Original subtitles

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.

His trial counsel came to me:

"Do what you can.

Fix this."

The Greg Kelley case is being reexamined.

[Keith] Where does the evidence lead me?

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

It's certainly concerning that a detective

would mention the name of another suspect,

but not do any investigation into that.

He did nothing.

It's stunning.

[Keith] There's only one teenage boy in the household

on the date they say it happened.

[female reporter] Johnathan McCarty is

a person of interest in this case.

When it's your best friend, it hurts even more.

This was a very fair trial.

This was a very fair process.

They thought they had their guy.

And they weren't curious in hearing any other stories.

No, Mr. Kelley was the only person ever accused of a crime.

This hearing is his one and only shot.

I don't know.

[somber music]

...in investigations when

children victims are involved.

And I just kind of want to continue on that a little bit.

Yes.

Yes, Sir.

Successful prosecution.

To me, the goal is pretty simple:

it's to seek the truth, to find out the truth.

I heard that there were audible gasps coming from the--

from the crowd that listened to Detective Dailey's testimony

during that statement.

Oh, I think the ultimate goal in any police investigation

is to uncover the truth and seek justice.

No, I would say that, uh,

I dis-- I disagree with his answer.

Yes, Sir.

Yes, Sir.

Yes, Sir.

Finding all the facts.

♪ theme music ♪

♪

♪

♪

♪

So this entire case to me, is full of tunnel vision,

what I would call tunnel vision.

If you were to ask Detective Dailey, he's still convinced

he definitely has the right guy.

And he's convinced that he believes the child.

Correct.

Correct.

Well, Sir, there was no other victims

and no other suspects.

So there was no other people to look into.

No, Sir.

[Rene] Okay.

Because they named Greg Kelley as a suspect.

The first one named Greg.

The other one said Greg as well, I believe.

And Greg was the onl--

Greg Kelley was the only Greg in the house.

Yes, Sir.

No, Sir.

Well, in this particular case there was, uh,

two children, both saying that the same person, uh, you know,

committed a crime against them.

Uh, I'm not aware of the child ever saying that Johnathan

actually did anything, uh, to the child

or to either one of the children.

So the investigation stayed focused on, uh, Mr. Kelley.

They identified him by name and he was the only Greg,

uh, in the house.

[Greg] When Chris Dailey took the stand,

I couldn't bear to look at him.

I just closed my eyes and just prayed,

because I-I, uh,

I've never been this angry in my whole life.

And, uh, I don't know how to deal with it.

So, um, all I do is pray.

Yes, Sir.

Yes, Sir.

To still look on that investigation and call it

a thorough investigation was really hard to believe,

particularly when you're investigating a case that you

want to put someone in prison for 25 years as a minimum

with no parole

and the only testimony you've got is a four-year-old.

You'd better make sure that's a really strong case.

And to let other people do investigations,

to sit back and just listen to everyone else

and make assumptions, it's frightening.

[Keith] In Greg's case, I think that it was a case where

the lack of investigation was skewed from the beginning.

It's fairly clear to me that-that Dailey had already

firmed up in his mind that he has a really ugly child molester

and he's going to get him.

He's going to do it one way or the other.

If I remember correctly, um,

we did a media release asking if anybody had any concerns

in reference to their children

to contact the police department.

We had a press conference to announce first of all, uh,

that, uh, an arrest had been made because there was media,

uh, interest in this particular, uh, case.

We put out there that if anybody else had children

that may have been exposed to Mr. Kelley, uh, you know,

to contact us if there was any, uh--

the thought that something may have happened to their child.

And that's when a second victim came forward.

The Chief of Police either is not telling the truth

or he is ignorant of what actually happened

regarding that second child.

No.

I believe I contacted him.

[Keith] After the press conference and-and asking

for people to come forward, four days passed.

Nothing: they've got nothing.

Nobody is coming forward.

So Detective Dailey, for whatever reason,

targets this second child's parents.

Dailey cold-calls him and tells the father,

"Greg Kelley has been arrested four days ago

for molesting children at the daycare center

where you've been taking your son.

We want to do an interview with him."

And then they arrange an interview at the

Child Advocacy Center, CAC.

But at that point in time, there has been no outcry.

The seeds were planted when Dailey tells the father,

"We think Greg Kelley may have molested your child,"

and so that night,

if it's to be believed, makes an outcry.

So the sequence is:

we've scheduled a CAC interview

where there's been no outcry.

Eight hours later, that evening,

there's an outcry to the parents,

right before that next day to take him to the CAC interview.

They arrange a CAC interview the night before the child,

by sheer, magical coincidence, makes an outcry.

The second child's appearance in this picture

is staged by Dailey.

There's no reason to think anything happened

to this second child.

Out of the blue, they have a child

who has never outcried about anything

and about anybody and arrange a CAC interview.

You've never heard of that before.

The second child did not come forward.

The second child's outcry was orchestrated

by Detective Dailey.

And this is where this case goes off the rails a little bit,

is there's a lot of folks out there that want to say that,

uh, Detective Dailey owns the case cradle to grave,

when in fact Detective Dailey owns the case up to the point

that probable cause is developed and a warrant is issued.

The Prosecutor's Office guided Detective Dailey through

the, uh, the rest of the process up to and including the trial

in which Mr. Kelley was convicted.

Correct.

No.

Not in [bleep] case, no.

I didn't present the-the case to them.

I didn't bring over a case file and present it to them.

Uh, after we, uh, interviewed him, I believe I did talk to,

uh, Mr. Puryear.

Correct, I don't remember speaking to any other prosecutor

other than Mr. Puryear about this case.

After that, in walks a district court judge

that the audience stands for.

And so her credibility is instantly recognized

even by the audience.

[female reporter] Judge Stacey Mathews also took the stand.

She testified that she spoke with Dailey

when she was a prosecutor in the

Williamson County District Attorney's Office.

[Keith] And the person that you talked to was Detective Dailey?

[Judge Mathews] Yes.

[Keith] Um, tell me what you can recall

from that conversation.

[Judge Mathews] So he asked me initially if I was aware

of the Greg Kelley case.

At that point I said, "I've heard of it

but don't know a lot of details."

Um, he said, "He's been charged on one child,

uh, and we have a second child now that I would like

to bring charges on.

And I wanted to call to talk to somebody in the DA's Office

to discuss whether or not we should file those charges."

So I asked the standard questions:

"Okay, did you take him to the CAC?

Did he have an interview?"

in which he told me, "Yes, we did a CAC interview.

He did not give an outcry."

And then we-- I remember him saying that they were--

"We took him back and had a second interview done,

which there was also not an outcry."

And then he told me that he interviewed the child,

um, and that the child did not tell him anything.

I said, "With what you're relaying to me,

I would not be comfortable telling you to file charges."

And he said, "Well, it'll strengthen the case agai-

against the first child."

I advised him not to file charges at that point.

Yes.

No.

[Shawn] It was a very dramatic moment of the hearing.

I expected Detective Dailey to admit that he had a conversation

with Judge Mathews.

It wasn't that.

It was: "I don't even know who you're talking about,

'Judge Mathews'.

I've never talked to any other prosecutor."

Yes, I don't know why that--

why that would be unfair to call it corruption.

[Keith] There's been an outcry in Leander, Texas.

Everyone's saying, "You've got the wrong guy."

But now, they've got an easy reply.

There's not one; there's two kids now.

That second one really strengthened themselves

in the court of public opinion

and their case at trial.

[Sean] I have found no policy violation and no violation

of law on the part of Detective Dailey.

And there is no, uh, action to be taken against him.

I've never woken up in the morning and wondered:

did we get the wrong guy?

Detective Dailey continues being a valued member

of the-the Cedar Park Police Department,

and I've not lost confidence in him.

[Keith] His boss promoted him.

He's now the sergeant over about 10 detectives.

[Jake Brydon] I mean, come on.

You know, we have to be honest with ourselves about what

we expect from-from these types of people.

I wouldn't let them run a lawn-mowing service,

much less run the entire Cedar Park Police Department.

Hi.

If anybody does interviews--

[woman] Oh, my God.

Chris Dailey, Chris Dailey,

Chris Dailey, Chris Dailey.

We need to call in the Mayor to fire the son of a bitch

right now...

period, end of story.

And if he doesn't, we'll find a new mayor.

I'm done talking to Sean Mannix.

Both of them gotta go.

Immediately.

We're going to stand up together and we're going to

fight like hell and make sure that justice is served

in Williamson County.

Thank you.

[Keith] It went very well.

S-some very tricky things have, were laid, uh, and...

you don't know how that's really going to turn out.

And, it has turned out

almost perfectly.

And if tomorrow goes this well,

I'm going to feel really good about the outcome.

But I-I'm about to face, uh,

two more professional witnesses

who are sophisticated

and...

hostile.

[female reporter] More questions and concerns

surround the justice system in Williamson County.

[male reporter] Right now, Greg Kelley is fighting

to have his conviction overturned.

He was sentenced to 25 years in prison for sexually assaulting

a child three years ago.

But now, the focus is on an attorney who defended him

back in 2014.

[Patricia] I'm questioning everything I did.

Can't sleep at night, wondering:

my gosh, what if I had just said this?

What if I had done that?

Um, and that's just part of the job.

Um, I do know,

even though I'll question that forever...

I do know that, in my heart,

I did everything I could.

Whether or not I did it right,

is a different issue.

[Court Clerk] All rise, please.

26th District Court in Williamson County in Texas

is now in session,

the Honorable Donna King residing.

[Judge King] Good morning, be seated.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I feel that we owe you an explanation

this morning of our delay.

So I was really looking forward to the day that

Ms. Cummings was going to testify.

So it was a real surprise to us when we show up

for day two of the hearing, we're ready to go,

we have all our questions ready to ask her,

and we walk in the back and are informed that

Ms. Cummings has already been in the back for--

I don't know if it's 30 minutes or an hour.

And we're just told there's an ex parte hearing going on

and we're not allowed to be present.

So I was frustrated because I'm thinking:

what in the world could have come up overnight?

She hasn't mentioned a thing.

She's known she was going to testify for months now.

So what in the world happened at 8:30 in the morning

before she testifies that she's got to have some kind of

hearing with the judge?

Because an ineffectiveness claim's been lodged against her,

she's pretty defensive about it.

She shows up that morning.

She's lawyered up and she's got an affidavit

that's way outside the zone of the attorney-client privilege,

for one thing.

And what she's basically doing is describing Greg

as a bad client,

someone who just might be guilty.

She doesn't know.

She was going to say, "I repeatedly asked Greg for stuff

and he wouldn't give it to me.

He was too quiet.

I didn't get enough information from him."

The affidavit was the threat,

and that was not lost on me:

this is what I'm going to do,

and this is what I'm going to say

unless you back off.

The table suddenly turned,

where his prior lawyer becomes his worst enemy.

Uh, her fangs were out.

She was going to throw him under the bus.

You know, she made it clear:

there's only one goal here,

and that's to clear Patricia Cummings.

So because you declared total war on my client,

at that moment,

I decided we're going to play some chess here.

I'll give up that claim.

I surrender.

Mr. Hampton, can you please address, uh,

your next steps concerning your writ?

[Keith] Yes, Ma'am.

Uh [clears throat], at this time, I am, uh,

withdrawing two of the claims in the second amended writ

regarding ineffective assistance of counsel.

She thought she won.

She got me to withdraw that claim,

so, victory.

She-she won it in the Court's Office.

But the minute she did that and the way she did it, I just went:

okay, I'll withdraw it.

But I'm going to come back around.

I'm going to do this other stuff that you

haven't even thought of.

Under the law, Patricia's plan to publicly nail her

former client can be done under the first claim,

the ineffective assistance claim.

It's all irrelevant under a conflict of interest claim,

where you don't get to say any of that under the law.

So I'm not going to ask it and you don't get to say it.

She didn't know that until she walked out to testify.

At this time, I'm making an oral amendment to include

an ineffective assistance of counsel claim

limited to trial counsel's conflict of interest.

So I would establish that I have asserted, uh,

on behalf of my client his attorney-client privilege

and then would pass her as a witness.

And I believe that the questions that the

State would ask are limited

and are pertinent only to the conflict of interest.

We were in the courtroom with the rest of you all,

waiting.

And then, uh, and we heard it all for the first time

with everybody else.

[Shawn] Mr. Hampton announces that he's going to withdraw

his ineffective claim.

Uh, I was-- I was livid.

I felt very strongly that that was one of the strongest parts

of this case, that she is equally responsible in this,

as is the Cedar Park Police Department.

This has always been, uh, a difficult matter,

trying to go back four years and figure out what happened.

But the very person that brought this forward was Ms. Cummings.

She-she brought this case forward to Mr. Hampton

to be investigated.

Now the one person we're not going to be able to talk to

about this case is Ms. Cummings.

We'd been on this journey to try to figure out

what the truth is here.

And it's proven difficult at every turn.

Whether she had a conflict of interest is obviously the

ultimate question.

What we were trying to develop at the hearing was the facts

that would be the basis of that claim.

My name is Patricia Cummings.

I was.

I am.

Multiple times.

Can't violate that?

That's correct.

Patricia was mystified by the fact that I had

piddly questions: what's your name?

What's your favorite color?

Pass the witness, you know.

And I would love to be able to talk to you, Mr. Roberts,

but I cannot violate my ethical obligation to my client.

And so I'm kind of in a jam.

- Yeah. - Kind of like you are.

[Patricia] Certainly.

He did.

He did.

I did.

[Patricia] Yes.

I think they just assumed that because the outcry

had occurred on the 13th, they were assuming that any

alleged offense had occurred close in time to that.

I don't think it's perfectly reasonable at all.

Not at all.

And-and if you'd like for me to explain that, Mr. Roberts,

I can explain.

No, I mean you-you're obviously--

even though you don't want to waive

attorney-client privilege or won't,

you're willing to explain all of this.

[Patricia] Actually, it's on the record.

All I'm going to say-- all I'm going to say is

this was no surprise.

You had a-- you had a sheet of paper

from the Cedar Park Police.

Rightly or wrongly,

whether that's the correct date or the incorrect date,

whether it's a good date or a bad date,

there is a piece of paper there that has

that date in there as the date of this offense.

Right, and you are also aware that at the time Greg Kelley

was not in the home?

He had moved out in June of 2013.

And Aldo testified to that too yesterday.

Okay?

A-actually, I need to be careful, Judge,

because I do think that that does go into

attorney-client privileged information and so--

[Patricia] But I--

Well, I've already answered the fact that

I was aware that Freed wrote a one-page report

that said July 12th, 2013.

So--

I cannot say that those are his exact words.

I don't--

So are you asking me a question?

I mean so I-I don't know that those--

I- as I s--

As I explained a moment ago,

I received that on July 7th of 2013.

I had that tape.

[Shawn] The police officers thought this happened

on July 12th.

That's when they said it happened.

They got that information from somewhere.

They told you.

They got that information from somewhere.

We know where Greg Kelley was on July 12th.

That has to be a reasonable doubt.

It has to be.

And so why in the world would you ignore that date?

We couldn't think of a single reason

not to mention that at all.

Whether your defense is it never happened,

this is all made up,

how could you miss that piece of information?

I mean it's on the front page of the offense report.

And the offense report is only 13 pages long.

So how in the world could you miss that that is

the offense date?

And why in the world would you not do something about that?

It's difficult for me to imagine

defending someone who's being accused of having abused

not only one but now two children

that if you're presented with this kind of information,

that you-you couldn't or wouldn't explore its use

in defense of your client.

I did.

I am.

You'd obviously seen Johnathan McCarty.

Right, and one of the allegations I,

obviously this is part of this writ, is that there is a s--

back at the time in 2013, there is a facial similarity

between Johnathan and Greg Kelley.

Judge, if-if you would just order me

that I could go into this,

because I do believe that that goes into

attorney-client privilege and confidential information.

Um, I certainly-- even saying whether I'm aware of it or not,

I think does.

[Judge King] I think the question is--

he asked you his identity.

So I just want to--

The-the similarity of their appearance.

I actually think saying that I interviewed him,

actually was probably something I shouldn't say because--

I think your responses that are germane to,

and relevant to the questions that he's asking you,

although albeit maybe considered confidential under the rule,

I'm ordering you to answer.

Thank you, Judge.

And so, was I aware that there was a resemblance?

Is that the question?

Sure, I was, yes.

[dramatic music builds]

♪

♪

I mean, I think the football coaches had it

figured out like [snaps] that.

- Yes. - Right off the bat.

- Yes. - Right off the bat.

It was nothing about a deal where:

oh, this is-- Gr-Greg's not the guy.

Johnathan's the guy.

I wasn't looking at that.

I was just looking because they both lived in the same house.

And so I looked-- we had team photos of both kids.

And I saw-- I put two photos side by side and-and I was like,

man, they both look alike.

[Bryan] They looked like the same guy to me.

And I thought in the eyes of a four-year-old--

I don't know if McCarty did it or not.

I don't know if Kelley did it or not.

But when I saw the football suit on the two of those two guys,

they looked like twins to me.

The two pictures, actually, uh, we had those pictures.

And we were convinced, hey, you need to look at this.

Just n-- look at it.

So we s-- went to Patricia, mentioned that,

and she would quickly say,

"We're not going that route."

Absolutely.

She just said-- she put her hand up, uh, kind of

in front of my face and she said,

"We're not going to go there."

[Keith] Okay.

So months before the trial even happened,

I had told the private investigator for Patricia,

which was Greg's-- Greg's case,

that Johnathan was a suspect--

they-they need to investigate him.

They need to look into him.

He was living in the house.

He missed school all the time, everything that pointed to him

that could have easily make him a suspect.

I told him all of that stuff.

He wrote it down.

I remember I printed it out, I signed it.

Allen Keirn.

I'm a private investigator.

Yes, I was.

Yes, I did.

[Keith] Yes, I did.

Um, her response was that we were not going to

investigate Johnathan McCarty.

Yes.

We wondered if she had the picture of, you know,

Johnathan McCarty side by side with Greg Kelley.

We were told she had that from the beginning

of the investigation.

There was certainly plenty of time that you could say:

you know what, I'm learning new information.

Let me investigate this lead.

But the truth is she was never going to investigate

Johnathan McCarty.

She wouldn't today investigate Johnathan McCarty.

That was clear from her answers on the stand.

I don't think I was ever asked that,

that specifically, Mr. Roberts.

I do recall talking to a few different people about:

is it possible Johnathan could have been involved?

Yes, that did occur.

I did talk to one juror

and he gave me some interesting information.

It sounded like it was a combination of, of course

a four-year-old wouldn't say that if they hadn't

experienced something sexual,

um, and then kind of as a secondary point they said,

"So we kept waiting to hear why.

Why would he say that?

Was there somebody else that did it?"

Um, and because they never got that answer,

they believed the child.

She put on blinders.

And despite the fact that people were telling her

look at Johnathan,

she rebuffed them time and again.

There appeared to be a conflict, yes.

The conflict was that, um, that, uh, Ms. Cummings had a

prior relationship with the McCarty, uh, family, uh,

due to her representing some of her children.

I thought it was a conflict, yes.

I absolutely believe Patricia Cummings had a conflict

with her relationship with the McCarty family.

[Keith] She represented the McCarty brothers.

But one in particular, she had represented

for indecency with a child.

From the beginning of her representation of Greg,

it was skewed because of her involvement with the

McCarty brothers, three of them.

She had never represented Johnathan,

but she had represented the other three boys

in some fashion over the last maybe 10 years.

I know she represented each of them at least once, but it--

there might be one of them, one of the boys,

that she represented on-on-on a couple of different occasions.

Then or now?

I-I-I haven't had any relationship with her

since this trial.

[Lindsey] Right, right.

Um, then, I would say it was a friendly relationship.

[Lindsey] Okay.

You know, the-the idea of a conflict, it's-it's a

little bit like taking an intoxicated person.

You know, the person that's intoxicated, are they really

the best judge to tell you whether they're intoxicated,

or is it everyone around them?

And so someone that has a conflict I don't think can

see it all the time.

And I think clearly, she's still living in the middle

of a conflict that she can't recognize.

For whatever reason, she's convinced that

Johnathan McCarty is not someone

that we should even be looking at.

Uh, but she doesn't seem to act the same way with her own

client these days, which is hard to explain.

I believe Patricia took Johnathan's interest over mine.

I'm the one paying her to defend me,

trusting her to defend me.

And I believe that she worked her whole defense around

Johnathan McCarty.

And now I have to serve 25 years in prison for it.

[Cody Mitchell] I am a Texas Ranger employed by

the Texas Department of Public Safety.

I investigate any criminal activity within the

boundaries of Texas, mainly, uh, major crimes.

[Cody] That's correct.

We initially asked the Texas Rangers to come in and do

was help us investigate the defense claims on a writ.

Um, it really wasn't to solve the case.

If we could solve the case in doing it, fantastic.

That's ideally what we want.

But we had to investigate the claims on whether or not

Greg Kelley was given a fair trial,

um, and whether the system worked the way

that it should have in the original trial.

Usually, when you call witnesses,

you have an idea, you know.

You've already talked to them:

we're going to talk about this, this and this.

What would you say?

And then, you know, they get up and they testify.

And you-you pretty well know what to expect.

Not-not in this case: none of us did.

That's correct.

I did.

[Keith] At the moment this writ was made public,

Johnathan was in a room with the Ranger in the

Williamson County Jail answering questions.

The little boy doesn't reveal this during his

initial interview by the forensic interviewer

at the Child Advocacy Center,

but the prosecutors the spring before Greg's trial asked him,

um, "Well, did-did he have pants on?"

And he said yes.

"What were they?"

S-- they were pajamas, SpongeBob pajamas.

The revelation that the assailant wore

SpongeBob pajamas, uh, that's not disclosed

to the defense until the middle of trial.

And nobody can assess the significance of it.

If they had gotten it beforehand, they could have

done the same thing that I did,

which was to walk around and ask people did--

who wore SpongeBob pajamas?

Johnathan did.

He wore them to school.

He wore them in the neighborhood.

[Gaebri] I do remember Johnathan wearing SpongeBob

pajama pants to school.

A lot of people have witnessed these SpongeBob pajamas.

Uh, he'd wear like his pajamas a bit, no shirt sometimes,

or SpongeBob pajamas actually, yeah.

He had a pair of pajama pants with SpongeBob on them,

because I told him he was a little bit too grown

to be wearing those kind of pajamas.

He was like, "Yeah, but I like SpongeBob," blah blah, okay.

[Cody] Yes.

[Keith] Okay.

[Cody] And a cell phone picture of you in them.

Why would you lie about such an important fact that only

the assailant would actually know is really important,

that you're asking me about something I did

so I'm going to deny it?

Th-this is not a perfect case.

I mean it would have been perfect if Greg--

if Greg had said,

"Well, SpongeBob?

I've never-- I don't-- you know, I've never worn them."

But that's not him.

He's going to tell you the truth, you know.

So he did.

And then Johnathan, when confronted:

"I-I don't know what you're talking about.

SpongeBob?

Never heard of it," you know.

Why would that be--

now, see, at this point, with all the publicity, I get that.

Okay?

I'm going to lie about it because I know you're after me.

But the key is, he's saying it when he doesn't have any idea.

He should not have known that SpongeBob was important.

The defense claims another young man who

lived in the home where the sexual assault happened

is responsible, alleging he had pictures of naked children

on his phone.

And bears a striking resemblance to Kelley.

[male reporter] A newly unsealed court document says

that cell phone technology shows that McCarty had images

of naked young children on his computer and his cell phone.

Correct.

It does meet the definition.

What we found on the computer was child pornography

and his voracious, uh, porn site,

uh, visitations, 1,300,

off of that computer.

So he was a frequent flier there.

I certainly think had we not reopened the case into

Greg Kelley, um, there were a lot of things we wouldn't have

learned about Mr. McCarty.

Uh, because this case is pending, I certainly want to

be careful about what I say about his cases.

But we learned a lot of information that someone who's

otherwise on a state jail felony drug probation,

uh, we wouldn't have known or-or paid attention to.

He's still here in the Williamson County Jail,

arrested on his probation revocation,

uh, on-on a fairly high bond.

[phone ringing]

[phone recording] Hello, you have a call at no expense

to you from...

an inmate at Williamson County Jail.

You may begin speaking now.

I think as the allegations had been made

and-and evidence has been introduced,

the law enforcement,

uh, investigation in this case, uh, was clearly lacking.

There's more that should have been done that was not done.

I think the ranger made that clear from the stand.

Yes.

Would it be important that when you learned

the offense occurred in a home daycare situation

to actually visit the home daycare situation?

Yes.

Yes.

- Investigate them? - Yes.

- Maybe run a criminal history?

[Cody] Correct.

- Interview them? - Yes.

Find out which bedrooms are theirs?

[Cody] Correct.

...and there are 20 football players that stay at that house

over the summer every night--

would it be important to know who those people are?

[audience laughing]

[Cody] Yes.

The original investigation?

Um, yeah.

What started off as, um, I ain't going to use

the word simple but a, uh, investigation into a crime that

I'm used to working on turned out to be an investigation

into different entities all involved with the crime that,

for their own reasons or own motives,

did things that shouldn't have been done.

And it all just came together i-in the center

and hit this-this defendant.

I would be scared to death to think that I could be--

end up in the same position with no evidence whatsoever

and no investigation done and be convicted of something that

I may or may not have done.

[Greg] I'd be terrified.

That's what I am, you know.

That never leaves me.

So--

yeah.

It has led to the development of suspects but, uh,

no conclusions.

Three total.

...Greg Kelley is one of the suspects.

And there are-- there is evidence that because of

that evidence he cannot be ruled out at this time.

Um, Johnathan McCarty is also a suspect,

and then the third individual that I'm going to--

[Bryan] This should have happened in 2013.

Now we're here four years later.

This guy's been in prison for three years.

Oh, and by the way, not just is McCarty,

the twin brother, almost, to this kid,

but there's a third person now.

It was-- it was mind-blowing whenever that announcement

was made in court.

[female reporter] Now McCarty's attorney was also in

the courtroom, listening to the testimony,

and said it's extremely unusual to watch both

the DA and defense seek the same outcome.

In this case, they were both looking to, uh,

exonerate Mr. Kelley.

And they were doing so at the expense of Johnathan McCarty.

In an attempt to restore justice to Greg Kelley,

they have denied Johnathan McCarty justice.

And it is not how our system works.

That ranger was actually looking, doing an

investigation that's based on a defense strategy:

look for alternative suspects.

Okay?

There's a lot of talk about Johnathan McCarty.

And then this mystery man that comes up at the 11th hour as

a p-potential third suspect: we know who that is.

To this day, the only person that has met the

probable cause bar is Greg Kelley.

[Judge King] I will work to draft my own findings of fact.

And I'm simply making determinations,

but really this-- the final decision, as you all know,

is to be made by the folks

down at the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Lawyers who have never seen Mr. Kelley,

will never see Mr. Kelley very likely,

are going to grade all of our papers

and make a determination based on the law.

Emotion doesn't enter into it.

So, we need to take the time to get it right.

All right, Ladies and Gentlemen, I adjourn these proceedings.

You all are excused.

[low dramatic music]

Had I been the attorney in charge of this case

at the beginning,

there is no way that I would have brought charges.

At this point, this would be one of those cases that

I would chalk up in my book as:

unknown, further investigation required.

Having the outcry of the child be "it",

it should never be it.

It should be the starting point of every investigation.

Part of our responsibility as a-- as a prosecutor

is it's not just about do we believe the children

but it's: what evidence do we have to support that?

Um, it's one thing to believe a child.

It's one thing to want to help and support a child.

But we have a higher calling than that.

We have a higher responsibility than that as prosecutors.

And so I would not go forward on that kind of a case,

because if I am going to go forward on the word of a child,

I need to have a detective who can get up there

and say the kinds of things that Ranger Mitchell said, that:

I did this.

I talked to these people.

I identified these people.

I talked to each and every one of these individuals.

I looked everywhere.

And I'm still left with this.

Is everything okay?

And-and that's what y'all asked for, so--

I feel good that I'm at least giving you all that.

Yes, yes.

Well, thank you, very much.

Thank you so much.

[Cody] You take care.

I think whenever we talk about, you know,

how I would describe just the entire case,

it's just a mess.

And it continues to be a mess even to this day.

It's really unsatisfying as well, because there's no clear

great answer to this.

We don't have clarity on who actually committed this offense.

Uh, we don't have clarity on exactly what the

right claims for relief are.

Uh, we don't have clarity necessarily about how to

move forward from this.

Uh, but the one thing that I think we've got clarity on here

is that the system failed.

It's the one thing that I can do something about moving forward,

and that's what we're focusing on.

Even if Judge King does agree to release Kelley on bond,

we will still have to wait for the Court of Criminal Appeals

to rule in his favor in order to exonerate him.

The court could also ask for a new trial

or leave Kelley's previous conviction.

I deserve to go home to my family.

I've been through a lot and so has my family.

I'm not the only one doing 25 years, man.

Yeah.

We begin tonight with breaking news

in a controversial Cedar Park case.

New evidence is emerging, broadening the lens

around Greg Kelley.

Now we are learning new information from the

Texas Ranger's investigation that keeps him as an

active suspect in this child sex assault investigation.

[male reporter] This latest evidence contradicts some

of Kelley's claims that he's made since the beginning,

when this whole thing arose several years ago.

It was made public that the Texas Ranger filed

three search warrant affidavits and got three search warrants,

one for Johnathan McCarty's phone, uh,

and two for Greg's phone.

[female reporter] According to the newest search warrants,

Kelley's phone showed that he spent an increasing

amount of time on pornographic Web sites around the

time of the four-year-old boy's assault.

The warrant says that increase "marked the beginning of a

change in Kelley's normal habits

and sexual interests."

The Ranger releases this at a point in time

that he knows is quite delicate.

And it feels an awful lot like sabotage

and spitefulness, actually.

The arrest warrant affidavit is written

in an extremely odd way,

and it is very accusatory.

It-it-- he builds it up:

Greg's got an addiction to pornography.

[female reporter] Texas Ranger Cody Mitchell believes to

a high degree of probability that during the 2013 to 2014

time period, Kelley was displaying undeniable

indicators of being a sexually motivated high-risk threat.

The Ranger had found deleted texts indicating Kelley had

spent hours alone with the children

in the at-home daycare,

even taking a selfie with the victim.

The search warrant also shows that Kelley was a member

of the Web site Adult Friend Finder and had several

different profiles under his name to met with

people in his area for intimate contact.

I don't know how it got released.

I was told that Johnathan McCarty's lawyers

were asking about the search warrants before

they were even filed.

So, which is interesting, because I didn't know about

them before they were filed.

It's-- obviously somebody released that information, uh,

to at least Johnathan McCarty's team and-and "The Statesman".

Before-before it was public, yes.

[Pat] Wow.

I just-- I'd prefer not to talk about it right now.

First of all, only about maybe five percent of that

is true regarding the pornography.

I have watched pornography.

Everything else is completely fr-- fabricated

and it's opinionated.

He's saying that I have been a member of a site called

adultfriendfinder.com.

I was never a member of that site.

I've never used my e-mails to get into that site.

I've never searched or even journeyed at that site.

And I don't know where he would get the idea where I have.

Never.

Never.

I've never met with anybody online.

Well, they built-- they've-they've built him up

to be angelic, uh, y- you know.

And there's no way in the world that this guy

could do anything wrong.

And then you fast forward to the s-- uh,

the search warrants conducted, you know, by the Ranger.

You start finding out things about, you know, his extensive,

uh, you know, porn history, his Adult Friend Finder, uh,

activity, you know, hooking up for sexual encounters

a-and those kinds of dangerous behaviors.

Uh, and-and you get a different picture of

who they're advocating for.

Go ahead, search my e-mails.

I have nothing to hide.

I've been totally transparent with you

and been honest with you throughout this whole process

because I believe if I go-- if-if I want to go home,

I've got to cooperate.

Right?

Uh, with what?

I don't know what questions he's taking about.

I'd have to be shown them.

[Pat] Yeah.

Because I have admitted to him that I've watched pornography.

I've admitted to him that I've worn the SpongeBob pajama pants

once or twice.

I don't know how I'm being deceitful to him.

No.

Yeah.

Yeah, I do.

Well, I've passed every question but one.

Yeah, if I stuck my-my penis in the kid's mouth.

He's saying I failed one question over here.

And the three questions were:

did I stick my penis in the kid's mouth,

did I make a kid put lotion on my penis,

and am I being truthful in these questions?

I passed am I being truthful in these questions.

Did I stick-- did I make a kid put lotion on my-my penis?

Passed that one.

But I can't pass that I put my penis in a kid's mouth.

Mr. Kelley has lied about several things.

He's lied about wanting to talk to the police

and that we just wouldn't talk to him.

He lied about being a Marine in Afghanistan,

you know, at-at a gym, this guy.

He is challenged with the truth.

I believe everything I've said just defended myself.

I don't know.

I hope not.

Um, you know, I-I think I-I've vacillated back and forth

through my investigation.

I think initially I was pretty convinced of his innocence.

Um, I think there have been parts of the investigation

that I have started to think he's guilty.

And now I hate to say this, but I-I just--

I wouldn't be surprised either way.

And, um, that's the hardest thing, is I-I wish I knew.

And, you know, do I think that Johnathan McCarty

is a more likely suspect?

I mean I've kind of thought that all along.

Um, so it's just that's what's so troubling this,

is I just don't know the answer.

Well, hello, fighters.

I want to let everybody know that, uh, what I've got

in my hands right here is the signed bond paperwork

for Greg Kelley.

Guys, Greg's coming home today.

Today's a big day.

Let's go celebrate.

I'd like to believe-- you know, I'm-I'm agreeing to a bond.

I'm agreeing to his release.

I'd like to believe that he's not responsible for this

offense, uh, because it's easier for me to sleep at night

to think, okay, I just released somebody that's

not responsible for the offense.

But I also know, like I said, my job is to see that

justice is done.

And justice means not taking the chance that we

convict an innocent person.

So I just have to live with that.

[indistinct chatter]

[crowd cheering]

[Gaebri] I love you.

I love you, I love you.

[sobbing]

I love you.

I love you too.

[soft dramatic music]

♪

♪

♪

[male reporter] Greg, what do you have to say

about this moment and all these people that are here right now?

I'm so grateful to finally be out.

I've been waiting for this day a long time.

[female reporter] ...getting Greg Kelley's reaction.

It's so surreal right now.

I-I couldn't process this.

It's been, uh--

it's had its ups and downs for the past three years.

And it's a new beginning for me.

Um, I know it's not over yet.

But, uh, we're going to continue fighting

and the truth will prevail.

And, um, I just thank the-the DA's Office

and the judge to give me an open mind to, uh,

allow me to finally come home to my family.

And, uh, I just want to go home.

[male reporter] What do you say to the parents of the children

that feel like today is not a good day for them?

What do you say to them?

I say that, uh,

I'm sorry but I didn't do that to your child.

Um, some day I hope I-I can meet you and I can explain

to you that it wasn't me.

Um, I just hope that, uh,

you can have peace in this moment.

[soft dramatic music]

You're sweating.

Aww.

You're just overwhelmed with everything?

I can't even imagine what you're feeling.

We're getting real close.

You're with your family.

Everyone loves you.

It's hot out here today.

- That black shirt! - Need some ventilation.

I haven't been outside in a while.

[Gaebri] Okay.

[Jake] Let's get the hell out of Williamson County boys.

[soft dramatic music]

[man] Whoo!

There he is!

[man] Yeah.

[reporter] Convicted child sex offender Greg Kelley

walked out of jail on bond today--

[man] Yes, he did.

[reporter] after three years behind bars.

Kelley was sentenced to 25 years in prison after a jury

found him guilty of committing lewd acts with a child in 2014.

But his lawyer filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus this spring

to bring new evidence before a judge.

It's so surreal right now.

I-I couldn't process this.

It's been, uh--

it's had its ups and downs for the past three years.

And it's a new beginning for me.

Um, I know it's not over yet.

But, uh, we're going to continue fighting and

the truth will prevail.

And, um, I just thank the-the DA's Office

and the judge to give me an open mind to, uh,

allow me to finally come home to my family.

And, uh, I just want to go home.

Welcome home, buddy.

[woman] Whoo!

[applause]

[soft dramatic music]

[splash]

[woman] Are you good?

I'm good.

[man] How's that freedom feel?

[soft dramatic music]

[cheering]

[soft dramatic music]

That is unbelievable.

I've never seen somebody do it on their first time.

Whooo!

[cheers]

[soft dramatic music]

Fight for Greg Kelley.

[cheering]

[Keith] I'm not going to be smiling.

You know, with him walking out, he could be told by the

Court of Criminal Appeals: go right back into prison.

It's not over.

It's not over until the CCA says it.

It's terrifying.

♪ dramatic music ♪

♪

♪