sandusky are true, and that will be for a jury to decide, he likely had a powerful network of enablers or at the very least countless people who had powerful interests in not believing the allegations against him. and yes, tonight that circle grew. take a look. this is the former home of thomas horman, retired penn state chief of police. he was living there in 1998. 1998, remember that year. today we've learned his neighbor back then just three doors down, was, you guessed it, the blue house, jerry sandusky. that's jerry sandusky's house there. not only were they neighbors, not only did their kids play and ride bikes together, they worshipped at the same church. this one called st. paul's united methodist. neighbors and fellow church members back in 1998, which is when the mother of an 11-year-old boy went to university police with a sexual complaint against coach sandusky. now, according to a grand jury report she said it happened on campus at a practice facility, sandusky allegedly touching the boy inappropriately in the shower. the investigation included officers listening in on phone calls of the mother confronting sandusky. according to the grand jury report, sandusky replied, "i was wrong. i wish i could get forgiveness. i know i won't get it from you. i wish i were dead." despite that, when the local d.a. declined to press charges, chief horman closed the case. and according to the grand jury report, jerry sandusky continued to bring kids on campus and allegedly continued molesting them for years after that. as for the details of why he closed the case, his department isn't releasing them. in fact, the entire university is exempt from pennsylvania's open records law. but former chief horman, he's not the only one with prior connections to sandusky. there's the judge, leslie dutchcot, who released sandusky on unsecured bail. she donated to and volunteered for sandusky's second mile children's charity. she's no longer handling any sandusky-related proceedings, we should point out. there's wendell courtney, penn state's legal counsel, who also served as second mile's lawyer. there's fired head coach joe paterno who was grooming sandusky to succeed him who claims he wasn't even told at the time that his right-hand man was being investigated. wasn't told even though penn state athletic director tim curley his boss perhaps in name only was brought into the loop. plenty of people in position to stop a child molester if that is in fact what jerry sandusky was. but given the opportunity, none of them did. then there's assistant coach mike mcqueary, now on leave. there are new developments tonight, important developments concerning him. his story apparently shifting yet again. you'll recall he told the grand jury he witnessed jerry sandusky raping a boy in the athletic building showers back in 2002. according to the grand jury report, he first called his dad, then joe paterno, then later talked to tim curley and gary schultz. a few weeks ago he took issue with that account. in an e-mail obtained by allentown's "morning call" he claimed "i did stop it. not physically, but made sure it was stopped when i left that locker room." now, according to cnn contributor sarah ganim another version of his store is appearing. writing in the qus harrisburg patriot-news," she quotes what a family friend told the grand jury. this friend she reports sat with and listened to mcqueary as he recounted what he had just seen in the locker room. again, according to sarah gannim's reporting, the friend told grand jurors that mcqueary did not in fact witness the rape itself. mcqueary told him he heard sex sounds and the shower running. then according to his account, a young boy stuck his head around the corner of the shower stall and looked right at mcqueary as an adult arm reached around his waist and pulled him back in. seconds later mcqueary saw sandusky wrapped in a towel leaving. joining us now senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin, also sunny hostin of "in session" on our sister network trutv, and criminal defense attorney mark geragos, who is here in new york. jeff toobin, the fact that now there is this basically third version of what mcqueary may have seen, why are there all these conflicting stories if this is testimony to the grand jury? >> people tell conflicting stories. and remember, mcqueary has been vilified for not having taken more steps to stop this rape or to report it, so it would not be surprising if in recounting it subsequently he describes his role in a somewhat more heroic way. so i am not at all -- and it is also true just in the nature of criminal investigations when people tell their stories multiple times they tell it in different ways. it's always a problem for prosecutors. it's not necessarily an insurmountable problem, but clearly mcqueary will be a difficult witness for the prosecution. maybe still believable, but -- >> if he said one thing to police in 2010 but said another thing back in 2002 to this guy who heard his story the first time, that would seem to be a big inconsistency. >> that's a huge inconsistency, and that's part of the problem with the way this thing has been presented so far. they did the summary of the grand jury testimony. they didn't put out what was actually said. the prosecutors did that. there's a whole lot of stuff we don't know about. it's one of the reasons i've kind of railed against this, saying, well, there's all kinds of evidence or there isn't evidence. until tomorrow we haven't seen anything. we don't know anything that's been cross-examined yet. but i will tell you if he's told one story that is dramatically different, if you say on one hand i saw a sex act. if you say on the other hand, i saw somebody who peeked their head out and i saw an adult arm, you couldn't get more diametrically opposed. and that's a major problem. >> and a problem not just in whatever evidence there may be against sandusky but also two other people have been arrested. penn state officials basically because of allegedly what mcqueary informed them of. but if he did not inform them that he saw a sex act but just a more general vague thing, then it seems like the charges against them could be tossed out. >> look, i don't think that what he's saying is that inconsistent. i don't think we're hearing all these different versions. i think we're hearing a lot of pieces of the entire puzzle. i think what we need to look at is what he told the grand jury. that is what he told under oath -- >> well, we don't really know what he told -- >> we don't know. >> we have a summary of what he said. >> well, the summary is by a prosecutor. that's -- you can take that and 25 cents will buy you a cup of coffee. >> if the summary was so accurate, we would have heard this alternate version that somebody also testified to the grand jury about. >> which they conveniently left out. which is exactly what you normally have when -- >> we're going to hear tomorrow, we're going to hear tomorrow. and the bottom line is this is why witnesses of sex crimes don't want to come forward, because they become vilified, because they're scrutinized and mike mcqueary is as much a victim of sandusky -- >> wait a second. why are you a victim -- >> he is. >> -- if you say on one hand -- >> he's being vilified. >> -- i saw a sex act and somebody's been arrested and two guys, as anderson says, have also been arrested for not reporting that. >> he said he heard something and he saw something. what about the ten kids? >> i don't see mcqueary as a victim at all. here is a grown man who is seeing at least very clear evidence, if not actual evidence of a sex -- of a child being raped, and all he does is tell his daddy. i mean, i have no sympathy -- >> but now it sounds like maybe all he heard was slapping sounds and -- you know, which he interpreted as one thing and didn't actually see anything but just saw this boy peek his head around. >> you know what? do more. this is too serious to say, well, i'll talk to my dad. i mean, err on the side of protecting children. >> but he didn't only do that. that's not fair. he didn't only do that. he did speak to -- >> we don't know what he did. >> -- paterno. he did do more. >> but the version that this other person that's how -- that's been revealed by this other person that testified to the grand jury is much closer and jibes with what sandusky has been saying, that they were horse -- whatever. that's a ridiculous term, horseplaying. set that aside, is it appropriate for a grown adult to be horseplaying with a naked child in a shower. obviously not. sandusky is saying there was horseplay, this kid was playing around in the showers, turning all the showers on, running around. that could jibe with what this other person is saying mcqueary told him. >> what makes this particularly problematic for the prosecution is that for this incident, as far as i'm aware, the prosecution doesn't know who the boy is. obviously, the most important testimony in this case would be the victim, the alleged victim. apparently, we don't know who the alleged victim is here. in the other incidents the alleged victims will testify, and you don't need a mcqueary. you don't need another eyewitness. >> and tomorrow the alleged victims are going to be there -- >> absolutely. >> all of them? >> ten of them. that's extraordinary. >> i don't see how they can all do it in one day. >> i agree. >> it's hard to put ten witnesses on, particularly about a complicated, embarrassing, awkward set of facts. i would imagine this would go several days if, you know, if there really are -- >> so mark, what would happen? so there's the testimony tomorrow and whether it goes a couple days or not, what happens then? >> well, look, the judge will decide whether or not there's enough evidence to send this thing for trial. that's a probable cause proceeding. at least in california i always joke if my client is breathing he's going to get past that and they're going to hold him to answer for a probable cause proceeding. so nobody expect anything dramatic where this thing is going to completely unravel and it's going to get dismissed. i think what will happen -- i think frankly it's a lot more damaging or potentially damaging for the prosecution in terms of locking in testimony and then having at least the cross-examination if it turns out that a lot of the things that have been said that are out there in the ether aren't true, the prosecutor is going to start backpedaling. i've seen that happen before. that can be a dangerous thing. >> this is why again, and we've said this before on the show, lawyers say do not talk to the media, do not do media interviews, because it puts alternate versions or versions out there that can then come back on cross-examination. >> even witnesses who are trying in good faith to tell the truth tell things different ways. their memory changes. they're nervous. so every time you tell a story you risk opening yourself up to cross-examination. and that's why prosecutors always say keep your mouth shut. >> but i think we can't underestimate the fact that ten young men are going public at a public hearing to talk about something that young men and young women never want to talk about, child sex abuse. and i think when you look at this case -- >> we don't know whether they're going to -- >> we don't know, number one, what they're going to say. we don't know number two -- >> they're going to say they were sexually abused by jerry sandusky. that's what they're going to say. >> that's not true. because in fact sandusky's attorney has come out and said actually the versions of several of these boys, you know, they've had cordial relationships with sandusky and actually back up sandusky. so we actually have no idea other than what's been as mark keeps pointing out this grand jury testimony -- >> they would not be called by the prosecution unless they were going to talk about the child sex abuse. >> that's not true. >> that's the bottom line. >> i'm telling you you're going to be very surprised tomorrow sxwlp well, let's see. >> interesting discussion. appreciate it. nice to have you here, mark. mark geragos, sunny hostin, jeff toobin. let us know what you think. we're on facebook, google plus. add us to your circles. follow us on twitter twitter, @andersoncooper. i'll be tweeting tonight as well. coming up, newt gingrich, even mitt romney now says he's the front-runner. but do his claims always fit the truth? keeping him honest along with the other candidates and president obamas with pl. james carville and rich galen are here. also, the clearest signs yet of the brutality in syria. gunshots at a funeral. the family burying their son. you saw where he died on friday. the same regime that murdered their child apparently seemed to open fire on them today. details ahead. i like helping people save. time, hassle, and the big one -- money. hundreds, in fact, if you're a progressive customer, like me. next hundred cars, they're on the messenger. release the savings, my friend! ♪ when you're a sports photographer, things can get out of control pretty quickly. so i like control in the rest of my life... especially my finances. that's why i have slate, with blueprint. i can make a plan to pay off big stuff faster... or avoid interest on everyday things. that saves me money. with slate from chase, i'm always in control. financially, anyway. get slate with blueprint and save money. call 855-get-slate today. a lot of big developments to talk about in the presidential campaign tonight. ed it is getting really interesting. several rough moments today for mitt romney who is now admitting he's no longer the gop front-runner. first a quick "keeping them honest" check on things that politicians say that often sound like facts, but simply aren't. two examples from the gop debate in des moines over the weekend. two claims that came up wanting when we put them to the test. here's the first. newt gingrich responding to an allegation from michele bachmann that he and mitt romney once favored a cap and trade as a way of reducing carbon emissions. >> a lot of what you say just isn't true. period. i have never -- i opposed cap and trade. i testified against it the same day that al gore testified for it. i helped defeat it in the senate through american solutions. it is simply untrue. >> keeping them honest, that is simply untrue. whatever you think of cap and trade, it began as a conservative initiative as a way of letting market forces lower the cost of cutting emissions. in 2007 here's what gingrich said on pbs's "frontline." he said, "i think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulphur, and if you have a tax incentive program for investing in the solutions that there's a package that's very, very good." he adds, "and frankly, it's something i would strongly support." and there's more. the non-partisan factcheck.org turned up congressional testimony from just two years ago in which the former speaker said he would still support cap and trade for major polluters if accompanied by incentives for nuclear power and so-called clean coal. also in the debate there was this from mitt romney. >> let's not forget, only one president has ever cut medicare for seniors in this country, and it's barack obama. we're going to remind him of that time and time again. >> keeping them honest, that's not true either. again, according to factcheck.org, the 1997 balanced budget act which passed with bipartisan support and was signed by president clinton called for $112 billion in cuts over a number of years. recently national public radio spoke with joe antos, a health care economist for the conservative american enterprise institute. when it comes to medicare, he said, "we've had a series of cuts year after year, decade after decade." so governor romney's statement also fails to fit the facts, that's the republican side. the president for his part, recently talked to "60 minutes" and that interview aired last night. listen to what he said he thinks republicans have been up to lately. >> i think that when i came into office in 2008 it was my firm belief that at such an important moment in our history there was no reason why democrats and republicans couldn't put some of the old ideological baggage aside and focus on common sense, what works, practical solutions to the tough problems we were facing. and i think the republicans made a different calculation, which was, you know what? we really screwed up the economy. obama seems popular. our best bet is to stand on the sidelines because we think the economy is going to get worse and at some point just blame him. >> now, that's a popular talking point for democrats these days, but it's a pretty loaded charge. it implies that republicans are happy to take this country's economy to its knees so they can take the white house in november. again, a popular talking point, but no facts presented to back it up. digging deeper now with democratic strategist jamsz carville and rich galen, republican strategist who served as press secretary. james, what do you make of what came out of the debate on sunday? newt gingrich has to know he's a republican front-runner, he'll be under a lot more scrutiny, he has a record of supporting cap and trade. for him to claim otherwise doesn't seem an astute political move. >> i guess it isn't. but once you say something like that, and they had a huge audience for that thing, it was over 7 million people, and then if you try to clean it up after it's sort of lost interest. and who knows in but i doubt if he's going to suffer very much for saying something which was obviously untrue and as you pointed out it was a conservative idea. the idea of milton friedman, who's a conservative, you know, icon, if you will. so just like the individual mandate was a conservative idea. so i'm a little flummoxed why he wouldn't want to embrace it but it's become toxic over there. so he just baldfaced out and out denied something that he had clearly done. >> james, do you actually think newt gingrich will be the nominee? >> you know, i never thought so before. i'm shaken a little bit. but i think he's getting ready to have a very rough couple of weeks. i think the republican establishment, whatever that is, a lot of people in the republican party are very concerned about this. and i think today we saw a taste of what's coming. i think more and more's going to come. and it's going to be a pretty rough couple of weeks here. >> rich, two new polls today show newt gingrich still in the lead in iowa, but with the lead seemingly slipping, you used to work for gingrich, do you think he's going to end up winning the nomination? >> i do not think so. the bigger -- from a tactical standpoint, james and anderson, the republican rules this year are everything will be proportional, all of the caucuses and primaries will be proportional for january, february, march. winner take all primaries cannot begin before april 1st. that almost guarantees, and by design, that this will probably be a long slog. and i just, as we're speaking here tonight, i don't think newt has the underpinning, the money, or the organization to be able to go five or six months all the way into california and new jersey on june 5th. >> anderson, just to echo what rich was saying, there's also some evidence at least in the gallup poll that his national numbers are starting to slip. once these things -- if this is real, i don't know. the evidence is not overwhelming. but if the evidence continues and they keep coming at him hard, once you start slipping, it's a pretty slippery slope out there. >> yes. let me just say this. six weeks ago herman cain was leading the polls. and now he's gone. so six weeks down the road, who knows? >> that's what i just find so fascinating about every presidential race, you know, just