Is Sandusky's Denial a Good Legal Strategy?

Dan Abrams and Nancy Grace discuss the Penn State sexual abuse scandal.
5:23 | 11/16/11

Coming up in the next {{countdown}} {{countdownlbl}}

Coming up next:

{{nextVideo.title}}

{{nextVideo.description}}

Skip to this video now

Now Playing:

{{currentVideo.title}}

More information on this video
Enhanced full screen
Explore related content
Comments
Related Extras
Related Videos
Video Transcript
Transcript for Is Sandusky's Denial a Good Legal Strategy?
-- legal team Nancy Grace the host of a challenge Nancy Grace and GMA legal analyst Dan Abrams thanks to both -- -- and Nancy let me Begin. With -- -- we've seen that this interview by coach sandusky has enraged. Some of the victims and their families mystified. Most of us can you understand. What strategy might be behind this. Well I can tell you this it's bad strategy number 180 defense attorney. We'll tell you never never never a -- a police are common on your case. This is one of the reasons. It has infuriated. Crime victims all over the country including myself. They kids I'm looking at a 23 pay -- grand jury for examine the New York Times now says that there are -- to maintain child victims. And his -- words a worm. It's not my fault. What I think. For instance a protest delegates support -- return I don't. The protests should be over a child being mainly sodomized in a shower and that should be the protest. I think a lot of us do it -- again it also seen that. Even though he denied committing any crimes he did incriminate himself as well a short. To some degree but -- he'd be happy. To get away with whatever crime he may have committed for quote horsing around with kids in the shower he's facing much more serious crimes. The matzo from from his perspective we're now seeing the linchpin of the defense which used this word horsing around why they using that word. Because in that grand jury resentment you -- -- one of the Penn State officials say. That his impression was that this was horsing around so. That's what's led now to these exact an important words being you can use what -- something they have moved. -- early disagree. I disagree. It's much more serious. He is not -- -- It -- he's placing himself at the location of the crime at the time of the crime with the alleged victim that has come forward. He's all but admitted everything that's going -- -- -- summit do agree he's placed himself at the scene of the crime. At the talent -- but but the difference is you -- -- Michael Jackson case -- he was basically saying yes I slept in bed with -- yes they -- certain things but the bottom line -- -- didn't commit the actual crime that -- -- -- he was -- This -- that's very different. -- look at but it did the word Nancy used about what. About what he's accused of doing to this boy is far more serious than the idea of playing sit with someone in the shower. I -- that's not that that's not the problem here the problem we're talking about he's rape. And let's be clear but how significant would -- Being in both India again and Nancy if indeed as the attorney seemed to seemed to suggest this young man backs up. Send us -- claim Nancy. Well look the lawyer you're 4% -- can say whatever he wants to. But this young man wit to the grand jury. That's -- under oath at a Granger I don't care what some defense attorney twist it around to say to the press H 43 page. And presented to a grand jury now reportedly eighteen victims somebody's not denying it including this guy. Sullivan is -- -- some of it it is is victims but a lot of it is witnesses who who said what what they saw the problem is the consistency. Of the accounts the number of the accounts and the -- he was grooming them. When you read the grand jury resentment again it so consistent in the way that they explain his conduct -- will all be brought in a single trial. That's right. And. You know another thing -- and George you know what's driving me crazy is that people as second -- These two Genovese CN -- events that were running it they made about a quarter million dollars a year off that charity. They claim they got suspicious in 2008. -- out. They weren't told back in 2002. According to the -- That something was horribly wrong and they waited all this time yeah other children may have been really sodomized. And those six years. Lot of blame to go around here. And -- one of the things we're seeing now is is apparently coach Paterno never spoke. To coach sandusky that any of these two want to send us exist and I don't I don't know that I would necessarily rely on what's it -- he -- about what happens if it's true. If it's true that Paterno never said anything to a look at -- that's a problem. You know you meaning it's more of a moral problem member what we have to separate out there's the legal lane and as the moral way. And I think that a lot of this that we're focusing on -- in the moral -- which is. Why didn't more people do anything no question about -- it's also lead to some calls Nancy for legal reform. Making a requirement for anyone at a college actually go to the police. If they witness or get any report of anything like this is not a legal requirement right now in many. Absolutely. That requirement is already on prisons elementary school teachers high school teachers in public schools. And it shouldn't be here -- two and another thing everybody says I reported -- -- -- does find a way out but when you look out your window at work at UC San does he's still out there you know we hasn't been arrested. Nancy Grace Dan Abrams thank you both very much.

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

{"id":14962439,"title":"Is Sandusky's Denial a Good Legal Strategy?","duration":"5:23","description":"Dan Abrams and Nancy Grace discuss the Penn State sexual abuse scandal.","section":"GMA","mediaType":"Default"}