Original subtitles

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 ♪

♪♪♪

♪♪♪