He can't incriminate himself in that question if he's innocent. What he's not saying is, "That wasn't me on tape then and it's not me on tape now. I have never knowingly had s--ual relations with any underaged girl." Why is he not willing to say that but then be perfectly comfortable saying he has not held anyone against their will? How is he going to answer when the prosecution asks, "Is that you on this tape? The mole on the subject's back is of the very same size as yours and in the very same place that you have yours" (unless he had it surgically removed which investigators will uncover). Add to that the testimony and age of the new witness and it's a done deal.