he was a graduate assistant. he was in the locker room in the lasch building where he said he saw sandusky raping a child. how does sandusky's lawyer respond to a seemingly unshakable account? our jason carroll asked him directly. his answers, they may shock you. jason joins us in a moment, so will an attorney for one of the victims. a lot happening tonight, including the removal of joe paterno's name from the big ten championship trophy. the ceo of sandusky's second mile charity was replaced today. also revelations that the judge who freed sandusky on bail without requiring him to put up a penny in bail despite 40 sex abuse charges against him was herself a second mile member. and penn state's acting president posting a set of promises on the university website today including this -- quote, we will revisit all standards, policies and programs to ensure they meet not only the law but penn state's standard. he also promised transparency and said, quote, never again should anyone at penn state feel scared to do the right thing. but keeping them honest, that was already the image that penn state was putting out to the world back when coach sandusky was admittedly showering with children on campus and allegely raping one of them. there are still a lot of unanswered questions tonight. still things that don't quite add up. things like how back in 1998 when the first allegations against sandusky sparked four agencies both on and off campus to investigate, how was it possible that sandusky's bosses can say they knew nothing about it? head coach joe paterno, sandusky's mentor, close friend, who was grooming him as a potential successor, he claims the first he heard of the 1998 incident was in 2004 -- excuse me, 2002, four years later. it is even remotely credible that serious allegations are made against his right-hand man, that campus police are involved, that local police are involved, that the district attorney knows, child welfare knows, and not a single one of them utters a peep to joe paterno? is it believable that no one gives him a heads-up about a mortal threat to his very program, to his status as king of state college? to briefly recap the 1998 allegation involves a boy the grand jury pronouncement calls victim 6, 11 years old at the time. according to the report, coach sandusky took him to a campus shower, lath erd him up with soap and bear hugged the boy. the mother went to police after she noticed his hair was wet after a visit with sandusky. ronald schreffler told the grand jury that he and a detective got permission to eavesdrop on two conversations between coach sandusky and the mom in which sandusky told her, quote, i was wrong and i wish i were dead. so you have now got two police forces involved and an admission of wrongdoing, an admission of showering. also involved the county d.a. who declined to bring charges. the child welfare investigator told the grand jury that san duvgy admitted what he did was wrong. again, this was 1998. coach sandusky was joe paterno's right-hand man. he's been accused of a serious crime. he reportedly admits wrongdoing, yet nothing further happens. and his boss, joe paterno, says he was never notified? we wanted to know was there a university procedure that should have been followed at the time specifying who should be told and when in these circumstances? if so, was that protocol ignored? is there a reason to think he's being less than truthful about not knowing? we sent a producer on campus in search of answers. detective schreffler refuse to talk about sandusky has a preliminary hearing. the child welfare investigator won't go on camera. when we asked lisa powers about it last week, she said, quote, i don't have an answer to that question. she told us it's my understanding that there is no formal protocol in place, but these issues are handled on a case by case basis with consideration given to the alleged crime. that's no help in knowing what joe paterno or other staff members knew. it comes from a recent report in "the new york times," the pape citing prosecutors, they say that university counsel a guy named wendell courtney knew of the 1998 allege incident, this according to the "times," prosecutors saying, quote, he, meaning courtney, he believed that penn state's athletic director tim curley knew of the allegation and the investigation but was unsure whether other people in senior positions at the university knew of the episode. now, curley was joe paterno's boss. he's now facing charges of lying to the grand jury what he had been told about jerry sandusky. joining us is jason carroll. as we know sandusky's facing 40 counts, ugly allegations here. what's he saying in his defense? >> as you know, anderson, i spoke to sandusky's attorney for about an hour today. sandusky tells his attorney, that, yes, he admits to showering with young boys and, yes, he regrets it, but he did not sexually assault anyone. do you believe in his innocence? >> i do, i do. jerry sandusky is a big overgrown kid. he's a jock. for anybody that's ever played sports, you get showers offer work out. i mean, when people hear he got showers with kids, oh, my goodness, you know? like he got showers with kids. that makes him guilty, right? obviously anybody that gets a shower with a kid who is an adult has to be guilty of something. but the bottom line is jocks do that. they kid around, they horse around. and in fact, what jerry says in regard to the one allegation involving what the assistant coach or the grad student said he saw, he said, we were horsing around. he said we weren't engaged in sexual activity. >> i want to wait before we go to that because that's different. but even in just talking about the showering, a lot of people have trouble with the idea of a man showering with -- showering with a young boy. what are your thoughts on that? >> i mean, i wouldn't do it. i'm sure you wouldn't do it. >> i would not. >> i would feel uncomfortable doing it, but jerry did that. but, but, but that's a far different thing than saying he got showers with kids than saying that he committed these other acts which the prosecution has alleged he did. i mean, what's going to come out in this case is that jerry did get showers with kids. what i think happened, what i'm being told happened is that jerry was in the shower with this kid, the kid was messing around having a good time. you had mcqueary come in and see that, he felt uncomfortable, which is exactly what curley and schultz are saying that it was reported to them by mcqueary that he saw sandusky in a shower with a kid and he felt uncomfortable. >> can we go back to the 1998 incident, if we can go back to that incident in 1998, and that is when, allegedly, according to the grand jury, you know, report, jerry sandusky admitted to showering with that young boy in that incident and apologized for it and said, that i wish i were dead. and i think when you look at that, the presumption is there that something happened more than just showering. >> we have always disputed -- when i say we, jerry, because i wasn't involved in that case with him. but jury has always disputed that he made that comment that he wished he were dead. that's number one. number two, the apology was for simply getting a shower with the boy. do you know that young boy who is now a young man never, ever said that jerry did anything sexual with him. the apology was to the boy's mother for getting a shower with him. not because he did anything sexual. and in fact, not only did he have children and youth services involved in that investigation in pennsylvania, children and youth services in every county investigates every allegation of child abuse. not only did centre county children youth services folks investigate that case, the penn state police investigated that case. it was investigated by one of their most respected and distinguished investigators who has since retired, ron tressher. and not only did he investigate it, but they turned it over to the district attorney who went missing. but the district attorney at the time, mr. gricar, was a totally nonpolitical person. he didn't go to penn state. he was a prosecutor from cleveland. he was a career prosecutor who couldn't care less who you were and certainly couldn't care whether or not you were associated with penn state or penn state football. he investigated that case and decided it was not a prosecutable case. so they're taking that in the context, well, he did these other things. you know, it's the old saying if you throw enough mud on the wall that some of it's going to stick. and from my view, what the attorney general's office has done here is they've thrown everything they could throw up against the wall, and they're saying, look, all these accusations, some of them have to be true. when you take it apart, they don't even have victims in several of their cases. we're looking for those victims. and we may have some surprises for people. >> let's talk about that presentment. there are many ugly, serious allegations in that 23-page presentment by the grand jury. let's go over some of that step by step, what you can talk about. where do you see inconsistencies in these allegations? >> well, when you look at it, when you take it apart complaint by complaint, person by person, because there are allegedly eight supposed victims, and you look at what the allegations are, we have answers for each one of those. now, in two or three, even perhaps four of those, i mean, the allegation is that jerry put his hand on a boy's knee at some point, in a car, got a shower with him and gave him a bear hug. all which i might add don't involve criminal activity even if believed. and two of the cases, two of the more serious allegations, they don't even have victims. they don't even have people who are saying that this is what happened. they have other people who are saying they saw something, but they don't have actual people who said this is what jerry did to me. we're working with finding those people, and when the time comes and if we're able to do that, we think this whole case will change dramatically. >> why do you think these people would be making these allegations? >> well, you know, you don't like to -- other than the fact that they might be true, which obviously is a possibility. i mean, none of us were there. but you know, you have the money issue. you have the -- and now what's happening is really sad because if there are more people coming out because they've heard about penn state being sued and obviously the university having big bucks, we may never know who's real, who's not or we may never know what allegations were basically fabricated because people are looking for some money. we may never have the answers to those questions. but in terms of why people would do this? it's their time in the limelight. it's their time to have people pay attention to them. who knows? why do people make allegations that aren't true? you run into it, i run into it. we see it all the time in court proceedings where people have alleged something happen that didn't happen. >> tell me about what jerry is saying to you about everything going on -- >> he's destroyed. people are throwing bricks through his windows at home. i have calls coming in from the police from the township where he lives saying how do we protect him and his wife. i suggested that they basically get away for a while, but his response was where do i go? i've been all over the news. people no matter where i go are going to recognize me. so where does he go? he's distraught. he's absolutely devastated by what's happened to joe paterno. think about a person's career, the history that joe paterno's had not only at penn state but as a national figure. and it's all gone down the tubes in less than a week. his legacy now will be this scandal. and the tragedy here is either way you go, if jerry did these horrible things, it's tragic that he's victimized these kids. but if he didn't do them, it's tragic because he's ruined forever the reputation of just an outstanding person not only in penn state history but nationally in joe paterno who has been brought down by this. and he's beside himself. and i worry for his well-being. i worry for his health. you know, he's 67. he's not a young man. i'm very concerned about his well-being. >> jason, fascinating to hear the early rumblings of what the defense strategy may be. i think it's going to raise a lot of eyebrows. people when they hear his attorney saying that's what jocks do, i think there are a lot of jocks out there who never showered with a child nor done it late at night when no one else is around. i guess did the attorney have an argument for why the then-graduate assistant, mcqueary, would speak out against sandusky? because he testified to the grand jury saying that he witnessed, i mean, a rape by sandusky of this boy that appeared to be about 10 or 11? >> right. and that would be mike mcqueary. you know, when i asked him about that, anderson, he basically told me that, look, that's the $64,000 question. he says he's looking for the opportunity to interview mcqueary. he's hoping to do that very soon. but he says ultimately what he's hoping to do is find victim number 2. that is how the victim, that 10-year-old or 11-year-old boy is identified in the grand jury report, he's hoping to find that person as well, talk to him about what happened that particular night. but right now, he's calling that the $64,000 question, anderson. >> jason, i appreciate the reporting. thanks. i want to bring in jeffrey toob toobin, sunny hostin, and defense attorney mark geragos. jeff, when you hear the attorney for this man saying that's what jocks do, is he doing his client any favors? >> i don't think that interview is very helpful, especially now. if the day comes when there is a trial and you have to explain each incident away, it is better to say they took a shower together than to admit that sex took place in the shower. but when you are admitting showering with a 10-year-old, you got a big problem already. and i think that just indicates the depth of the problem that he has in this case. >> do you agree with that, sunny? >> yes. it's just remarkable to me what we just heard. and i try a lot of these child sex cases, and the bottom line is this is classic. this is a classic fact pattern. i think, jeff, you'll agree with me that these predators oftentimes groom children. so it starts with the touching, i starts with the hand on the knee and it typically progresses. i've tried cases where pedophiles have showered with children. it is just so classic to me. i think if you speak to anyone that's tried these types of cases and anyone that's an expert in this area, they will tell you that it's just such a classic fact pattern for him to admit that he showered with these children and horsed around and confessed to touching them. i, in my mind, that's already misdemeanor child sex abuse. i disagree when the attorney says nothing criminal happened here. that in and of itself is criminal. i'm flabbergasted. >> mark, i know the job of the defense attorney to defend his or her client, come up with explanati explanations. what do you make of this attorney's excuse for sandusky showering with young boys that this is just what jocks do and this is what people do after they work out? >> well, remember some of the things that he said what we've seen in the last nine days. i, as much as anybody else, enjoy a good old-fashioned media lynching. that's exactly what we've had here. is there anybody that gives a presumption of innocence at this point? no. i think that you've seen a kind of a piling on of a degree that's almost unprecedented. i think he's absolutely correct when he talks about look what's happened to paterno in the span of nine days. so i don't know what you would expect him to do at this point other than to try to stop some of the hemorrhaging that's been going on around his client. and you know, a lot of this is so reminiscent, to me personally, of what happened when michael jackson was first -- the charges were first brought against him. and do you remember, anderson, all of the talk about sleeping with young boys and everything else, and people saying that in and of itself, to quote your other guest here, that's exactly what they do when they groom people and everything else, this is deja vu, as yogi berra would say, all over again. and he ended up being acquitted. so before we go and we say this is, you know, it's a done deal, so to speak and we condemn them and everything else, i think maybe we step back and take a deep breath for a second. there is a pretty good point that is made there. you had a number of different agencies that investigated this in realtime years ago that didn't file anything. i'm not saying that this guy is not guilty, but at the same time he is entitled to a presumption of innocence. we still live in america. and it's a little disturbing to me kind of the assumption of guilt here because everything that penn state has done, both to the president and everybody on down, has presumed guilt in this case. and i just don't know that that's the american way. >> jeff? >> mark makes a good point about the presumption of innocence, and it's worth remembering back in the '80s, we had a spate of accusations of satanic abuse in day care centers. all of which turned -- >> this is very different. we're talking about eyewitness accounts. >> in mcmartin -- in mcmartin there were 65 people that were complaining. 65 people. >> the point i'm making is when you have an accusation, if you simply say, let's think about the presumption of innocence, that's a legitimate thing for a defense attorney to say. when you start admitting that he's taking showers with boy, you make more trouble than you solve. if he had simply gone and said, this is a media lynching, it's outrageous, i wouldn't blame him a bit. but when he starts explaining the conduct in a way that sounds ouflle incriminating to me, that's a mistake for a defense attorney to make. >> i don't know that i necessarily disagree at all with what jeff's saying. i think the answer to the question when jason asked, what did he tell you is to say i can't talk about it, that's attorney/client and just move on from there. if i'm going to critique -- and i hate to do that to other lawyers -- if i'm going to critique, that's probably a very good point. >> because it is hard for anybody to accept the notion of some, you know, elderly older man showering with a 10-year-old child, soaping him up and then, you know, horse playing naked in the shower. >> and several of them. and admitting to doing it. that in and of itself, as jeff just described, is of concern to so many people. but now we're also calling into question an adult interpretation of what happened. if you want to assume that that behavior is okay -- and it isn't okay. i firmly believe it isn't okay. i think there was criminal activity right then and there. you're talking about mcqueary who also says he witnessed a child being raped. i think when we're talking about presumption of innocence, let's also keep in mind that we have adults and children, adults that have testified in front of the grand jury under penalty of perjury and have again recounted what they've seen. >> but could i ask -- >> quick because we've got to go. >> i was going to say quick i also find it astonishing that somebody like joe paterno was told that somebody witnessed a rape, a child rape and he did nothing other than tell his superiors. so i'm just as incredulous about that. that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either. >> it's not clear what joe paterno himself was told by mcqueary. >> exactly. >> we don't know the detail of that. that's a point to point out. jeff, sunny, mark geragos, thank you. a lot of folks talking on twitter about this this, @anderson