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

[sunshineray]

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.

I think LE most likely has KAK videoed in numerous interrogations. They can also be shown to a jury, the man himself, demeanor and lies.

I'm hoping against hope LE may soon have worked out a proffer with KAK and arrests will be made for others involved.

 

[sunshineray]

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.

Wasn't the 194 page redacted interrogation a set of court filed documents? Are those to be considered hearsay?

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

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 did not say his admissions are hearsay, I specifically said they could be testified to by LE that did the interrogation.
Written documents with statements cannot be used as proof that the contents are true, including admissions. It is hearsay to try to use them to as to prove themselves. His admissions are for charges not related to the murders. And yes, stand-alone confessions are very problematic. I don't know if that is the basis for this.
In the interrogations, LE made a number of statements about KAK having contact/conversations, it is right in the interrogation that they didn't confront him with anything specific as to these calls, text, instagrams, whatever, no times, didn't say look at this print out, do you know this number, etc.
And wow, I specifically said he obtained their photos for sexual gratification. That's his focus for that type of sex, and/or is that who he could talk into it? Almost every catfisher sexual offender goes after the same target. His actual sexual relationships are with age-appropriate women. Don't see this as important to any case as KAK is not facing charges of sexual contact with minors.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Wasn't the 194 page redacted interrogation a set of court filed documents? Are those to be considered hearsay?

No, they are not hearsay, LE can testify that they recorded the conversation and had it transcribed, and it's accurate.

It doesn't mean that there is not hearsay, and/or misleading statements by KAK or LE, in the transcripts.

 

[Fika]

I haven’t been here for a long time, I just heard about new updates (KAK).
I feel like he might be connected to murders or murderer but it’s not him that day on the bridge. IMO
He just doesn’t match the video and audio imo.
There is definitely circumstantial evidence but not enough imo. I don’t think that deleting apps or conversations with LG shows his guilt or lying about his whereabouts. In the end he communicated with underage murder victim online. Even if not guilty of murder its understandable that he would delete everything connecting her to A shotz profile.
LE needs to know where he was on the day of the murder ( phone pings , cameras , sightseeings ) if he was at the bridge that day he would have been long arrested IMO.

 

[IQuestion]

Well my eyes just glaze over when discussions turn to courtroom jargon. I don't know hearsay from hairspray. Whenever I have had to testify in court, I always count to 1-2-3 before answering any question. That usually gives the attorneys time to interrupt with "I object", "Hearsay, your honor", "argumentive" etc, etc, etcetera. Then I look at the judge
to say "over ruled" or "sustained" and still have to ask, "Can I answer now?"
I'm guessing LE will not be adding any new charges in order to avoid delays. Obviously every person in custody can not ask for continuances in perpetuity to avoid a trial. Right?
IMO, KAK will say and do anything to avoid trial on current charges... he doesn't want his dark secrets exposed in a courtroom filled with family and community members, IMO
g'night...zzzz

 

[FromGermany1]

Is this a matching link perhaps?? (Can't access because of EU-restrictions.)

ISP remarks on Delphi killer case ahead of 5-year anniversary​

https://fox59.com › news › isp-rem...

10.02.2022 — Superintendent Carter hopes to have a suspect in custody before the 10-year anniversary. “Unfortunately, I can't tell you everything that I, or ...

-.-.-

I wanted to know, when DC said something like "We will be pleased, one day to tell you (the public) all, we have on this case." There has to be a lot, what LE knew at that time already.
Then I'm thinking about, who DC might have meant, when he said something like "The locals will be shocked, when they learn, who the killer is." Did he really hint at a person like KAK (or TK)?? - Why should we (the public) be shocked about someone like the father/son duo or one of them? They are men like thousand others in Indiana, with a (criminal) history like thousand others, unfortunately. If DC didn't grossly exaggerate, KAK (or TK) aren't the killer/s. There has to be someone, who would be far more shocking than these two. Probably, because the person is viewed as 98% to be untainted. IMO

I wonder, if LE ever compared the list of a_s or Emily communicators (IF existent) to a names list of suspects out of the 50.000 tips, they got. Maybe, it would be very interesting, whether some names show up in both lists. Here participants of the SM-accounts - there suspects, called in by attentive citizens.

 

[Rossymom]

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.

Well, I hadn’t thought about where “his” cellphone pinged on February 13 and 14th. Also, were any of his cellphones synced with a tablet at his home? Like all of you on here, I look forward to hearing what LE knows! Please, let today be the day.

 

[sandy_80]

why a murder weapon recovery is done ( under cover ) ? I cant seem to understand this logic.. shouldn't you have dozens of cops around , and the scene is comepletly sealed if thats the actual search ?

 

[steeltowngirl]

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.

Hi @Charlot123 - you are among my favorite posters. I’m not totally sold on KAK as BG either .. yet. I’m hopeful to learn more with the river search.

I had not heard that the killer had some military training. Do you have additional info on that?

 

[Vern]

Since no-one ever seems to want to actually provide details of their claims wrt to the transcipt:

The KAK transcript, page 181 lines 19-22.

So the source is LE saying a female witness told them anthony_shots said the "oh my god ...."

So no evidence that KAK said it.
[edit to add missed no!]

I had posted earlier of the Anthony_Shots account that it was KAK who created it; his allowing someone else to utilize that account and said individual uses it for nefarious means (to arrange a meeting or to lure in CSAM victims for example) would still, IMO, allow for the law to charge him as party to the crime. He has admitted to CSAM (volumnous and horrific in it's nature for which he has already been charged and is in jail) etc and it seems the account was specificly set up for catfishing and luring in CSAM victims for photos/videos and other communications which he does not deny. He had access to that account, he was the originator of it, if he allowed other(s) to utilize for same 'goals', then he aided and abetted and served as the element that allowed this crime to occur - he could be charged as an accesory to the crime.

This is evidence. Circumstantial perhaps, but it is eveidence none the less and can be used at trial against him. And, to be clear, people are convicted at trials where the evidence is purely circumstantial; that happens when there's way too many "coincidental circumstances" that line up and the odds of which occuring "just by chance" are next to zero. I believe that's what we are seeing happen here.


Ergo, why I think he is "in negotiations".

 

[Vern]

I believe LE has enough to charge him, yes.
No, obviously what I have stated is not enough to convict him.

I will assume that LE has much more than we imagine.

And this is where we will differ in opinion:

I believe that LE does have enough to charge him now - at least as an accessory to the crime. It was admittedly his account. The purpose of the account was to catfish/lure victims for CSAM. If he allowed another individual(s) access to this account to commit same offence(s), then he "aided and abetted" that crime(s). Edit to add this sentence: they are in no need to rush any charges here as he isn't going anywhere any time soon due to the other charges pending.

I think the delay is that authorities are working on the details of whether he worked alone or as simply an accessory to another party committing this horrific crime and ergo "the negotiations" with him. "Give up who did it or you are being charged with the murders themselves because we've got all the (circumstantial) evidence we need to prove you/your account/your phone was involved in this crime. So, given that, if it wans't "you", "who was it?" Give them up and we'll look at charging you simply as an accessory to the crime." IMO.

 

[Vern]

in the lines I referenced:

"we have witnesses that talk to Anthony Shots that said they were talking about meeting up" - page 181,lines 19,20

"she said Anthony Shots told her ..." - page 181, line 21.

My four children talk to each other all the time via text. The tell each other things ... via text messages.

They use the words "talking" about their messages. These days, those words do not have to mean "orally spoken".

 

[Vern]

Wasn't the 194 page redacted interrogation a set of court filed documents? Are those to be considered hearsay?

No. And we also have the affadavit. LE can not lie in sworn affadavits.

 

[Vern]

Hi @Charlot123 - you are among my favorite posters. I’m not totally sold on KAK as BG either .. yet. I’m hopeful to learn more with the river search.

I had not heard that the killer had some military training. Do you have additional info on that?

I'm not sure that anyone is "sold" on KAK being the actual BG. But, some of us are indeed sold on him being the owner and originator of the A_Shots account. And also believe that "someone" who had access to that A_Shots' accounts involvement in this crime.

 

[steeltowngirl]

I'm not sure that anyone is "sold" on KAK being the actual BG. But, some of us are indeed sold on him being the owner and originator of the A_Shots account. And also believe that "someone" who had access to that A_Shots' accounts involvement in this crime.

I’m right there with ya. The owner of the a_shots would have to be might unlucky to have been catfishing a teen girl shortly before she is murdered, and not be involved in some way, shape or form - even if tangentially. It’s way too coincidental.

Judging from your join date, I am guessing you have been following this case, along with many of us, from the very beginning. We’ve had a cast of characters as suspects along the way, haven‘t we?

Fingers crossed LE is on the right track now.

jmo

 

[Yemelyan]

We really can't know whether some of the things about this case would end up being legal hearsay, or not, at this point. We just don't have enough information about what LE knows and what evidence they really do have, IMO.

I know there are a lot of people reading here who may be new to these forums, maybe this is even the first case that grabbed your attention. The following comments are really for those individuals. You might be thinking from the general drift of this thread that direct evidence is the strong, "good" evidence and then circumstantial evidence is the tiny, weak little pieces that don't mean much by themselves but can add up. Not so. Circumstantial evidence can also be very powerful, and in fact, potentially can be "better" than direct evidence in the form of an eyewitness to a crime in some situations (eyewitnesses are often unreliable). For example, DNA, fingerprint, and ballistics evidence are all, legally, types of circumstantial evidence. A victim may not remember an attacker's face well enough to identify him but his DNA and fingerprints left behind may do so quite conclusively to a jury.

If you watch a trial that has been televised, you will see this in action. Prosecutors may not have a written or videotaped confession, no eyewitnesses to the crime itself, nor video of the crime taking place, but if they do have some combination of things like DNA, cell phone location records, fingerprints, evidence of purchases of items used in the commission/cover up of the crime, and the opinions of ballistics or tool mark experts (all circumstantial in nature), etc they will have a very strong case.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I'm just bringing this quote from the interrogation forward.

Page 57: Q = And you know what we're actually had some people look at that and they believe there are two people routinely speaking on multiple devices that are in your house. "Cause the, the phonetics are different. the phrasings different, but this is over a period of time. We're not talking like this is isolated like - a week here and not here and not here we're talking about of period of time.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

We really can't know whether some of the things about this case would end up being legal hearsay, or not, at this point. We just don't have enough information about what LE knows and what evidence they really do have, IMO.

I know there are a lot of people reading here who may be new to these forums, maybe this is even the first case that grabbed your attention. The following comments are really for those individuals. You might be thinking from the general drift of this thread that direct evidence is the strong, "good" evidence and then circumstantial evidence is the tiny, weak little pieces that don't mean much by themselves but can add up. Not so. Circumstantial evidence can also be very powerful, and in fact, potentially can be "better" than direct evidence in the form of an eyewitness to a crime in some situations (eyewitnesses are often unreliable). For example, DNA, fingerprint, and ballistics evidence are all, legally, types of circumstantial evidence. A victim may not remember an attacker's face well enough to identify him but his DNA and fingerprints left behind may do so quite conclusively to a jury.

If you watch a trial that has been televised, you will see this in action. Prosecutors may not have a written or videotaped confession, no eyewitnesses to the crime itself, nor video of the crime taking place, but if they do have some combination of things like DNA, cell phone location records, fingerprints, evidence of purchases of items used in the commission/cover up of the crime, and the opinions of ballistics or tool mark experts (all circumstantial in nature), etc they will have a very strong case.

Yes. By themselves pieces of circumstantial evidence might not mean a whole lot, but start bundling them together and they are powerful.
In the interview transcript the investigators referred to it as “stacking”, telling KAK after bringing up some new point that it all “just keeps stacking”.

 

[TL4S]

Yes. By themselves pieces of circumstantial evidence might not mean a whole lot, but start bundling them together and they are powerful.
In the interview transcript the investigators referred to it as “stacking”, telling KAK after bringing up some new point that it all “just keeps stacking”.

And just because LE has the right to lie to a suspect in interrogation, it doesn't necessarily mean they did, or even needed to. Jmo.