Texas Town Rallies to Support Man Convicted of the Super Aggravated Sexual Assault of a 4 yr old Boy

Reread the post I was replying to and edited.

I can't read this thread, because it will be full of people sharing horrific fantasies of violence and torture which, as a survivor of abuse, tend to trigger me far more than the initial accounts. See, when you say that stuff, the little kid in me thinks "that's my fault, people want to kill and torture now and it's because of me". And if it happened, most of us would not feel vindicated or better, but just even worse because we had been part of something so horrible. I know of two people who committed suicide after an innocent person chose to kill their abuser -- not out of sympathy with the abuser, but a feeling that "see, no matter what, if I exist, people will be hurt, innocent people will be so upset their lives will be ruined too". This isn't rational, but one of the lasting effects of severe childhood abuse is an inability to have "rational" feelings a lot of the time. Once a child is deeply imprinted with this kind of thinking it never fully goes away.

I will say this, though. Ignoring everything else, whether someone takes a plea should never be seen as concrete evidence they are guilty. If I were accused of theft, and knew I had not done it, but also saw that absolutely nobody believed me and never would, I would be so distraught, and feel so hopeless, I might just give in rather than spend millions of dollars and endless agonizing years fighting something I felt it was impossible to win. Once you have been falsely accused of anything, it's amazing how few people still have it in them to fight. You just feel like it's all much bigger than you are, and you want to shut down and close the world out. Eventually you might recover enough to realize you do want to fight, but then people say "but a guilty person wouldn't have ever given up". This is a dream we have of ourselves where we are fierce and strong and ready to turn into mega-ultra kungfu ninja dragons if crossed. It's not what really happens, most of the time.

Doesn't mean he IS innocent. Just means that the myth of the plea as proving guilt is false. It tells us nothing either way.

a reply to: Witness2008

You may be the one to see this one glaring fact....why offer the plea deal after the jury found him guilty?

The plea was submitted by the defense and accepted by the court ... not the other way around. You can be sure that it was negotiated ... and that the defense accepted the final proposal. But, it's pretty clear that Kelly gambled on getting one hold-out juror for innocence and it failed to pan out. Gripe all you want about prosecutorial corruption in that town ... but remember this was a jury trial. That means Everyone (including the judge) agreed he was guilty.

We won't be seeing this perv around in my lifetime ... and good riddance. Too bad our laws don't 'deal with' the people who had a hand in raising this monster. Good for us that the court got him off the streets at 19 instead of 49.

originally posted by: NickDC202

Remember: Greg Kelley AGREED to a Sentencing Plea Deal with the following terms:
- Admit Guilt
- Forfeit right to all appeals
- Serve 25 years in prison with no possibility of parole
- Upon Release Kelley is Required to register as a High Level Sex Offender for 20 Years.

NO INNOCENT MAN WOULD EVER AGREE TO THOSE TERMS.

Actually it happens all the time. Your saying it would never happen does not override the overwhelming proof it happens, alllll the time.

I don't know if he is guilty or innocent.

I do know that giving the 4 year old a hard time is out of line

children can't deceive until they are about 5

up until that point lies are usually more fantasy and experimentation

so give the kid a break

a reply to: maria_stardust

No, you didn't read in between my lines of reasoning, you purposely misrepresented what I said. I presented some facts you didn't like so you needed to slander me to deflect what I had to say.

I normally don't get involved in talking about personal attacks in the thread but I think of what you did fits perfectly within the topic of this thread.

There are people out there who feel it's perfectly ok to misrepresent facts as longs as it's done under the guise of "protecting children".

Lying is lying. For the system to work, people have to be honest. Lying hurts the falsely accused AND victims.

originally posted by: WP4YT
My question would be, do they have proof he did it? How exactly would proof be obtained? Did the jury convict based on just claims by the child? Children are very known to fabricate things all the time.

What 4 year old is even aware of oral sex, so how could he make it up?

originally posted by: WP4YT
I can understand why the defendant has such a following; is it really likely a 19 year old football star would do such a thing? Usually the sexual predator types are perverted old men that can't get a woman to like them.

That is quite the assumption there and wrong to boot! In the UK, a sizeable proportion (around a 3rd) of convictions are of people under the age of 21

originally posted by: WP4YT
It's hard to believe a 19 year old football star wouldn't have women throwing themselves at him, and he would need to abuse children.

That has nothing to do with it - again making assumptions based on nothing.

originally posted by: WP4YT
Then again, I'm not supporting him and obviously don't condone his actions if he did it. But on the surface, it seems unlikely. Hopefully the jury saw evidence that made certain he was indeed guilty. It's a travesty when innocent peoples lives are ruined.

Innocent people don't make plea bargains agreeing to 25 years in prison with no chance of parole or appeal.

a reply to: stumason

Two things wrong with your posts - proven by scientific studies

1. Preschool age children can be lead to believe abuse happened. The interviewers or parents can lead them without even being aware of it.

2. Innocent people plead and admit they are guilty all the time. DNA proved many people were innocent and many pleaded guilty or took a plea.

I'm short of time by I'll try to provide you with the links to the studies. You are completely correct though about abusers coming from all ages and backgrounds.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
He is 19, so he will do whatever his lawyers tells him to do. He probably doesn't even understand the full ramifications of his pled deal, not much of one... .

Please, don't be so patronising. I was arrested at 19 and sent through the criminal justice system and knew fully well what was going on (more so than my own barrister, I might add, although she was fit.....). 19 is plenty old enough to understand what is going on around you - stop making excuses for him.

If he genuinely felt he was innocent, he would have said so. I got offered the chance of getting off with a caution by the Police, but refused it as I believed I was innocent - I maintain to this day it was self-defence I was stitched up by an incompetent lawyer and Police - in the end I was convicted of the offence I was charged with and got a hefty fine for my troubles.

originally posted by: NickDC202
NO INNOCENT MAN WOULD EVER AGREE TO THOSE TERMS.

But.. but.. this is ATS. Logic and reason on ATS?? How dare you!

The Illuminaughty brainwashed him of course! It's the only sensible answer.

originally posted by: Daughter2
a reply to: stumason

Two things wrong with your posts - proven by scientific studies

Not quite - the way you say it is that because there have been some instances of what you claim, therefore it must apply in all cases, not so.

originally posted by: Daughter2
1. Preschool age children can be lead to believe abuse happened. They interviewers or parents can lead them without even being aware of it.

And under cross examination, any discrepancy would be shown to be evident. How many of these pre-schoolers of yours actually managed to successfully get someone convicted?

originally posted by: Daughter2
2. Innocent people plead and admit they are guilty all the time. DNA proved many people were innocent and many pleaded guilty or took a plea.

Yep, I am aware there are some people out there who will claim they did a crime when they didn't and, more often than not, they don't even get to court, much less convicted.

originally posted by: Daughter2
I'm short of time by I'll try to provide you with the links to the studies. You are completely correct though about abusers coming from all ages and backgrounds.

No need, what you have said can be accurate in certain circumstances but I have a hard time believing that a 4 year old could lie convincingly enough in a Court of Law to secure a conviction, or that someone who wasn't guilty (and said as much early on in the trial) would later then agree to a plea deal.

a reply to: stumason


Wow, lots of twisting going on here. You are they one who said no innocent person would take a plea. I pointed out there are plenty of documented instances of innocent people taking a plea. So yes, you can take a plea and be innocent.

And it's not that a four year old would lie on purpose. It's that they could be lead to believe something that wasn't true. So they are they believe they are telling the truth. It's possible any discrepancies could be deemed just details or due to trauma. This is why you have to have a system that's 100% honest and Texas doesn't have that system.

Texas has been caught many many times convicting innocent people. It just seems like that State doesn't care about convicting innocent people. I don't have faith in the Texas system.

a reply to: Daughter2

There has been no manipulation of your words.

You believe Texas is a corrupt state. That may be the case. Or, not.

You believe law enforcement officers are, for the most part, also corrupt. Maybe, or maybe not.

You believe that children are liars and can be easily manipulated. Again, it depends on circumstances.

Anything may or may not be true. It depends on the individual instance.

If you had taken a moment to actually read and consider what I wrote, you would realize that.

When it comes to dealing with sexually abused children, it is the responsibility of society -- via our legal system -- to serve justice. That is precisely what this court and jury have done.

There has been no evidence presented that these children are lying or have been manipulated. Why even bring up the notion if that's not what you're suggesting?

In fact, just lay it all out on the line.

Do you believe that this young man received a fair trail? If no, why not?

Do you believe that the children involved are lying or have been manipulated in this particular case? If so, why?

a reply to: Daughter2

You can't just say something absurd, and then accuse others of 'twisting your words' when people call you out on it.

People tend to be a little sharper than that around here.

a reply to: maria_stardust

Gosh, if I can't even have a conversation about the topic without facts being manipulated, how in the world could someone get a fair trial?

I'm thinking about this thread and all the negative attention to my posts and they were just comments.

Can you imagine what the jury, judge or prosecutor would have went through if they didn't agree with the guilty verdict?

a reply to: Daughter2

Again, no manipulation. Your words.

Your opinion regarding the state of Texas:

But I DO KNOW the Texas system is so corrupt, the outcome is meaningless.

Your opinion regarding Texas law enforcement:

TEXAS COPS HAVE A CULTURAL OF CORRUPTION. I noticed your term of aggressive prosecution - It seems like this is a code word for dishonest?

Your opinion regarding child victims of sexual abuse:

But sometimes THEY ARE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH!!!!!!

Notice your use of ALL CAPS.



So tell us how you really feel.

a reply to: Snarl

Obviously the deal was accepted by the court. But why? He had been found guilty and if what some say, the court pursues child sexual assault cases so aggressively, he could have been put away for life. Why would the court or the DA agree to the plea bargain?

a reply to: Daughter2

Twisting? I twisted nothing!

I know people claim to have committed crimes, I can remember a few examples from the UK, but in every case the Police found out they couldn't have committed the crime before charges were even brought, much less allowing it to get to trial.

I also know that children can be manipulated, but again, this is usually discovered during the investigation and if it gets to trial, cross-examination usually uncovers this.

In regards to this case, I would like you to explain to me:

1. if the child had been manipulated, how was this was not uncovered during the trial under cross examination?
   
2. Why the defendant, who previously proclaimed innocence, would then agree to a plea bargain, especially after refusing a previous plea bargain which would have ensured a lighter sentence? This doesn't fit with the pattern of someone who would normally confess to a crime they didn't commit.
   

The topic of this thread was about a town supporting someone who took a plea deal about molestation.

It's not easy pointing out that sometimes false allegations are either made intentionally or unintentionally.

But it does happen and for those of you who think you are protecting children by stopping any conversation about the possibility should take a good look at your behavior.

What would protect children the most is a honest system that supports the truth and that means allowing an open and honest discussion.

Start acting look a bunch of thugs and YOU are going to cast doubt on real convictions. One day your behavior is going to convict the wrong person and let the real criminal go free or there is going to be a jury member with a wrongly convicted relative who will not believe a real case.

Put your pitch fork down and think about that one for a second.