All language subtitles for 2uefbgkjefbnofenoef

What does it mean
to tell the truth?

Okay.

[John Contrucci] Greg was just
a superior athlete.

[Marlon Berduo] He was
one of the best out there.

Yeah, He was definitely
considered like,

the football star.

[Bryan Mays] The momentum he
had at that point in time

is unlike most students
ever experience.

[Gaebri] Greg And Johnathan
were friends.

They were on football together.

[Greg Kelley] We just
pretty much hit it off.

And that's when, you know,
Shama said, "I'll take him in."

[Greg] She was a-a-a
loving mother figure.

Shama was running
an in-home daycare.

There was a parent accusing Greg
of molesting one of the kids.

[male reporter] Leander is
still in shock tonight after

a high-school student
was arrested accused

of sexually assaulting
a young child.

An adult high school student
taking advantage of

little kids.

[Bryan] One kid
could get it wrong.

But then you have two kids.

There may be something
that's going on here.

[interviewer] Did Greg ever
have you touch him in any way?

That second kid dropped
his accusations.

What I know of Greg is
what I know of Greg;

he's a liar.

Look at the evidence.

You're going to
find him guilty.

The least you can get is
25 years without parole.

[male juror] We, the Jury, find
the Defendant, Gregory Kelley,

guilty of the offense.

This should have never
seen a courtroom.

I was shocked when I
realized that there were

supporters for Greg Kelley.

I-I think Greg Kelley
is guilty.

I'm completely innocent
of these accusations.

♪ low dramatic music ♪

[Jake] We wanted to, uh, just
give you an update

and thank you for, uh,
your support,

um, to help fight, uh,
for Greg Kelley

and-and get him released
from jail.

He's, uh, he's been in jail
since Tuesday, uh, night.

And we want to get him out
of jail as soon as possible.

And we need your
help to do that.

We want to make it very clear
that we are disgusted

with this justice system.

And it has become a game
to certain people,

like Geoffrey Puryear
and Jana Duty.

And their goal is not
to have justice done

but to, uh, increase
their credentials

and their arrest and
conviction record.

And so we're fighting
against all that.

Uh, we're closing in on
2,300 followers on Facebook

and that has really
let this family know

that-that our community
is behind this.

And, uh, and we are in a
righteous fight for justice

and we will not stop until
we achieve our goals,

until we win this battle.

♪ theme music ♪

♪♪♪

♪♪♪

♪♪♪

♪♪♪

[chanting and applause]

[Lindsay] It was very shocking.

Just the people that
I called friends,

people that I surrounded
myself with, all very quickly

hopped on this-this train of
Greg Kelley is innocent.

And I felt like no one really
had any information on it.

It was just, well, it's
Greg Kelley, you know.

It's-it's our own.

It's a Leander,
you know, citizen,

someone that we claim as ours.

And so it was an immediate:

well, he has to be innocent,
you know.

There's no other explanation.

I had several conversations
along the way

with people that were close
with Greg and said,

"Hey, listen, talk to me
about Greg.

Does he have a propensity,
uh, or perversion

or infatuation with children?

Is he in any way capable
of doing this?"

And all of them said no,
he's-- no way.

He didn't do it,
couldn't have done it.

[Bryan] This case is the
ultimate double-edged sword.

Yes, he was the football star.

And with that,

the focus on the crime
seemed even greater.

But on the other hand, you have
a young man who has--

he's well known in
the community.

He's obviously revered by many,

not just fans but the
community as a whole

because he's a good kid

but he's a good
football player.

And I think a lot of that
support would not have

been there had this just
have been a regular student

walking the halls.

The fact that he was a
football player,

and a good one at that,

made the focus from his
supporters even more strong.

[Jake] Amen.

We're going to fight
and continue to fight

and oppose this corrupt
Williamson County Prosecutor

and-and District Attorney,
Jana Duty, Geoffrey Puryear,

Sunday Austin, and you're
going to have to fight us

every single day for the
next 25 stinking years.

And that's what we vow to do.

We started this and
we're going to finish it,

however long that takes.

We are going to fight
for Greg Kelley.

[female reporter] There has
been a lot of attention

on this case.

A group called Fight for GK
has been vocal about their

support of Kelley and they
have been critical of the

Cedar Park Police Department.

Police Chief Sean Mannix is now
weighing in and says the group

has taken on a cult-like
appearance made up of kids,

and has no interest
in seeking the truth.

There's been some pretty
aggressive tactics, you know,

on the part of, uh, of that
group that goes beyond

just activism, you know,
for their cause.

But I did refer to them--
I guess it was back in 2014--

as taking on a cult-like
appearance.

And I think that was a-a
poor choice of words,

to-to call them cult-like.

Uh, I think it was more
lashing out at the tactics,

you know, being used.

Many of the people that are,
uh, very supportive of him

don't even know who he is
and got behind a cause.

Uh, I will say that they've
done a tremendous job

with the social media,
you know, campaign, uh,

and the activism and
getting their word out.

They really have.

As I've followed
the case more,

it really is starting to
stand out to me as--

I would really qualify them as
a cult, um, in all honesty.

I think they have leaders
in their group.

I think that when those
leaders say something,

the whole group follows--

no evidence, no information
of their own.

They just follow.

Uh, in a case like this where
I feel like they're fighting

to discredit a child victim,
that to me just--

the whole thing scares me.

Like I just-- I think the
stage they're setting for

future cases is terrifying.

Greg is an amazing young man.

Um, and I'm sure me saying that
will anger a lot of people,

because a lot of people believe
that he is a child molester.

I don't.

Um, I think he is about

as mature as a 19-year-old
could be.

I think he had to
grow up real fast

because he had very
difficult decisions to make.

And I think in the
last 24 hours, um,

he has probably gone
through every emotion

that you can go through.

And I hope and pray that
he is able to be safe

and be able to take this
horrific situation

and try to make good of it.

Patricia Cummings felt strongly
in-in Greg's innocence.

And so she went straight down
to Keith Hampton's office

with a box of files and said,

"You've got to help this guy.

He didn't do it."

I got on this case because
his trial counsel

came to me, uh, in tears.

They were convinced they
had an innocent person.

And they came to me to,
you know, do what you can.

Fix this.

Patricia referred us to him.

We probably had a face-to-face
within two or three days

after Greg was convicted.

At first he was a little
apprehensive because

he didn't have all
the facts, right.

He was just hearing
it from our side.

And, uh, it took a little while
for him to put things together.

[Jake] I'll never forget the
day that we hired Keith,

uh, to represent Greg.

I describe him as like the
Bill Belichick

of-of the appellate,
uh, counsel, right.

He's just a mad scientist.

He knows how, um, to fight.

There are more innocent
people who are

wrongfully convicted in this
state than a lot of people,

uh, realize.

The Greg Kelley case is o--

the latest of a lot of
high-profile cases

that I've had to deal with.

I convinced, uh, Governor Abbott

to commute a death sentence
to life.

That's only happened one other
time with one other Governor.

I handled that case as well.

I represented Fran and
Dan Keller, who spent, uh,

well over two decades in prison
for a crime they didn't commit,

got them exonerated, got them
their 3.5 million dollars.

And the San Antonio Four:

uh, that case involved
four women who were

falsely accused and, uh, we got
all of them out of prison

and, uh, won their
exonerations as well.

I've worked very well
with Keith.

I know that his heart

is to-to have the
right outcome.

Early on, when I got the case,
I'm asking myself:

what is the objective evidence?

Where does the
evidence lead me?

Greg's trial lawyer came up
with her theory,

and her theory was
it did not happen--

which, by the way, in these
kinds of allegations,

that is the first question
that you ask.

In-in the absence of
physical evidence,

did this actually even happen?

And then the second is:
if it did, go on the theory

that something really
did happen.

And then check it out.

The-the little boy
makes his outcry,

uh, on July 14th.

And he is, he has just
turned four years old.

He's barely four.

So he is relating an--
something that happened to him

fairly recent in time.

[Keith] The officer on the
scene was asked by CPS:

when did it happen?

Greg Kelley had moved out of
that household on June 11th.

He hadn't been there
for that whole month.

But I don't just go by that.

I took his cell phone because
it includes GPS coordinates,

what he's doing,
what he's thinking.

And I did it for 190--

I went all the way back
to the--

when that phone was activated
on December 19th, 2012.

And I took it all the way
through that entire

week of July to see what he was
doing and where he was going.

His cell phone was just a flood
of very convincing information

about what kind of
guy this is.

It's Gaebri.

It's-- he's-- that, and he's
worried about his parents

and football, working out,
just got back from the gym,

I'm going to the track meet...

Thanks to the cell phone and
thanks to records,

I can tell you exactly where
Greg was on July the 12th.

He was helping Aldo
move on July 12th.

And he gets stuck in traffic
on the way to South Austin,

so he takes a picture of
himself and he texts.

The images and the text
messages all match.

[Keith] Things go wrong for
Greg at the very get-go.

Detective Chris Dailey simply
gets an arrest warrant,

does no further investigation,
and has Greg arrested.

You have proof that
he was not there.

I went to Jana Duty's office,

sat down with her and
the other prosecutors,

and brought a PowerPoint to try
to prove Greg's innocence,

trying to get him a hearing,
just a hearing,

so I could prove all of this.

I didn't get past slide seven.

They were not interested.

They just completely
shut it down.

Jana Duty looked
at me and said,

"We believe the children."

[Lindsay] I think that, you
know, 999 times out of 1,000,

the victim is
telling the truth.

So for someone to say that
a five-year-old can't

remember correctly or that a
five-year-old was mistaken

blew my mind.

You know, when you
discredit one victim,

it sets the stage that you could
potentially discredit more.

And so I put myself in that
situation and I thought:

if someone tried to discredit
me as a six-year-old

and said what I believed
happened didn't happen,

it-it just seems
so traumatizing.

It seems so unbelievable
that that is a stance

that anyone could be taking.

One thing I hear when I do
work on false memory

and techniques that can
lead children astray

is that you should believe
the children.

In fact, I think a group was
even formed that was called

Believe the Children.

I absolutely think children
should be believed

when they're interviewed
with proper techniques.

[Keith] The unreliability of
small children has really,

uh, become well known
to the system.

Uh, about half of the kids that
are taken in a child advocacy

center are found to have
not been abused.

That's a pretty high error rate
if you went with

every single allegation.

Now, those child advocacy
centers were created

and-and-and invented because of
all of the people in the 1980s

through the early 90s who were
convicted and sentenced

to prison on the basis
of what we now know

is completely unreliable
evidence.

There are many cases throughout
the United States mostly

where there was this massive
panic that there were

widespread rings of
Satanic ritualistic abuse

that was being committed
upon children.

The-the first case that really
brought this issue into the

forefront of developmental
psychologists as well as

in the media was the
McMartin case.

[male reporter] Seven people,
including a 76-year-old

grandmother, were arraigned
on hundreds of counts

of molesting children at a
Manhattan Beach nursery school.

People at a daycare
were accused of

sexually abusing the children,

and at that point,
the daycare was shut down

and all of the children
were questioned.

And the kids were making
very detailed reports

and allegations about having
been sexually abused.

Many really fabulous claims
also came out of that case.

[female reporter] Prosecutors
say some of the victims were

only two years old and their
molesters frightened them into

keeping quiet about the abuse
by slaughtering small animals

in front of them.

The children were claiming
that there were

tunnels underground the daycare

and that helicopters would land
and actually take them out

into the ocean, where they
watched babies being sacrificed

and fed to sharks.

The prosecutor said there's
no evidence of helicopters

or missing babies,

but pay attention to what
they are saying.

And there's no way a kid
could claim that somebody

stuck a pee-pee in their mouth

without that having
actually happened.

When researchers in
my field looked at

some of those interviews,
we said, "Wait a second,

I think we see where
this came from,"

that, in fact, the kids were
denying it quite often

and that they would be
interviewed repeatedly

with very suggestive
interview techniques

and would gradually over time
succumb to some of these

really high-pressure tactics.

It spawned this field of
suggestibility research,

where researchers are
interested in what types of

questioning methods produce
reliable or trustworthy reports

from kids versus what types
of methods and procedures

make the child prone to
agree with what-what you

suggest or tell them.

Maggie Bruck and her
colleagues conducted a study

where children were interviewed
about a routine medical exam.

So what Bruck and her
colleagues did is they

took children who'd experienced
this routine medical exam

that's controlled and
it's videotaped.

No genital touching took place.

And they, following the
medical exam,

simply asked children
what happened.

But they also asked the children
some leading questions.

[interviewer] Can you show me
on the doll how Dr. Emmett

touched your vagina?

He didn't?

But then when you bring
the kids back in

about a week later and
you ask them what happened,

combining that with those
suggestions that you'd

provided earlier of "Did the
doctor touch your vagina?"--

and not only would
they just say yes.

I think that was the shocking
part of this early research,

is they didn't just
say yes it happened.

But instead, they would show.

They would say, "Look,
this is how it happened."

[interviewer] So what
did he do?

[interviewer] He put a
stick in your vagina?

[child] Yes.

[interviewer]
Just like that?

[Dr. London] And he also
took this tool

and he hammered it
into my vagina,

where nothing like that
took place whatsoever.

[interviewer]
He looked where?

[interviewer] He did
look in your hiney?

[Dr. London] We've got the
event that actually took place.

The-- but there-there
was no genital touching.

And then we've got
this leading interview.

And then you interview
the children again,

and what you're seeing is that
the children are reporting

the genital touch.

Why?

Again, I think that they've
confused the event

with the suggestive interview.

They've actually come to
believe that that was

part of the exam.

He put a-- he put that
around your neck?

Like that?

If you have an event that
really did occur--

the doctor really
did examine her

and he really did use this
little tape measure on her.

And you're just kind of
tweaking the nature

of those details a little bit.

And if you do that in this
atmosphere of accusation of:

"Did the doctor do anything bad
or was there any bad touching?"

especially with young kids, um,

you're-you're going to run
a very high risk of

leading them astray.

What does it mean to
tell the truth?

What does it mean to
tell the truth?

[Dr. London] I examined
two interviews of children

in this case.

In watching the first video,

he made some claims towards
the end of the video

that some fighting
had occurred,

some physical fighting.

Oh, how was Greg
fighting you?

Greg actually hit him
and his mom walked in

and saw this happen and
kind of a fight ensued.

And he even gave the detail that
he was punched in the chest.

Oh, that hurt.

Where was he
punching you at?

Right there?

The little boy is relating
an event of this fight

between his mother and the
person he identifies as Greg.

And of course that
never happened.

The mother never had a fight.

She-- you know, no one
thought she did.

But there he is,
matter-of-factly saying it.

Well, I've watched the,
uh, the outcry, uh,

interview myself.

And, uh, I found him to be,
you know, clear

and-and coherent about
what he was saying.

And, frankly, he knows things
that a four-year-old child

just would not know about
sexual activity, human anatomy,

and those kinds of things, uh,

without having the
exposure to it.

No, I believe--

the sexual aspects of this
case is information

that the child was molested.

I don't.

The, uh-- that is
up to the Court.

That is up to the jury.

It's up to child psychologists
to explain why kids

may or may not say
certain things.

You really have to look at how
the child was interviewed,

not just at what the
child is saying.

The child absolutely can
come to make these claims.

But rather, you have
to look at:

did they say them or in fact,

were they influenced
and pressured to say them?

♪ low dramatic music ♪

When they interviewed
the second boy,

the little boy says
nothing happened,

to the interviewer,

to the trained interviewer.

The first concern about that
interview is the fact that

there were two earlier
interviews that came before it

where he denied that
anything happened.

Dailey decides he
doesn't like that,

so Dailey did something
extraordinarily wrong,

stupid, and against
all type of policy.

With his gun prominently
in display,

he marches in and
begins to interrogate

a scared little
four-year-old boy

as if he were an adult man.

The interviewer opens with,

"Hey, here's what
I've been told."

The little kid on the
video is standing

next to a chair and
he's obviously petrified.

He's getting antsy, you know.

He wants out of the room.

The questioning just ensued
in a way where almost

all the child ever said
was either yes or no.

And if the child said,
"Don't know," they would be

asked the question
in a different way.

When the interviewer followed
it up with this direct option,

are you going to pick
option A or option B,

he always picked one.

He picked a choice.

The child had denied abuse
in two other interviews.

And then finally in this
third one, they deny abuse

several times and they're
still asked about it

until eventually they start
to give some yes answers.

[Sean] The way that the
second CAC interview happened

was not improper
but it was unusual.

Questions were, uh, direct--
and I've watched the, uh,

the CAC interview--

but, in my opinion,
not leading.

No.

[room ambience]

The interviewer had a, I think,
pretty strong belief

about what they thought
happened before they even

went into the interview and
never allowed the child

to make a report.

Not a single question would
just allow this child

to report it.

In all my years of
reviewing cases,

this interview really is as
bad as any that I've seen

over the last 20 years.

They just don't come any
worse than that, really.

I-I've been a victim's
advocate for the 35 years

that I've been doing this.

And in that 35 years, I have
learned people generally

tell us the truth when they're
talking about how they were,

uh, victimized, the manner in
which they were victimized,

and who victimized them.

So in this particular case,
I-I believed the child.

[interviewer] Did Greg ever
have you touch him in any way?

Did you ever touch Greg?

Is-- what's your answer?

[Dr. London] I'm not surprised
that the second child recanted

on the stand.

He tried to deny it twice.

He d-- tried to deny it
in the third interview.

He really wasn't allowed to.

He barely reported a thing
in that third interview.

And so it's quite likely he
doesn't have that false memory

that's overwritten, uh,
his-his actual, you know,

belief system.

People who sometimes identify
as child advocates

see child advocacy as that their
role is believing the child,

believing the child was abused.

But unfortunately, it seems
by believing the child

that they really only believe
them in fact if that child

says that they were abused.

I also think children should be
believed when they deny abuse.

[Bryan] I think Jana Duty,
she was perceived by many

as someone who was out
to get this kid.

She and Mannix, together it
felt like, at least,

from the outside looking in,

they thought they
had their guy.

And they weren't curious or
interested in hearing

any other stories.

[Keith] I think people
within that office,

at least one of the
prosecutors,

was a true believer
and-and saw this as,

you know, uh, "God, I'm really,

I'm removing a really evil
person from society."

I think, other prosecutors
this was a career builder.

You have to understand what
they're thinking is too:

okay, Greg Kelley--
popular football player,

"A" student,

cheerleader girlfriend,

he's got a full scholarship
to UTSA,

is secretly this evil
child molester.

You really hate him and you
really want him to be nailed.

She was absolutely
dedicated to it.

She was playing her
own games here,

which is win at all cost.

The Jana Duty video was, uh,

honestly, it was like a
gift from God, you know.

♪ dramatic music from video ♪

♪♪♪

♪♪♪

- Go run, you turd.

Run.

Tell all the other turds
WilCo's coming.

You tell 'em WilCo's coming.

Jana Duty thought it would
be funny if her

landscaper husband would
produce a video

of the inside of the office.

[Jake] Yeah, it wasn't
intended for the public.

What it was intended for was
they-they made this video

to show at their Christmas party
as kind of a highlight reel.

And so they showed it
to their staff.

At that time, they felt like
they could trust their staff.

But that staff-- you know,

J-Jana had a reputation
for running people off

pretty quickly.

And somebody had obtained a
copy of it and, uh, you know,

they-they-they leaked it.

And-and we ran with it.

Our biggest issue with
promoting and publishing

that on our page was
convincing people

that we didn't make it
because they were like,

"No, she-- nobody would make
that kind of content

for their own pleasures."

It was just like, it looks
like we were trying

to make them look like jerks but
that was really, you know,

the video that they made.

[Keith] They mocked
the judges...

mocked the GK Foundation,
which supports Greg Kelley.

Pray for GK--

she made fun of that.

She thought it would be
funny to mock people

who were praying for somebody.

Jana Duty turned out to
be a complete disaster.

The Williamson County
District Attorney

started serving her 10-day jail
sentence for contempt of court.

[male reporter] This comes
after a District Judge ruled

that Duty withheld evidence
from the Defense

in the 2014 murder case.

Uh, the District Attorney
had her mug shot

taken this afternoon;

she'll have to spend
10 days in jail,

also pay a $500 fine.

Jana Duty was-was actually
jailed for contempt.

After her punishment,
she'd walk out

and commit contempt again.

It was amazing.

It is important to keep
in mind, Jana Duty

campaigned on bringing
common sense and justice

to Williamson County.

If we had been under

the Jana Duty regime,

they would be subpoenaing you

for the footage of this,

of this documentary.

To-to protect the conviction.

Their job was to prosecute Greg.

And my issue is that the
goal should have been:

figure out what happened
to these boys.

We don't care how many
people you prosecute

as long as you get
the guilty guys

and you don't convict
the innocent ones.

That's what we're
interested in.

And I tried to reach out
Jana several times

and, you know, she didn't
need to talk to me.

I'm just nobody, you know.

I'm just like every other
nobody out here.

And, uh, she didn't count on
us nobodys getting together.

We need you to call in to
your District Attorney, uh,

Jana Duty, and-and
voice your concern.

Something really bad is
happening in Williamson County

and we the people
need to stand up

and do something about it.

Thank you so much,
and fight for GK.

We have recourse.

And I know that at some point
there's a magic number,

that if we reach that number,

they're going to have
to listen to us.

They kept the-the web sites
and the, and the Facebook posts

and things coming pretty
much weekly at that point.

[Jake] Well, hello and thank
you for fighting so hard

for Greg Kelley.

And I also wanted to make
you aware there is a

candidate for District Attorney
in Williamson County.

His name is Shawn Dick.

And I encourage everybody
to go to their page,

volunteer,

donate your time and
your treasure.

So, please, continue to
fight for Greg Kelley

and check out Shawn Dick

for Williamson County
District Attorney.

You know, Jana Duty
was well known;

she had, you know,
won two terms as the

County Attorney here.

And she, uh, got embroiled
in a controversy

over a capital murder case

i-in which she was accused
of withholding evidence.

And, you know, our county
has had a few hits

over the last several years.

And I sat by as a defense
lawyer and watched what was

happening in the courthouse,

watched what was happening to
my friends who were prosecutors,

watched what was happening,
um, in the justice system.

And I kept
complaining about it.

And I'd go home every night and
I'd tell my wife about it

and she said, "Well, you can
either be the guy

that keeps complaining about it

or you can be the guy that
does something about it."

Williamson County may have a
new District Attorney.

Right now, Shawn Dick is ahead
of incumbent Jana Duty

by more than 4,000 votes
after early voting.

Our DA's Office has just had
a lot of trouble over the years

and I think it's time that
we restore some faith

in our District Attorney's
Office.

And I think for our community
this is real-really important.

And I ran against her
in 2016 and, uh,

defeated her in the
Republican Party primary

and didn't have an opponent
in the, uh, General Election.

During my campaign, I had a
few questions about the

Greg Kelley case and would
I reopen the matter.

And my comment had always been,

"Why wouldn't I always be open
to listening to the other side?"

And shortly after I took
office, Keith Hampton,

Greg Kelley's attorney,
was telling me he wanted

to talk to me.

I made a date,
went over there,

and I laid down all my cards.

I showed him all my exhibits.

I just laid it out to him.

[Shawn] Mr. Hampton brought me,
uh, a writ that he was

proposing to file.

What a writ is, is a, uh, an
appellate process

that's sort of outside
the normal, um,

normal stream of an appeal.

And the writ is usually
something attacking

something like ineffective
assistance of counsel

or newly discovered evidence,

uh, or actual innocence claim.

When I read the writ, it
was pretty compelling.

I couldn't ignore it.

But I couldn't just take
Mr. Hampton's word for it,

and I needed to investigate it
and make sure that what the

allegations that Keith had
outlined in his writ,

we could actually verify.

And so I asked the Texas
Rangers to come in

and do an investigation for us.

In a surprise move by the
Williamson County

District Attorney,
the Greg Kelley case

is being reexamined.

[male reporter] Williamson
County authorities and the

Texas Rangers have reopened
the sexual assault case

that led to the conviction
of Greg Kelley.

If we got it right, I want
the public to understand

what we did and
how we got it right.

And, uh, if we got it wrong,

then we need to make sure
we-we fix it.

I feel like it's my
responsibility as the

District Attorney here to
see that this information

is transparent.

We all thought it was in
everyone's best interest

to have a public hearing rather
than submit affidavits.

And this case was so highly
publicized at the time,

I felt that the only proper way
to handle this case

was through what I'd call a
public autopsy of the case.

I was, uh, determined to
make sure that as much of this

was public, um, that we could
possibly make public.

[male reporter] The new
Williamson County

District Attorney says he
received credible evidence

that someone else possibly
sexually assaulted

the four-year-old boy.

[female reporter] Johnathan
McCarty is a person of interest

in this case.

Yes.

Yes.

Based on Keith's writ, we are
currently investigating

Johnathan McCarty as a
possible alternate suspect,

um, in the Greg Kelley case.

[Keith] I didn't
suspect Johnathan

at the very beginning.

I was hearing it.

It was a rumor.

I'd say, all right, okay,
what's this about?

What-what's up with this guy?

Let's check him out.

You have proof

that Greg was out
of that household

by June 11th.

There's only one teenage boy
in the household

on the date they say
it happened.

That's Johnathan McCarty.

[Clint Harper] You know,
Johnathan we were hoping

was going to be what we
call a program kid.

That's what I
referred to him as.

You know, it's a kid
that you hope stays--

they-they start in the
seventh grade and you hope

that they stick around all
the way to the 12th grade

because they're never going to
be superstars on Friday night

at that level.

Johnathan was not a
Division 1 athlete

and never was going to be.

There was no doubt about that.

And obviously Greg was.

Greg, even as a sophomore,
you knew Greg was going to

play Division 1 football.

You can't compare the two kids.

Uh, Greg had the measurables
and Greg had the speed,

the-the size, and,

he was on Varsity as a sophomore

and-and Johnathan was
on the sophomore team.

♪ somber music ♪

[Tracey] There was one booster
club meeting where, uh,

Shama got up and she
talked about, um,

different things that were going
on and how booster's helping.

And then she said something
about, "When Greg goes pro,

I'm going to be his agent."

And everyone was like--

and she said, "My
son Johnathan's

not good enough to
play pro ball,

but Greg, I want
to be his agent."

I think Shama saw,

started seeing Greg as like,
you're going to make it

maybe to the NFL or big one day

and, you know, I'm going to
be the person that actually

took care of you and raised you,
and helped raise you.

And Johnathan saw that and
was kind of like,

"Wait, I'm your actual son."

When I first, uh, became
real good friends with him,

he was a, he was a good kid,

um, real respectful, you know,

uh, real respectful
to his parents.

Um, you know, he was
a very smart kid.

He was really good
academically, uh,

very social, had a
lot of good friends.

Around six months in,
to me moving in, uh,

Johnathan started taking
a little turn.

His attitude started
changing and, uh,

his respect for his parents
started changing.

The respect for his friends
started changing,

respect for me, you know.

I started seeing
more envy out of him.

The other person in the
daycare, Rosalinda Castillo,

really didn't play a role in
Greg's defense at all,

um, though she should have

because she, as it turns out,

has observed quite a lot.

He was, he was very
jealous of Greg...

very.

Shama did help Greg a lot
and he would be like,

"Oh, you do more for him
and I'm your son,"

just little things like that.

But he was in-- Johnathan
was in his own little world.

He was, uh, uh, skipping
school all the time;

his school records
reflect that.

He eventually became a truant.

There was, um, times that I
would have to go get his ho--

work so he wouldn't
get behind,

because they were
actually not letting--

they weren't going
to let him pass.

And he started bringing
different people to the house.

Um, it was kind of--
getting kind of weird because

these people, I-I didn't
feel comfortable around.

Johnathan kind of showed a
little interest in me.

He didn't really show it to me
to my face but would talk,

I guess, about me to
his guy friends

and sometimes in front of Greg.

I told him, I said, "Man,
I know you like Gaebri.

She doesn't like you."

He really didn't accept that.

One time I found him or
I found my cell phone

gone from my charger.

And, uh, I'm looking
around for it

and I asked him and he
doesn't know where it is.

And I go downstairs, go check
f-- look around in the kitchen.

Maybe I left it there.

I go back up; my cell phone's
on my charger.

And, uh, I know he's
playing games now.

[Keith] He wanted
his girlfriend.

I think he wanted
his life, really.

If he did have a part of this,

how could he have
lived with himself,

letting me come here?

When it's your best friend,

it hurts even more.

[Keith] You know, this case
is like a jigsaw puzzle.

And there are
small pieces which,

by themselves, don't seem
to mean anything

until it just adds up.

And then you get a
complete picture.

So, in addition to
everything else

that I have on Johnathan,

one of the things I wanted
to confirm was:

what did his room look like?

The only pictures that we have
are the ones that CPS took.

Thank goodness they were the
first people on the scene.

They take photographs of
the inside of the home.

The little boy says the
first time it happened in

what he says is Greg's room.

Okay.

Just two times,
okay.

The second time it happened
is on the couch.

And you had said earlier
that it happened

another time in--

did it happen in
another room

or in the same room
or something else?

In two rooms.

What was the other room?

The couch room?

[Keith] And in one picture,
there's a couch.

And these items...

are all of these trophies,

these wrestling trophies,

which are Ralph, the father's,

uh, awards that he got.

The room that he describes
is actually Johnathan's.

The first child in the
CAC video is--

says that it happened twice

in two different rooms.

In April of 2014,

just months before the trial,

he sits down with,

at some point, with the
two prosecutors.

And he says that it
only happened once.

And then, amazingly,
the prosecutors

show this little boy
his own CAC video

and then ask him again,

"How many times?"

The prosecutor,
Geoffrey Puryear,

sent the Defense an
e-mail alerting,

uh, Greg's attorney to
the fact that the

child has-has changed
his story.

By the time of trial,

he tells the jury it
happened twice

in the same room

and never identifies it
as Greg's room.

Instead, he gives indicators
of whose room

he's really talking about

because he says where the
trophies are, the couch.

All arrows point to Johnathan.

So, uh, no, I can't prove
every bit of this

beyond a shadow of a doubt,
but at some point,

I think most people will
go: this is too much.

It just adds up.

No, Mr. Kelley was the
only person ever

accused of a crime.

A new suspect is now named
in the sexual assault

of a child that led to the
conviction of a former

Leander High School
football star.

The new suspect named
in court documents

unsealed this afternoon was
Greg Kelley's friend

and football teammate,
Johnathan McCarty.

Johnathan McCarty sits in the
Williamson County Jail tonight

on a probation violation
for drug charges

and with his bond set
at $450,000.

My understanding is
Johnathan has been

arrested at least 16 times.

And the issue is not:

are we going to find
Johnathan McCarty guilty?

I don't care.

I'm not prosecuting.

The iss-- the question is:

would a reasonable jury

find Greg guilty

in light of all of this?

This hearing is his
one and only shot.

This is it.

[camera shutters clicking]

[camera shutters clicking]

[camera shutters clicking]

[male reporter] Greg,
how are you?

[female reporter] Greg Kelley
is back in the

Williamson County
Jail tonight,

awaiting a hearing
to try to get his

conviction overturned.

Kelley has a hearing
in August.

That's when a judge could
decide whether or not

to uphold his conviction,

possibly order a new trial,

or even declare Kelley
an innocent man.

Her ruling will then
go to the Texas Court

of Criminal Appeals.

♪ dramatic music ♪

♪♪♪

♪♪♪

♪♪♪

[Shawn] There is, you know, an
outpouring of support for Greg.

Uh, there are a number of
people, um, you know,

that are anti-Greg Kelley.

So, it'll be a little unique
in that, really, the

Defense is putting on
this hearing.

It's not the State.

Our role in this is sort of to
test the evidence,

to oppose the evidence
if we think that it's

proper to oppose.

It is Mr. Hampton's hearing,

so it's his burden to
prove everything.

[Keith] There's not 12 people
in the jury box.

My audience is 10 judges,

the judge that I'm in front of

and then the nine judges of
the Court of Criminal Appeals.

And my argument to the judge
is going to be pretty simple,

you know, pretty
straightforward:

a reasonable jury would acquit
Greg if they knew all of this.

[Shawn] The judge also has a
responsibility to determine

the credibility of some of
the information

that we're presenting.

And whatever decision
is made in the end,

hopefully the community
can understand

whatever direction this goes.

It's bothered me even that
we've had to keep some of the

details under wraps, but I do,

I do think it's important

for the integrity of the
investigation to have kept

that information sealed
for a time.

My team consisted of three
very experienced lawyers.

Lindsey Roberts,
my First Assistant.

Rene Gonzalez is my
Appellate Division Chief.

And Bridget Chapman is my,
uh, Civil Division Chief.

♪ dramatic music ♪

I think our community is
just ready for the truth.

I think they're just
hungry for it.

[man] How are you doing?

[indistinct background chatter]

♪ dramatic music ♪

♪♪♪

[Judge Donna King]
All right, good afternoon.

This is Cause 131367 K26A,

ex parte
Gregory Raymond Kelley.

All right, Mr. Hampton,
are you ready to proceed?

I am, Judge.

The purpose of this hearing, uh,
is to bring in the stuff

that we haven't examined.

And with that, I would call, uh,

Officer Freed.

Yes, my name is
Officer Kevin Freed.

I'm employed with the City of
Cedar Park as a Patrol Officer.

I think I'd ask you to
identify that to see if

that is the first page
of your report.

Yes, it is.

And what is the date
that's reflected

as the date of
the offense?

[Kevin] So the time and date
that it occurred

that I put on the report
was 7/12 of 2013.

They believe that it was
between, somewhere between

the 8th and the 12th
because, uh,

[bleep] had actually advised his
mother on Saturday, July 13th.

That was the first outcry
he made about the incident.

And so that's what I was told

and that's the information
I was given.

All right.

Absolutely not.

They would allege that they
have an alibi for Greg Kelley

on the date of July the 12th.

So when you get accused,
and that's all it is,

and you think, "I can put
together an alibi,

he said I touched him
last Tuesday

and I know exactly where
I was last Tuesday."

Well, the Prosecution may
figure that out

and move the date.

That's exactly what
they did with Greg.

The officer in this case says
it happened on July the 12th.

It gets to the Prosecution.

Now, the first indictment
says anywhere betw--

literally between
December and June.

Now, that tells me that
at some point,

they figured out that
Greg Kelley

had moved out of that
household on June 11th.

Someone snaps to that
and picks April 15th

and they put that
in the indictment.

And it's a mystery to me
why they picked April 15th,

even though they said it
happened on July 12th.

The Prosecution had
the advantage

of being able, under Texas law,

they can move that date
however they want.

And they did.

They moved the date
several times.

Child abuse is a
good example of-of the

type of case where you may
not be able to pinpoint

an exact day that
something happened,

because often the only
two people who would know

are the perpetrator
and the child.

The State is allowed to prove
an offense on or about,

and so you're not tied
to an offense date.

And so you can do that.

But a significant amount of the
investigation should be,

and a sig-significant amount of
the prosecution should be,

trying to figure out:

can you narrow the time frame
within which this has happened?

You don't pick that date by
throwing a dart at a dartboard.

My first function and duty
is to take a report.

And, uh, then basically what
I do is pass it on to CID,

our Criminal Investigation
Division.

[Kevin] Yes.

[Judge King] Sergeant Dailey,
if you'd come forward...

Detective Dailey, I've got
a few questions for him,

open-ended, talk about
his investigation.

My examination of him, uh,

is probably going to be
a little tricky.

At the residence of
Marysol Trail.

Yes, sir.

One of the things that
jumped out at me

when I first heard the trial
transcripts of-of Greg's trial

was that, uh, there
was no identification,

in-court identification,

of Greg Kelley as
being the person that

committed the offense
in this case.

Greg Kelley.

The full name Greg Kelley
came from, uh,

[bleep], uh, father.

No.

I don't think so.

Yes.

No.

When it comes to the
identification of Mr. Kelley

as the suspect, that was
one of the most striking

aspects of the entire
investigation to me.

Now, the name Greg Kelley was
clearly all over everything,

that a person named Greg Kelley

is the perpetrator
of the offense.

But there was never a physical
identification done.

It's fundamental to any trial
that the State has the

burden to prove that the person
sitting in the courtroom

is in fact the person that
committed the offense.

So no one ever showed
the child a-a picture.

No one ever had a photo lineup,

an in-person lineup.

No one showed him
comparison photos.

He never actually was in the
same courtroom with Greg Kelley

at the same time, ever.

[Rene] We're left with the-the
big question: who's Greg?

Who's, who's this Greg that
the child is talking about?

Is it Greg Kelley?

Maybe.

Is it possible that the
child is making reference

to somebody else named Greg?

Maybe.

Is it possible that the child
is confused and referring

to an alternate suspect as
this person named Greg?

Maybe.

We just don't know.

I think that everyone in
this case just

capitulated...

that Greg meant Greg Kelley,

without proving that
those little boys

meant Greg Kelley.

No, sir.

No, sir.

No, sir.

He did nothing.

Th-there's no investigation
in this case.

It's stunning, uh,
of-of how little.

It's almost as if you're
accusing someone

of capital murder and
not bothering to

collect evidence at the
crime scene.

You know?

It's-- you didn't,
you didn't want the DNA?

You didn't want to get
the-the murder weapon?

It's-it's crazy.

Yes, sir.

Because I, because I
felt that [bleep] was

too scared to make an outcry.

And since I had information
that he was offended on as well

and the suspect was
out in the public

that it was a public
safety concern.

So I elected to interview him.

Dailey marches in and,
oddly enough,

brings up Johnathan.

I knew him to be another,
uh, person that lived

in the, uh, residence.

Uh, he was, uh,
Mr. Kelley's friend.

It was, it was concerning
to me that he had that name,

uh, in his mind, asked
the second victim

about that-that name of
the alternate suspect,

but never-never does any
further investigation.

No.

[Shawn] Where did the name
Johnathan come from?

It doesn't appear
in any other report.

Even Johnathan's name doesn't
appear in the report

discussing the second child's
allegation.

It's certainly concerning that
a detective would mention

the name of another suspect,

or potential suspect, but not
do any investigation into that.

I don't know.

♪ dramatic music ♪

♪♪♪

♪♪♪