Outcry (2020): Season 1, Episode 3 - Outcry - full transcript

The newly-elected Williamson Country District Attorney agrees to a hearing on Greg's case. The hearing puts the case under a microscope, revealing some disturbing holes in the investigation and legal lapses in protocol. The Texas Rangers conduct an independent investigation, uncovering additional clues that point to a possible alternate suspect. Despite the mounting body of proof supporting Greg's innocence claim, several damning pieces of evidence cannot be ignored, including new information that the Texas Rangers uncover.

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

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 ♪