know that george stephanopoulos had a good strong close relationship with the clintons over the years. he has worked on democratic campaigns in the past. we get that. but when he goes over the line -- and this isn't just buying 100-dollar ticket to a dinner. this is 75000 dollars' worth of contributions over three years to the foundation that now is floundering and has become a charity that is not a charity for others but clearly a charity to benefit bill and hillary clinton. >> one of the big questions that peter schweizer is posing. is the objectivity that stephanopoulos can bring to bear in his interviews. he's the author of "clinton cash." he beat up on peter schweizer in an interview. it was an intense

interview. i want you to hear from schweizer. >> as far as coordination is concerned, you have the fact that he's a donor. you have the fact now it's coming out he's participated in clinton global events as a panelist. as a speaker multiple times. it raises the question just about the coziness. you have the finances. you've got these meetings that he's attending. how you can expect to be objective you know, is really highly questionable in that kind of environment. gerri: dan should stephanopoulos step aside from all political coverage at this point? >> i don't think so. he's taken himself out of the debate. there's too much throwing people over the side when they get into a fix like this. the problem i think lies with george stephanopoulos and abc management. if he's going to conduct the program like he does every sunday morning, he has to be a fair arbiter. he has to have credibility. and this damages his credibility in a way that i think there they should be extremely upset about it at abc. >> i want to switch

gears and talk about a new poll which frankly shocked me. 60% of americans think the economy is still in a recession here. adam does this come as a surprise to you? >> not at all gerri. i think we're unfortunately moving into the age of incompetence driven mostly out of washington's inability to get things done. we're down and helpless about a lot of things. even though we have an economy that's somewhat tepid but still moving up we tend to think the bridge is still falling down. i think this is going to be a big part of the '16 campaign and the dialogue that every american has to be a part of in trying to figure out how we get back on our game again. have the feelings that things are working again. this polls shows that. gerri: i'm not sure that the economy is all so hot. dan, the wall street journal talks about how strong the economy is. what's your analysis? j it has not >> it has not been strong. it has been around .3%

in the first quarter of this year. way below the historic growth rate. in that situation, no question people have been feeling that people are feeling that things aren't quite right. they know people that are out of work or have stopped looking for work. it feels to a lot of people like a recession. gerri: i think that's absolutely true. the view from the kitchen table, i think that things ain't so good. dan and adam, thank you for coming on the show. appreciate it. >> thank you gerri. gerri: coming up, a new health concern about sunscreen from consumer reports. a new report on quitting smoking. why some people find it easier than others. stay with us. ♪

the real question that needs to be asked is "what is it that we can do that is impactful?" what the cloud enables is computing to empower cancer researchers. it used to take two weeks to sequence and analyze a genome; with the microsoft cloud we can analyze 100 per day. whatever i can do to help compute a cure for cancer, that's what i'd like to do.

. gerri: if you're a fan of sunbathing, listen up. there's some troubling now findings on sunscreen. a consumer report study shows nearly a third of sprays and lotions tested failed to delivery the spf protection that was myfoxla.com. promised on their labels.

join relevant joining me now dr. regal former dermatologist to the yankees. are you surprised by this? >> not really. you know, there's always been problems with testing on sunscreen. the fda has specific tests and if they're not run exactly like that, you'll get numbers. the real problem with sunscreen is that people under apply it. they typically only put 25 to 50% for the rated amount for testing on, so they're not getting the protection that shows on the bottle to them . gerri: well, i know consumer reports created a little bit of a but not because they tested slightly different from the federal government. even so, they're typically pretty rigorous in their testing, and i have to say it happened look like the promises are all there. and i want you to comment on this. number one pick was a product called -- i can't even

pronounce it sunscreen milk. it's also the most expensive. it cost $36 for five ounces. does this mean you have to spend up for sunscreen. >> well, it's a great product. it really is, it gives good protection, at school of a special ingredient that unavailable in the u.s. and it's broadly in the u.s., but there are other products out there that are equally as good that don't cost as much, so it's not the price it's the quality of the manufacturing . gerri: that makes sense. so what -- i know we can't necessarily believe the labels, but what spf is best? >> we recommended typically minimum spf30. i try to get my fair skin to get 50 because people under apply for those same reasons . gerri: yeah, you've got to fill up your palm; right? >> yeah. it takes a shot

glass size to do your body, and most are two or three ounces because that's what you can take in the airport. so three shots of that, fup your whole body, you would be done. . gerri: when does sunscreen expire? because i keep it in my closet for years sometimes. >> well, that's the funny question. theoretically in a three ounce bottle, it should never be around that long. but most sunscreens are good unless you put them in a hot environment like cashier's check car. but beyond that, they usually last a couple of years . gerri: a couple of years. now, you mentioned there might be some cheaper alternatives. what would that be. >> the neutral neutrogena products -- gerri: . gerri: is that what the yankees use? >> i can't say. [laughter] . gerri: we really appreciate

your time. thank you. >> my pleasure . gerri: and will tom brady win his appeal or be forced to sit the bench? and quitting smoking is nota with his but it may require more brain power. let's take a look at the new studies that could save your life

the pursuit of healthier. it begins from the second we're born. after all, healthier doesn't happen all by itself. it needs to be earned... every day... using wellness to keep away illness... and believing that a single life can be made better by millions of others. healthier takes somebody who can power modern health care... by connecting every single part of it. for as the world keeps on searching for healthier... we're here to make healthier happen. optum. healthier is here.

gerri: welcome back. we have some breaking news now on that ntsb press conference, which is on going. here's some of the details that we've learned from that press conference. first of all the ntsb has interviewed three of the crew members. now, bostonnian post a physical exam last month you're seeing a picture of him there. he was very cooperative with the investigates, and he reported no problems with the track or train. he showed good knowledge of the tract, in fact. he had been working five days

a week. and he said cardio the engineer that he was not fatigued. he was not tired. so this makes the mystery even more heightened in my view because it sounds like the engineer was in great shape and it's just unknown what happened to this train that went off the rails. another detail from our own peter barns. he remembers ringing a bell, but still has no recollection past that. so far he has been telling investigators that he doesn't remember everything. we're getting inside analysis tonight with former ntsb investigator, he's been tracking this investigation since the very beginning. i want to know what you just of these details that he passed a physical exam, he's being cooperative he still doesn't really remember anything. he doesn't remember being tired. what do you say? >> well, gerri, sounds like a stand up guy.

i know last night when we heard the train accelerated probably some people were thinking germanwings again but this doesn't seem to be the case here. and i'm sure by now the ntsb got a readout on the toxicology sample. he donated blood immediately so they probably have thought to ask him about over the counter medications. so you're right gerri the mystery does continue, and actually it expands and they're probably looking very careful at a mechanically explanation now and once again they're going to address why this -- positive train control system was not installed on that segment of track . gerri: right and we talked about that in the past. this is a technology that would have prevented this accident from occurring and prevent people from dying in this horrific derailment. so is it something mechanical with the train, what would be the possibilities here? >> well, either complex pieces of equipment.

and you've got to remember. this is a train that weighs upwards of million pounds hurdling down the track at much as 100 plus miles per hour, and we only have one person in that cab. so any kind of failure mechanical electrical, and so on can have serious consequences. we all that know people are -- you know, people occasionally that's why those automated systems were developed. and i referred to this in a book a wrote as a statistical death sentence. when you don't expeditiously fix these problems, you only have one guy -- gerri: i want to get back to the engineer now though because that's what we have now information on tonight. >> sure. gerri: and i want to explore this a little bit and it's your expertise. you know, the human quotient here. remember you're saying mechanical error but he is reporting saying i had no trouble with the tracks. i had no trouble with the train. how could we have some massive mechanical failure or error

and the engineer has no memory of it? >> well, remember he suffered, you know, a traumatic head injury. he may have some edema on the brain, i'm not a physician i'm a psychologist, but sometimes this stuff will come back. so it's quite possible that that critical period of time, that 65 seconds or so the ntsb talked about yesterday who three days investigation, he just may not remember the last 65 seconds . gerri: right. >> i don't know when it was that he heard that bell or signal but hopefully his brain swelling decreases, if that, in fact, is the case. this may come back to him. he may be able to answer the question . gerri: let me get another question to you here. >> sure. gerri: you said that the train is a million pounds. that's really heavy and that's

a lot of momentum, and as we know at its fastest the train was operating at 106 miles per hour. is it easy to let one of these trains get out of control? i would think with that kind of momentum, it's really a bottle rocket you're riding. >> i -- from everything i've heard and read and talking to engineers, this is not as complicated as say flying a jetliner, but you've got to be on your game and when you're going into a turn, we know that you've got to respond be with and that's i couldn't have the signals that's i couldn't have the automation to back you up -- well, didn't have the critical piece on this segment of track. so the short answer is it's not as complicated as flying an aircraft, but it's certainly something you've got to be on your game. when you've got that much momentum you've got to think ahead of the vehicle . gerri: the mystery deepens tonight, allen. thank you for coming on and

talking to us about it. thank you. >> thank you gerri . gerri: and till is to come, the latest on deflate gate, will tom brady win his appeal and are you thinking of quitting smoking? new studies show some promising news to help you with that. don't go away

you're driving along, having a perfectly nice day, when out of nowhere a pick-up truck slams into your brand new car. one second it wasn't there and the next second... boom! you've had your first accident. now you have to make your first claim. so you talk to your insurance company and... boom! you're blindsided for a second time. they won't give you enough money to replace your brand new car. don't those people know you're already shaken up? liberty mutual's new car replacement will pay for the entire value of your car plus depreciation. call and for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't

raise your rates due to your first accident. switch to liberty mutual insurance and you could save up to $423 dollars. call liberty mutual for a free quote today at see car insurance in a whole new light. liberty mutual insurance. gerri: we're onto sports in deflate gate, the nfl players association calling offsides on nfl commissioner rodger, planning his appeal on tom brady's suspension. but the union is demanding that he step aside because brady plans to call the commission as a witness. how complicated is this? here at fox sports.com, so good to have you hee we're trying to get you on for a long time.

so should he hear this? i mean tell me what you make of this because you're telling me in the break that ther's background is really in pr, he's not an attorney. >> he's not an attorney, and he's saying that, hey we signed a collectively bargained agreement with the nfl in 2011, that gives rodger the power to hear all these appeals. now he's exercising the right for these powers and they've got some heavy legal team saying hey, you can do this off the field, but this is on the field and in the cba, it doesn't say you can do that. you shouldn't have that right toes this . gerri: has he heard other cases. >> no. this is unprecedented what he's doing . gerri: so now he's coming into this -- >> now he's coming many. president termite i heard today is that his heels are so did you go in, everything is riding on the line on this one. but guess what. at the end of the gidel is going to be the one in the room with them, and it's going

to be good or he will have, depending what side you're sitting on. and for the nfl, at the end of the they might be a winner through all this . gerri: so he's going to sit down. monooman mono. but in the past they've been super close. >> robert kraft the owner of the patriots is very close to gidel, which makes this fascinating, and when this whole rye ray rice came out it supposedly wonderfully about how he is the right man for the job and there's two committees. the broadcast center, which decides which networks get the games, and the compensation which decides which gidel makes, and kraft is on both of those. . gerri: not so much anymore the friend. i want to hear what the patriots had to say. text acknowledged to be attempt of humor and exaggeration are nevertheless

interpreted as a plot to properly deflated footballs even though none of them referred to such plot. and apparently the patriots going to sue. >> and the story will go on and on and on. and it's going to be interesting because you have all this happening here and the patriots are saying, look, you hired ted wills to this this investigation so obviously they had a reason -- you're paying them and wells came about a and said how dare you question my impartiality and my intelligent. there's all these different power lawyers lots of money in play. it's the classic drama and it's going to spill out in the pages of the newspaper it's going to be pretty wonderful . gerri: i understand your excitement over that. but what's the hit rate? how many of these will stand up. >> yeah. it will stand up, at it taint tom brady's legacy if it upholds . gerri: but will it? >> i think if he's coming in

saying i'm going to be the guy to hear this appeal -- gerri: he's confident. >> these texts that brady might have that he was not willing to give up, it might be . gerri: what did she a lot of drama. >> and the most popular player in the nfl . gerri: right he is the face of nfl. >> him or tebow . gerri: next time you come on, we're talking golf. >> golf . gerri: why some people or are more successful, can you get out nicotine.

the real question that needs to be asked is "what is it that we can do

that is impactful?" what the cloud enables is computing to empower cancer researchers. it used to take two weeks to sequence and analyze a genome; with the microsoft cloud we can analyze 100 per day. whatever i can do to help compute a cure for cancer, that's what i'd like to do.

♪ >> well, if you're a smoker trying to quit, there are two promising new studies that can make kicking the habit a lot easier. one involves biology and the other human behavior. most of you said in our poll question, most of you never smoked or successfully quit. it's not that easy for so many folks. here to break it down is founder and host of the doctor weighs in pat. pat, welcome back to the show. i have to tell you, be honest

i'm one of those that quit. now the study is showing that something called stronger brain connectivity can make it easier for you to quit than to stay hooked. what does that mean? >> well, actually it's a fascinating study. i love it. there are implications beyond smoking. it really gets to the biology of addiction. and what this study showed is that people who were more successful at quitting when they went back and looked at their functional mri, it's an imaging study that looks at brain activity, they found that people who were more successful at quitting had stronger connections between their reward center and the center that controls that kind of behavior. good news for people that have that. >> good news for people who have that. but isn't that something your genes control? is it something you can control or strengthen? >> people are looking at ways that we can control it.

whether we can use something called transcranial magnetic stimulation to increase the activity? gerri: whoa. that sounds scary. >> or even neurofeedback. i think it opens up a lot of promising areas for treating addiction. gerri: this makes it sound like over the long-term, it might be easier for people to quit. >> over the long-term we might end up finding things that make it easier for people to quit. the more we understand the mechanisms of addiction the more we can bring targeted interventions. gerri: targeted intervention does. s. another study out there. apparently, if you have money on the line your own money in a bet, you are more likely to quit. tell me about that. >> sure. this was an interesting study in the new england journal. they compared people who were given a reward $800, if they quit smoking versus people who had to make

150-dollar up front investment in quitting smoking which they would get back plus an additional layer later on. what it showed is that most people didn't want to participate in that arm of the study. so, you know, they didn't choose it. but if they did agree to be in that arm of the study, they were actually more likely to quit than the people who got the simple reward. >> do you think over time we're just going to see smokers? you see fewer and fewer of them all the time. even our viewers tonight are saying they either don't smoke or they quit smoking already. >> right. well that's the hope. i mean we've put a lot of money and time and energy into helping people to quit smoking. but the one thing that we do know is that it's a whole lot better if you don't start smoking in the first place. gerri: to begin with. dr. pat, thank you for coming on the show tonight. great information. >> sure. my pleasure. gerri: that's it for tonight's willis report. thanks for joining us. don't forget to dvr the

show if you can't catch us live. "making money" with charles payne is coming up next. have a great night. ♪ ♪ charles: live from las vegas, at caesars palace. this is the money show. look at this live audience. let's go make some money! ♪ >> live from caesars palace in las vegas, this is "making money" with charles payne. [applauding] charles: tonight we'll be answering all your questions about investing, the stock market, real estate retirement.