Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #148

[JnRyan]

I believe LE has a mountain of evidence and more than circumstantial for KAK's 30 charges where he is involved with minors. But as far as the Delphi murders, I'm not so sure LE has anything. They supposedly have a statement - text, instagram, tweet, etc. - where KAK says he was supposed to meet up with Liberty. I don't doubt he made that statement. What I have doubts about the statement is whether the actual meetup is true. He could have simply said that to get attention even though no such plans existed. That statement alone appears to be what LE putting all their weight on. I saw nothing in the transcript where LE has the alleged actual conversation between he and Liberty either from his phone or hers.

I'm hoping LE has more than that and the existence of communications with Liberty prior to the murders. I'm hoping that there are other persons with access to KAK's photos and addresses of his victims and LE can link one of those persons to the murders. IOW, I'm not convinced KAK killed the girls but I'm hoping for a connection to who did it. I'm wondering if LE has a list of screen names of those that might have accessed KAK's photos and data, but for one reason or another they can't trace them back to the actual names. Of course, if KAK has no idea beyond the screen name that still be a dead end where KAK's involvement is concerned.

 

[justtrish]

Not a severed foot, a toe amputation, but it was after the murders. So his toe amputation would have nothing to do with BG gait on the bridge.

Possibly the same reason he needed a toe amputated could have caused him to have a limp or a good side/bad side? I've seen diabetes mentioned. That could cause circulation troubles and wounds can have a harder time healing so maybe this toe amputation was because of a bigger medial issue that could have caused limping or something off that day as well?

 

[zencompass]

Much appreciated.
I just feel so deeply that an arrest will soon be made.
This case has been the one case that I watch each and every day ( like so many others)
My heart is in it 100 percent.

Dear @Ravenmoon,

I feel the same way as you that an arrest will be made soon.

For the first time in a long time, we've seen some solid movement in this case.

KAK moved into temporary custody by the I.S.P., the search in Wabash river and KAK's lawyer requesting and being granted a postponement of the preliminary hearing conference to October.

JMO

 

[zencompass]

Circumstantial evidence has the same weight as direct evidence in a trial. A judge is not going to weigh it’s admissibility any differently than direct evidence. It’s significance will be decided by the jury. Guilty people are convicted every day on nothing but circumstantial evidence.
Just my opinion, but I believe LE has a lot more than the information in that interview transcript or they wouldn’t have been hanging on to the Klines for so long. They might have been small unimpressive pieces to the puzzle and not enough to charge anybody, but they were pieces nonetheless. Those pieces kept them focused on the Klines until, apparently, KAK decided to talk.

edit: typo

Dear @StarryStarryNight,

Well said!

I believe I will be astounded when all of the evidence L.E. has collected is revealed in trial.

That is - if it goes to trial and there isn't a plea deal. We shall see.

JMO

 

[TheVisual]

Possibly the same reason he needed a toe amputated could have caused him to have a limp or a good side/bad side? I've seen diabetes mentioned. That could cause circulation troubles and wounds can have a harder time healing so maybe this toe amputation was because of a bigger medial issue that could have caused limping or something off that day as well?

Getting across a bridge is one thing but "down the hill" and across the creek not too likely. JMO

 

[carbuff]

Does this mean no usable fingerprints were found?

I'm an identical twin. In fact, my sister took one of those DNA test kits and so did my granddaughter. They came up as each other's grandmother and granddaughter, so I never even bothered to do my own test kit.

YET, we have different fingerprints. All identical twins do. Our fingerprints come from the various ways our developing fingertips touched our mother's womb. Therefore, they are not identical.

I'm hoping over the course of 15 years, some prints were found, but I infer they weren't. How sad.

KAK and TK are not going to have identical DNA, just partial. IMO everything depends now on DNA if there's no confession currently going on.

It's still possible that BG was just a wanderer, at a terrible moment for L and A.

I do have suspects in mind, but I vacillate between which one is most likely.

No, no fingerprints. I doubt if there's DNA considering it's just a small local crime from 15 or more years ago. The big hangup is that the bank teller who is the eyewitness can't identify which twin was the robber, and other evidence places them both, separately, in the general vicinity of the bank.

My point wasn't that TK and KAK have overlapping DNA, though that could be the case, just that if they can't find something definitive to distinguish which person at the house committed the crimes, they can't get a conviction. One or the other isn't good enough.

 

[JnRyan]

My point wasn't that TK and KAK have overlapping DNA, though that could be the case, just that if they can't find something definitive to distinguish which person at the house committed the crimes, they can't get a conviction. One or the other isn't good enough.

Especially if DNA is only a partial. I might add we don't know if LE has a full or partial DNA profile. But they sure seem to be dragging their feet on genetic profile, so only a partial?

 

[Prime8]

Getting across a bridge is one thing but "down the hill" and across the creek not too likely. JMO

I mean it was 5 years ago at this point. And you can't discount what the adrenaline of that situation can do.

 

[sunshineray]

I might feel he's involved in a murder, but that doesn't change what is known or provable. In my opinion
We don't have the most basic facts, such as proving where KAK was at the time of the murders, placing him at the scene, etc. I believe in our rules of evidence and court system. I'm not wanting someone to be arrested without probable cause or prosecuted without the proper evidence, even if I passionately believe in their guilt.




You're missing my point, the list the OP gave, is NOT circumstantial evidence. Not without someone testifying, not without documentation, etc, which we do not know to exist.
I specifically stated that circumstantial evidence is valid.

If you're going to call hearsay "circumstantial evidence", it will almost always be not admissible. A prosecutor is not going to intentionally attempt to use inadmissible evidence without consequences.

About KAK's whereabouts, it is provable that he said he was one place on February 12, 2017...he lied. Post dating his social media to reflect that lie. An odd date to pick to fudge if you have absolutely no connection to the double murders on February 13, 2017... That's the great thing about circumstantial evidence, IMO, it seems like little bits of nothing much but it just keeps stacking up. AJMO

 

[Ravenmoon]

About KAK's whereabouts, it is provable that he said he was one place on February 12, 2017...he lied. Post dating his social media to reflect that lie. An odd date to pick to fudge if you have absolutely no connection to the double murders on February 13, 2017... That's the great thing about circumstantial evidence, IMO, it seems like little bits of nothing much but it just keeps stacking up. AJMO

Your post is what I was trying to articulate.
Those pieces of the puzzle that seem like they don't fit- until the missing ones start to make a picture.
This is where I am coming from.

MOO

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Circumstantial evidence has the same weight as direct evidence in a trial. A judge is not going to weigh it’s admissibility any differently than direct evidence

Rules of evidence are a fact, not just my opinion. Hearsay is most always not admissible, the jury won't hear it or weigh it.

I am referring to the list of "circumstantial evidence" given by the OP, not to evidence possibly in the hands of LE, that we don't know about.

When preparing for trial, the prosecutor and defense must give a witness list and at least an outline of what that person is going to testify to. That can be challanged before trial, and witnesses can be disallowed. Evidence is subject to case law. Prior rulings will affect what will be admitted.
Usually, LE cannot just get on the stand and say a witness told me so and so. The best evidence rule must be applied, the witness needs to testify.

I'm hoping people understand and agree that hearsay should not be admitted, this is one of the most important elements of a fair trial.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

About KAK's whereabouts, it is provable that he said he was one place on February 12, 2017...he lied.

LE could testify to what he said during interviews and interrogations, and show the transcript. This will prove that KAK is deceptive and they have already charged him with several counts of Obstruction.
My point was that so far as we know, there is no evidence that puts him at the scene. Usable circumstantial evidence could overcome this, but I've only seen conjecture and he said/she said hearsay.
Edit to add, It's very likely, in my opinion, that LE knows where his cellphone pinged the day of the murders, but are not going to clear him of being involved.

 

[steeltowngirl]

I might feel he's involved in a murder, but that doesn't change what is known or provable. In my opinion
We don't have the most basic facts, such as proving where KAK was at the time of the murders, placing him at the scene, etc. I believe in our rules of evidence and court system. I'm not wanting someone to be arrested without probable cause or prosecuted without the proper evidence, even if I passionately believe in their guilt.




You're missing my point, the list the OP gave, is NOT circumstantial evidence. Not without someone testifying, not without documentation, etc, which we do not know to exist.
I specifically stated that circumstantial evidence is valid.

If you're going to call hearsay "circumstantial evidence", it will almost always be not admissible. A prosecutor is not going to intentionally attempt to use inadmissible evidence without consequences.

We might not have all the trial details quite straight yet, it’s a tad early for that.

We don’t even have an arrest yet. Is it ok with you if we feel a bit optimistic that we might see one soon - after waiting 5.5 years?

jmo

 

[PaulaDC]

Possibly the same reason he needed a toe amputated could have caused him to have a limp or a good side/bad side? I've seen diabetes mentioned. That could cause circulation troubles and wounds can have a harder time healing so maybe this toe amputation was because of a bigger medial issue that could have caused limping or something off that day as well?

It could be something more simple than a foot or toe issue. It could be a weird gait due to him trying to keep items from falling out of his pants. Moo

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

We might not have all the trial details quite straight yet, it’s a tad early for that.

We don’t even have an arrest yet. Is it ok with you if we feel a bit optimistic that we might see one soon - after waiting 5.5 years?

jmo

Oh yes, and I'm optimistic about the river search being related to this case.

 

[Ravenmoon]

Rules of evidence are a fact, not just my opinion. Hearsay is most always not admissible, the jury won't hear it or weigh it.

I am referring to the list of "circumstantial evidence" given by the OP, not to evidence possibly in the hands of LE, that we don't know about.

When preparing for trial, the prosecutor and defense must give a witness list and at least an outline of what that person is going to testify to. That can be challanged before trial, and witnesses can be disallowed. Evidence is subject to case law. Prior rulings will affect what will be admitted.
Usually, LE cannot just get on the stand and say a witness told me so and so. The best evidence rule must be applied, the witness needs to testify.

I'm hoping people understand and agree that hearsay should not be admitted, this is one of the most important elements r

Rules of evidence are a fact, not just my opinion. Hearsay is most always not admissible, the jury won't hear it or weigh it.

I am referring to the list of "circumstantial evidence" given by the OP, not to evidence possibly in the hands of LE, that we don't know about.

When preparing for trial, the prosecutor and defense must give a witness list and at least an outline of what that person is going to testify to. That can be challanged before trial, and witnesses can be disallowed. Evidence is subject to case law. Prior rulings will affect what will be admitted.
Usually, LE cannot just get on the stand and say a witness told me so and so. The best evidence rule must be applied, the witness needs to testify.

I'm hoping people understand and agree that hearsay should not be admitted, this is one of the most important elements of a fair trial.

Can you clarify what I stated that is hearsay?
Please be specific so that I can respond.
He was in touch with LG.
BP has said so.
He did "like" girls of a certain age, it is why he is incarcerated.
He did lie about where he was.
He removed all traces of his accounts that linked him to LG, He even uninstalled his apps and proceeded to reinstall them.
There is a witness to verify the claims about AS messaging his OMG response.
Do you really think he would NOT deny these things to the death if he thought that he could get away with it?
Do you really think that he would agree to these things just for kicks?
I don't. I am guessing LE doesn't either.

I did not want to respond, but you seem to want to mention me repeatedly, so.... Please tell me what you see specifically as hearsay.
Especially when KAK has either alluded to his part in the situation or there are other ways to prove them

Please don't forget the original affidavit that we saw that was made by the detective who set out the parameters to put KAK in jail back in2020.

EBM

MOO

 

[Ravenmoon]

We live in a day and place that has seen tremendous development with technology and science.
Sometimes, it seems like people feel that without DNA, video, A murder weapon, or an electronic trail, there can't be a conviction.
Of course, all of these things would be the most desirable.
My point in making the post regarding circumstantial evidence was honestly Two fold.
First, to get a feel for how people see this type of evidence.
Second, to remind people that cases can and are won in the absence of the aforementioned situations.

I was never trying to imply that with the wee bit of information that we are privileged to have, it would secure a conviction.

I do, however, think it is a very good place to start.


MOO

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

He was in touch with the murder victim up until the day that she died.
He seemed to "like" girls her age.
He lied about his whereabouts the day of the murder.
He deleted items from his phone that connected him to the murder victim, yet easily gave over incriminating photos that would certainly give him serious jail time.
He responded to a text from the murder victims friend that asks him, Did you hear about Liberty? By saying OMG no, what happened? I was supposed to meet her, she never showed up.
Who responds that way???
Most people would likely respond with: No, why?
He is currently also " in negotiations ".

Can you clarify what I stated that is hearsay?
Please be specific so that I can respond.

I responded to the first list, which I quoted here. I believed I explained the issue with thinking these things are circumstantial evidence, at face value, is that they don't stand up to scrutiny.
If you want to say you feel these things all point to his guilt, that's fine and I agree with some of what you said.
But you did ask for input regarding circumstantial evidence, and not if everyone agreed with your assessment of KAK's guilt. A number of other posts also pointed out that what you posted is not actual evidence. This is not personal, but I'm surprised that some responders seem to be offended that I'm of the opinion we have not been shown enough evidence, as of right now, to accuse KAK, or expect him to be arrested.

We don't know any information about contacts between the victims and KAK, everything you listed about phone calls and text messages is hearsay. You gave no evidence for who called what number and when. LE making statements in interrogation is not evidence and all the hearsay information on the internet is hearsay. They showed him no proof of any of these contacts with the victims or their friends. Very vague information. Written statements are not admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted, what is said/asserted in the interrogation is not proof that something happened.

Things may have been deleted from his phone, but only if can be proven what was removed, and it's hearsay to claim what was deleted was relevant to the murders if nothing is recovered that proves it. Text messages, without a provable history to show who the parties are that texted, are usually hearsay.

"He likes girls that age" I guess that's a conclusion. He likes to catfish them as that age is easy to take advantage of, for the purpose of obtaining their pictures. No evidence he ever hangs out with young teen friends. His girlfriends have all been adults.

As KAK is in custody, nothing will happen until the prosecutor has a solid case to file.

Plea negotiations are standard and expected, the prosecution offering a plea deal has no reflection on the defendant. Trials are for people that think there is a chance they will be found not guilty.
Edit
If you're thinking there is negotiations going on outside of the current charges, then that would certainly indicate that the defendant is making admissions for a separate case, and we just wait to hear.

 

[Ravenmoon]

I responded to the first list, which I quoted here. I believed I explained the issue with thinking these things are circumstantial evidence, at face value, is that they don't stand up to scrutiny.
If you want to say you feel these things all point to his guilt, that's fine and I agree with some of what you said.
But you did ask for input regarding circumstantial evidence, and not if everyone agreed with your assessment of KAK's guilt. A number of other posts also pointed out that what you posted is not actual evidence. This is not personal, but I'm surprised that some responders seem to be offended that I'm of the opinion we have not been shown enough evidence, as of right now, to accuse KAK, or expect him to be arrested.

We don't know any information about contacts between the victims and KAK, everything you listed about phone calls and text messages is hearsay. You gave no evidence for who called what number and when. LE making statements in interrogation is not evidence and all the hearsay information on the internet is hearsay. They showed him no proof of any of these contacts with the victims or their friends. Very vague information. Written statements are not admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted, what is said/asserted in the interrogation is not proof that something happened.
Things may have been deleted from his phone, but only if can be proven what was removed, and it's hearsay to claim what was deleted was relevant to the murders if nothing is recovered that proves it. Text messages, without a provable history to show who the parties are that texted, are usually hearsay.
"He likes girls that age" I guess that's a conclusion. He likes to catfish them as that age is easy to take advantage of, for the purpose of obtaining *advertiser censored*. No evidence he ever hangs out with young teen friends. His girlfriends have all been adults.

Plea negotiations are standard and expected, the prosecution offering a plea deal has no reflection on the defendant. Trials are for people that think there is a chance they will be found not guilty.

Of course not everyone agrees with KAKs guilt.
I don't have an issue with that.
You are assuming that I do.
I don't understand how his admissions are hearsay.

Do you know for a fact that he was not furnished with any proof of their allegations?
If so, do you have a link?

And, are you really saying he did not have a sexual interest in underage girls? He preyed on them daily!
I don't see how this could be debated.

EBM for clarity.

TIA Libby’s grandma speaks out about new revelations in Delphi investigation

 

[Charlot123]

I responded to the first list, which I quoted here. I believed I explained the issue with thinking these things are circumstantial evidence, at face value, is that they don't stand up to scrutiny.
If you want to say you feel these things all point to his guilt, that's fine and I agree with some of what you said.
But you did ask for input regarding circumstantial evidence, and not if everyone agreed with your assessment of KAK's guilt. A number of other posts also pointed out that what you posted is not actual evidence. This is not personal, but I'm surprised that some responders seem to be offended that I'm of the opinion we have not been shown enough evidence, as of right now, to accuse KAK, or expect him to be arrested.

We don't know any information about contacts between the victims and KAK, everything you listed about phone calls and text messages is hearsay. You gave no evidence for who called what number and when. LE making statements in interrogation is not evidence and all the hearsay information on the internet is hearsay. They showed him no proof of any of these contacts with the victims or their friends. Very vague information. Written statements are not admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted, what is said/asserted in the interrogation is not proof that something happened.
Things may have been deleted from his phone, but only if can be proven what was removed, and it's hearsay to claim what was deleted was relevant to the murders if nothing is recovered that proves it. Text messages, without a provable history to show who the parties are that texted, are usually hearsay.
"He likes girls that age" I guess that's a conclusion. He likes to catfish them as that age is easy to take advantage of, for the purpose of obtaining *advertiser censored*. No evidence he ever hangs out with young teen friends. His girlfriends have all been adults.

Plea negotiations are standard and expected, the prosecution offering a plea deal has no reflection on the defendant. Trials are for people that think there is a chance they will be found not guilty.

Agree 100%, First, there is nothing remotely similar between KAK and BG. Second, there is nothing similar between KAK and the description of YBG that DC provided at the PC of 2019. KAK has own issues and is not a model citizen, but is he the murderer of two teenagers? Does he have the agility, the ability to kill two girls? Plus, DC reading from the Shack to KAK? Give me a break. All I see is that ISP is under a lot of pressure to solve this case, but more rational to leave it till better technology emerges, than accuse someone innocent. For me, the discussions about JBC leading to change of venue, were enough.

ETA. Plus, I always thought that the killer had some military training, maybe, served in the military, had PTSD, even. Overweight, tall KAK could not organize it. MOO.