Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #145

[evilwise]

I leave a publicly accessible connection to the internet through my wifi specifically because I don't like the idea that I am legally responsible for anything anyone does through my internet connection. I'm sure there are so many MACs that have been associated with it no prosecutor would ever be able to make a reasonable argument that I personally would have been aware of any particular thing.

 

[acutename]

I'm so sorry but I'm confused as to what we are trying to figure out with this line of thinking? Maybe I missed a message as I was reading. To answer mom2chloe .. yes, I agree it's very possible that he knew the wifi password at his grandparents and would use it while over there .. but that ip address would be completely different from the ip address at his fathers house. Has something been said about a different ip address? Other then the one on a road close to his grandparents? Or is that what we are discussing?

and to answer acutename .. yes you could probably be in your driveway or basement and be in close enough range to connect to a persons wifi .. are you thinking along the lines of someone else accessing the kleins wifi without them knowing? also, I am not as familiar with a personal hotspot but I think those would use the ip address of the actual phone.

I think we are just trying to "pare down" the possibilities of who at (or near?) the Kleins could have been using (or monitoring?) Anthony Shots or snapchatting with LG.

 

[FromGermany1]

So turning it over wasn't voluntary on his part. It would be suspicious if he didn't!

@FromGermany1 Meatpackers?

IP Meatpacking Plant (btw: bomb threat on Febr 22th, 2017, afaik).

 

[GoBuckeyes]

I leave a publicly accessible connection to the internet through my wifi specifically because I don't like the idea that I am legally responsible for anything anyone does through my internet connection. I'm sure there are so many MACs that have been associated with it no prosecutor would ever be able to make a reasonable argument that I personally would have been aware of any particular thing.

I have an unencrypted, publicly accessible portion of my WiFi open to the public too. I don't use it, but others have from time to time. (A fitness watch here and there.)

 

[cbeagle]

But never did they ask about who he gave his account information to, to be used on other people's devices. And never did they ask about other locations he might have been to regularly with his own devices. Maybe LE was lying, but they say it all originated at the Peru house IP address, over hours, days, and months.

I think an argument against them lying about the single location of the Peru house IP address is that it was stated in the search warrant. They can't lie in that.

A subpoena was sent to Comcast for the IP addresses associated with the anthony_shots account and they returned to REDACTED in Peru, Indiana.

https://www.wishtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Kegan-Anthony-Kline-PC.pdf

 

[AC4RD]

... Sorry still have this unsettling feeling TK has a hand in this. Bothers me as to why LE has nothing on him and no arrest yet. So strange as he seems to be suspicious in all of this.

The question from @rebelchild, about why TK's phone wasn't part of the search, is related to your own question about "nothing on him and no arrest yet," IMO. Why *any* personal communication devices of house residents weren't seized sounds to me like an oversight in preparing the warrant, though that's just a WAG. ("Wild-butt guess") I would think a warrant might reasonably include all devices in the house that might have been used for the CSAM case. (I'm not a lawyer, and "reasonably" is my own guess only.) That question feeds into your question--maybe if they'd seized TK's devices, there would be more information about him, right?

I agree that TK looks "suspicious." Right now, though, all we have is the fact that he's bad-tempered man with an apparent history of violent behavior. AND he's the father of, and shares a house with, an admitted pervert and lawbreaker who was the last known person (apparently) to talk to Libby prior to her murder. LE clearly needs to check KK thoroughly. But even with KK, all we have is some loathsome but non-murderous behavior with someone who was later killed--not enough really to point a finger at IMO.

I suspect LE is looking at KAK, and probably at TK, and I suspect LE is glad to have KK in lockup, so they aren't rushed into charging KK before they can develop the case fully. Hope so, anyway!

 

[raja]

dbm

 

[Prime8]

I wonder how the families feel about blindly trusting LE?!?

So, I've heard this stated a few times by people and I think it makes a lot of sense. Yes, there are witnesses that can lead LE to information that will help solve the case. But in the end, LE (including prosecutors) are the only ones that will be able to charge and actually secure justice in this case. If you look at it in this way, why wouldn't they trust LE? I'm guessing by the fact that there have been very few leaks in this case (at least that are provable), LE has never shared a lot of specifics with the family. As someone that is a complete outsider in this investigation, I would defer to the family in terms of my trust with LE. It doesn't mean it's the best or right choice, but they are the biggest champions of getting this case solved.

 

[Prime8]

I wonder this same thing .. why was the fathers phone not seized? or was it? If the messages came from that ip address, you would think ALL electronics from everyone in that household would have been taken and searched with that warrant.

So in that initial search, TK's devices were not taken. Typically warrants are very, very specific. If they have nothing to tie TK's devices to a crime (even if he shares a household with a criminal), there is no legal argument to ask a court to seize those devices. It doesn't mean they can't/haven't found a reason since that initial search but it's important for people to understand how narrow warrants actually are in most cases.

 

[cbeagle]

So in that initial search, TK's devices were not taken. Typically warrants are very, very specific. If they have nothing to tie TK's devices to a crime (even if he shares a household with a criminal), there is no legal argument to ask a court to seize those devices. It doesn't mean they can't/haven't found a reason since that initial search but it's important for people to understand how narrow warrants actually are in most cases.

Though it doesn't seem like when they served the warrant they knew who was a person of interest.

So did they seize those specific phones because:

a) they belonged to KAK and he admitted creating the anthony_shots account and soliciting images etc.
or
b) they were tied through the mac addresses to the IP addresses that lead them to the house in Peru

??

 

[Snow_In _June]

dbm

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Though it doesn't seem like when they served the warrant they knew who was a person of interest.

So did they seize those specific phones because:

a) they belonged to KAK and he admitted creating the anthony_shots account and soliciting images etc.
or
b) they were tied through the mac addresses to the IP addresses that lead them to the house in Peru

??

I’ve always thought it odd that in no document, probable cause or interview, etc, is there any real mention of LE even talking to or even mentioning TK during the initial raid or otherwise.
Maybe all the devices were in KAK’s name so they were focused on him, but you would think they would have at least talked to other people living there.
Also, the fact that now, after all this time, it seems LE is super focused on TK, just makes it more strange.
Is this just another example of poor work by LE in this case?

 

[cbeagle]

I’ve always thought it odd that in no document, probable cause or interview, etc, is there any real mention of LE even talking to or even mentioning TK during the initial raid or otherwise.
Maybe all the devices were in KAK’s name so they were focused on him, but you would think they would have at least talked to other people living there.
Also, the fact that now, after all this time, it seems LE is super focused on TK, just makes it more strange.
Is this just another example of poor work by LE in this case?

They talked to TK, or at least you can strongly assume that.

There were two people at the house, REDACTED and his son KAK.

There is a paragraph on the first page where they interviewed REDACTED and that person said KAK used Instagram and Snapchat.

Process of elimination, REDACTED is TK.

https://www.wishtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Kegan-Anthony-Kline-PC.pdf

 

[AC4RD]

So in that initial search, TK's devices were not taken. Typically warrants are very, very specific. If they have nothing to tie TK's devices to a crime (even if he shares a household with a criminal), there is no legal argument to ask a court to seize those devices. ...

LE spent a while asking KAK, in that interview, if his father couldn't have been using KAK's devices. If KAK had said "yes, he sometimes did," LE would have grounds to ask for a search warrant on TK as being involved in the CSAM case--is that right?

 

[StarryStarryNight]

They talked to TK, or at least you can strongly assume that.

There were two people at the house, REDACTED and his son KAK.

There is a paragraph on the first page where they interviewed REDACTED and that person said KAK used Instagram and Snapchat.

Process of elimination, REDACTED is TK.

https://www.wishtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Kegan-Anthony-Kline-PC.pdf

Thanks for that!
You’d think LE would be talking to him more if they think he truly is the guy who killed the girls. Maybe they are. Maybe we just don’t know it.

 

[newyooper]

As people of the same kind stick together, we might have a look at meatpackers again. There probably is a lot of clientele for KAK's or TK's "businesses" ...... Connections could of course be everywhere and to everybody. Difficult to find out, except by LE.

Why is that? Because they're blue collar?

 

[Prime8]

LE spent a while asking KAK, in that interview, if his father couldn't have been using KAK's devices. If KAK had said "yes, he sometimes did," LE would have grounds to ask for a search warrant on TK as being involved in the CSAM case--is that right?

I believe that could be enough. I guess it depends on the judges in the area and how much cause they require. But, I also think if he said, "yes, my father has access" but admitted to all the CSAM, then maybe it wouldn't be enough.

 

[LeBlack]

Why is that? Because they're blue collar?

keep reading

 

[rebelchild]

So in that initial search, TK's devices were not taken. Typically warrants are very, very specific. If they have nothing to tie TK's devices to a crime (even if he shares a household with a criminal), there is no legal argument to ask a court to seize those devices. It doesn't mean they can't/haven't found a reason since that initial search but it's important for people to understand how narrow warrants actually are in most cases.

But what about the following quote from the transcript?

A subpoena was sent to Comcast for the IP addresses associated with the anthony_shots account and they returned to REDACTED in Peru, Indiana.

If the subpoena was sent to Comcast for the IP address, it seems the warrant would include any and all devices that are used at that address. Or does each individual device have its own unique IP address even if they are connected to wifi? Now that I am typing this out, I think I've answered my own question. lol

 

[margarita25]

Do we know the exact dates they were in Vegas? Tia.