GUILTY IN - Kegan Anthony Kline, 27, arrested Aug 29, 2020, 30 Counts associated with CSAM

[FrostedGlass]

The Delphi Murders: Kegan Kline Appeals His Sentence

I got bored yesterday and listened to it. What do you think?
Did you get a chance to read the appeal?

 

[TL4S]

I got bored yesterday and listened to it. What do you think?
Did you get a chance to read the appeal?

I listened to MS but have only glanced over the appeal. From what I saw, nothing really jumped out at me to say he will win the appeal. How about you?

My personal feeling is that since many CSAM victims cannot be identified or their age determined, it can be so dicey to prosecute, and then the sentences are light. For that reason, I'd like to see a new precedence set so these people are not out as quickly to go on to reoffend. Jmo.

What are your thoughts on it all?

 

[FrostedGlass]

I listened to MS but have only glanced over the appeal. From what I saw, nothing really jumped out at me to say he will win the appeal. How about you?

My personal feeling is that since many CSAM victims cannot be identified or their age determined, it can be so dicey to prosecute, and then the sentences are light. For that reason, I'd like to see a new precedence set so these people are not out as quickly to go on to reoffend. Jmo.

What are your thoughts on it all?

I wasn't at all impressed with the appeal. IMO that was mostly a waste of time. It was interesting to learn that he's being moved to Miami.

I think that, sometime between 2017 and when he was arrested, LE could have stopped him. Why they didn't is a mystery to me. Maybe I should call the court again and ask if they have unsealed his arrest warrant and PCAs.

Indiana needs to decide how they want to prosecute these cases. It's crazy, IMO, to range between what equals a murder sentence and a slap on the hand. MOO

 

[FrostedGlass]

Some additional filings:

12/27/2023	Petition Filed Petition for Payment of Fees Filed By: Kline, Kegan A. File Stamp: 12/26/2023
12/27/2023	Appellate Court's Request for Transcript File Stamp: 12/27/2023
12/27/2023	Clerk Administrative Event Transcript and exhibit e-filed with the Court of Appeals. Exhibit Volume IV, hard copy, sent by Certified Mail to the Court of Appeals.
12/28/2023	Order Issued The Court Grants Petition for Payment of Fees. Miami County is ordered to pay Mark F. James the amount of $3300.00 for services rendered in the above captioned case. Order Signed: 12/27/2023

 

[FrostedGlass]

Here I'm picking up from where I left off regarding his appeal. Is the part I highlighted a problem?

12/27/2023	Brief - Appellant Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 12/26/23 Attorney: James, Mark Francis Party: Kline, Kegan A.
12/27/2023	Trial Court Clerk Notified to Transmit Transcript Serve: Trial Clerk 52- Miami Trial Clerk: Trial Clerk 52- Miami
12/27/2023	Document Transmitted
12/27/2023	Received Court Reporter's Notice of Filing of Transcript Received on: 12/27/23 (One for Public Access version and one for Confidential version)
12/27/2023	Electronic Documents Received from Trial Court Clerk Volumes of Transcripts - One (1) Volumes of T/C - One (1) *Public Access and Not for Public Access versions tendered* Received Electronically 12/27/23
12/27/2023	Received Document Receive Date: 12/27/23 Exhibit volumes (Public Access and Not for Public Access versions) - version are not mirrored copies of one another
12/27/2023	Letter Issued Regarding Transcript Exhibits Party: Trial Clerk 52- Miami Serve: James, Mark Francis Serve: Rokita, Theodore Edward Serve: Trial Clerk 52- Miami
12/27/2023	Document Transmitted
12/29/2023	Received from Trial Court/Agency Clerk Volumes of Exhibits - One (1) Received By-Mailed 12/29/2023

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Here I'm picking up from where I left off regarding his appeal. Is the part I highlighted a problem?

12/27/2023	Brief - Appellant Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 12/26/23 Attorney: James, Mark Francis Party: Kline, Kegan A.
12/27/2023	Trial Court Clerk Notified to Transmit Transcript Serve: Trial Clerk 52- Miami Trial Clerk: Trial Clerk 52- Miami
12/27/2023	Document Transmitted
12/27/2023	Received Court Reporter's Notice of Filing of Transcript Received on: 12/27/23 (One for Public Access version and one for Confidential version)
12/27/2023	Electronic Documents Received from Trial Court Clerk Volumes of Transcripts - One (1) Volumes of T/C - One (1) *Public Access and Not for Public Access versions tendered* Received Electronically 12/27/23
12/27/2023	Received Document Receive Date: 12/27/23 Exhibit volumes (Public Access and Not for Public Access versions) - version are not mirrored copies of one another
12/27/2023	Letter Issued Regarding Transcript Exhibits Party: Trial Clerk 52- Miami Serve: James, Mark Francis Serve: Rokita, Theodore Edward Serve: Trial Clerk 52- Miami
12/27/2023	Document Transmitted
12/29/2023	Received from Trial Court/Agency Clerk Volumes of Exhibits - One (1) Received By-Mailed 12/29/2023

Normal, minors and illegal and/or illegally obtained/transmitted images involved

 

[FrostedGlass]

Normal, minors and illegal and/or illegally obtained/transmitted images involved

Thanks.
I've seen this many times: "Public Access and Not for Public Access versions" but haven't seen the "not mirrored copies" part. So I was confused.

Is this correct: "Public access" and "not for public access" transcripts are mirrored copies except for redactions.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Thanks.
I've seen this many times: "Public Access and Not for Public Access versions" but haven't seen the "not mirrored copies" part. So I was confused.

Is this correct: "Public access" and "not for public access" transcripts are mirrored copies except for redactions.

My opinion, from another state, a public access version does not have redactions, it is written without the withheld information, with substitutions for the confidential information.
Two versions were "tendered".

Electronic Documents Received from Trial Court Clerk Volumes of Transcripts - One (1) Volumes of T/C - One (1) *Public Access and Not for Public Access versions tendered* Received Electronically 12/27/23

 

[twall]

KK has been transferred to Indiana State Prison in Michigan City. It houses death row and will be torn down when the new facility at Westville is completed.

 

[FrostedGlass]

KK has been transferred to Indiana State Prison in Michigan City. It houses death row and will be torn down when the new facility at Westville is completed.

Wow. He thought he was headed to Miami (?) and how unsafe he would be there, according to MS. I guess someone in DOC heard him and decided to place him somewhere more secure? He probably won't like that at all.

 

[FrostedGlass]

The appellee's brief is in:

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

23A-CR-01975
<modsnip>

Then, there's this touching on his juvie record. They knew he had problems and no one did anything about it.

Kline has no adult criminal record, and his juvenile history is limited to two unknown allegations, one of which was dismissed and the other resulted in an informal adjustment (App. Vol. III 7–8). At sentencing, the trial court found that Kline had committed uncharged conduct similar to the charged conduct in this case from 2011 to 2017 (Tr. Vol. II 204).

 

[sunshineray]

The appellee's brief is in:

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

23A-CR-01975

<modsnip>


Then, there's this touching on his juvie record. They knew he had problems and no one did anything about it.

This is stomach-turning. I wish I hadn't read the state's brief. It did mention, considering the charges listed, there were 3 people he shared the images/videos with.

On the docket itself, I never realized that count 30 of KAK's charges is marked as February 17, 2017.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

It did mention, considering the charges listed, there were 3 people he shared the images/videos with.

RE: "Considering the charges listed", is not an accurate way to conclude that there were specifically "3 people he shared the images with". Charging codes that include multiple qualifying elements of a crime do not mean the defendant is charged with, or guilty of all lesser and/or included/possible elements. There is a complete lack of detail to conclude that any other person, let alone 3, ever saw any (illegal) video or images obtained/shared by or from KK. Transferring images to accounts that only he had access to does not mean someone else saw them.
Mostly, I see this interpretation by those still hoping that somehow KK had something to do with murder(s) and not accepting that RA had been on the trails many times, watching and waiting for an opportunity, a lone violent sexual predator on a trail, the likes of which are on the news frequently.

 

[FrostedGlass]

RE: "Considering the charges listed", is not an accurate way to conclude that there were specifically "3 people he shared the images with". Charging codes that include multiple qualifying elements of a crime do not mean the defendant is charged with, or guilty of all lesser and/or included/possible elements. There is a complete lack of detail to conclude that any other person, let alone 3, ever saw any (illegal) video or images obtained/shared by or from KK. Transferring images to accounts that only he had access to does not mean someone else saw them.
Mostly, I see this interpretation by those still hoping that somehow KK had something to do with murder(s) and not accepting that RA had been on the trails many times, watching and waiting for an opportunity, a lone violent sexual predator on a trail, the likes of which are on the news frequently.

In the brief, Person 1, Person 2 and Person 3 are mentioned; but Person 1 is the only one noted as being in a conversation and responding. Maybe the PCA gives more clarity.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

In the brief, Person 1, Person 2 and Person 3 are mentioned; but Person 1 is the only one noted as being in a conversation and responding. Maybe the PCA gives more clarity.

I'm sure the PCA would explain it all. Since we don't have access, I like to point out that trying to take what very little we do know and use it to conclude that KK was involved in the business end, because this seem to be the only thread left to try to connect RA to KK. I'm not saying that anyone I quoted claimed this, but the Person 1 contact is not equal to distribution of or evidence of participation in a ring of those in that business. I don't see anyone claiming that
Person 1 is the missing link. MOO

 

[FrostedGlass]

I'm sure the PCA would explain it all. Since we don't have access, I like to point out that trying to take what very little we do know and use it to conclude that KK was involved in the business end, because this seem to be the only thread left to try to connect RA to KK. I'm not saying that anyone I quoted claimed this, but the Person 1 contact is not equal to distribution of or evidence of participation in a ring of those in that business. I don't see anyone claiming that
Person 1 is the missing link. MOO

I was hoping this brief would have answers to my questions from the interrogation. However, it seems that all the personas are KAK and he was only conversing with one person. I'm sure LE knows who that person is (Not RA MOO).

When the Court of Appeals decides on this case, I'll probably post that and then be done with it.

 

[sunshineray]

RE: "Considering the charges listed", is not an accurate way to conclude that there were specifically "3 people he shared the images with". Charging codes that include multiple qualifying elements of a crime do not mean the defendant is charged with, or guilty of all lesser and/or included/possible elements. There is a complete lack of detail to conclude that any other person, let alone 3, ever saw any (illegal) video or images obtained/shared by or from KK. Transferring images to accounts that only he had access to does not mean someone else saw them.
Mostly, I see this interpretation by those still hoping that somehow KK had something to do with murder(s) and not accepting that RA had been on the trails many times, watching and waiting for an opportunity, a lone violent sexual predator on a trail, the likes of which are on the news frequently.

Yes it did mention 3 specifically on page 9. It states that he share with other adults...definitively he share with at the least...
"Kik Chat User Person 1
Kik Chat User Person 2
Kik Messenger Chat Person 1"

Brief filed 2/27/24 (last one listed on this page)

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

This is the case # 23A-CR-01975

 

[sunshineray]

I'm sure the PCA would explain it all. Since we don't have access, I like to point out that trying to take what very little we do know and use it to conclude that KK was involved in the business end, because this seem to be the only thread left to try to connect RA to KK. I'm not saying that anyone I quoted claimed this, but the Person 1 contact is not equal to distribution of or evidence of participation in a ring of those in that business. I don't see anyone claiming that
Person 1 is the missing link. MOO

How about the connection of KAK to Liberty German on the day she was murdered, via the anthony_shots account? Did that occur?

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

How about the connection of KAK to Liberty German on the day she was murdered, via the anthony_shots account? Did that occur?

No, LE has her phone, and nowhere in the transcript of his interrogation does LE confront him with a statement that they know for a fact that he had contact with her on that day and had proof of it on the phone. And, as I have posted before, I agree with the FBI agent that called the one interrogation for which there is a transcript available, sounds like a "Hail Mary". They also make it clear that he is not a suspected of committing the murders. Hopefully everyone has
abandoned the claim that KK could be the man on the bridge. MOO

 

[sunshineray]

No, LE has her phone, and nowhere in the transcript of his interrogation does LE confront him with a statement that they know for a fact that he had contact with her on that day and had proof of it on the phone. And, as I have posted before, I agree with the FBI agent that called the one interrogation for which there is a transcript available, sounds like a "Hail Mary". They also make it clear that he is not a suspected of committing the murders. Hopefully everyone has
abandoned the claim that KK could be the man on the bridge. MOO

I think you need to read that again...KAK's interrogation?