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

[Fargo]

Bumping this up; maybe some of our legal folks will have an idea as to what this all implies.

With dismissing 5 counts and attempting to amend 18 to comport to the evidence, that only leaves 7 that are 'solid' charges? How do they amend charges to comport to evidence? Aren't charges based on evidence?

What are "unnecessary allegations"? False charges?
And finally, how can one correct an alleged statutory provision violation?
After sitting on this case for so many months, why all this action now?

I think the timing of dismissing and correcting charges now is because the case is actually going to trial. The prosecution has likely swung into high gear in preparation for that. They have to go through each and every one of those 30 charges and have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for each and every one of them. It looks like, according to the prosecutor, 5 of the charges do not have enough weight of evidence behind them for a jury to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And a number of the other charges have to be amended because the evidence is insufficient to meet the provision they were originally charged under.

I imagine the prosecutors had hoped this case would be resolved through a plea bargain as so many other CSAM cases are. But that did not happen and now they seriously need to get their ducks in a row for a jury trial. Long story short, they overcharged the defendant and are correcting that now. My opinion only.

 

[Hope32]

Looks like we have the cases that have been dismissed at this time. Indiana Supreme Court public access case search - MyCase

11/07/2022

Judgment Judicial Officer: Spahr, Timothy P. 04. 35-42-4-4(d)/F5: Possession of Child with an aggravating factor found in 35-42-4-4(e)(1 • Dismissed 11. 35-42-4-4(c)/F6: Possession of Child possession of photos, etc. showing sexual conduct b • Dismissed 15. 35-42-4-4(d)/F6: Possession of Child • Dismissed 18. 35-42-4-4(d)/F6: Possession of Child • Dismissed 24. 35-42-4-4(d)/F6: Possession of Child • Dismissed

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

In my opinion, the obstruction charges will be dismissed. Very difficult to get a jury to convict when the motive is self-preservation, not cooperating with an investigation when you are the suspect or destroying evidence that will be used against you.

Also, the statute of limitations may be questionable for several charges.

A third issue is witnesses/victims. As it nears time for trial, they may have decided not to participate in the prosecution.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I think the timing of dismissing and correcting charges now is because the case is actually going to trial. The prosecution has likely swung into high gear in preparation for that. They have to go through each and every one of those 30 charges and have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for each and every one of them. It looks like, according to the prosecutor, 5 of the charges do not have enough weight of evidence behind them for a jury to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And a number of the other charges have to be amended because the evidence is insufficient to meet the provision they were originally charged under.

I imagine the prosecutors had hoped this case would be resolved through a plea bargain as so many other CSAM cases are. But that did not happen and now they seriously need to get their ducks in a row for a jury trial. Long story short, they overcharged the defendant and are correcting that now. My opinion only.

Thank you. That's a lot to think about.

One more question if you have time. Do judges often allow prosecution to amend charges to meet the evidence?

 

[Fargo]

Thank you. That's a lot to think about.

One more question if you have time. Do judges often allow prosecution to amend charges to meet the evidence?

I have no idea. According to the court website there is a hearing to discuss the matter next month so it looks like we'll just have to wait and see.

Indiana Supreme Court public access case search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Do judges often allow prosecution to amend charges to meet the evidence?

The prosecutor will be admonished by the judge if charges obviously lacking a reasonable amount of evidence/enough to convict, are brought to a jury trial. A judge could even advise the prosecutor before trial that the case is lacking.

Edit to add ISP Carter has said the river search has nothing to do with the Kegan Kline court case updates.

Indiana police superintendent: Delphi murders' facts will come out at trial

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — Indiana State Police Superintendent Doug Carter, in an interview Thursday with I-Team 8, said his agency is still looking for others involved the Delphi murders. Plus, tips on the case are still coming in, Carter said. Abigail “Abby” Williams and Liberty “Libby” German were...

www.wishtv.com

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

They will drop some charges because if there are some images of children in evidence, and those children cannot be confirmed as being childen (either through identification or through an expert witness), they would drop those charges as the defense could argue they aren't children and there's no proof otherwise.

 

[SkyBoomer]

Bumping this up; maybe some of our legal folks will have an idea as to what this all implies.

With dismissing 5 counts and attempting to amend 18 to comport to the evidence, that only leaves 7 that are 'solid' charges? How do they amend charges to comport to evidence? Aren't charges based on evidence?

What are "unnecessary allegations"? False charges?
And finally, how can one correct an alleged statutory provision violation?
After sitting on this case for so many months, why all this action now?

I believe they said on MS that in these CSAM cases, when the victim has not been IDed and the image is one that might possibly NOT be of a minor, it isn’t unusual to decide not to pursue charges for them . Perhaps the dropped charges were for hard-to-prove images?

 

[SkyBoomer]

They will drop some charges because if there are some images of children in evidence, and those children cannot be confirmed as being childen (either through identification or through an expert witness), they would drop those charges as the defense could argue they aren't children and there's no proof otherwise.

Oops! I should have finished reading before I posted the same!

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Oops! I should have finished reading before I posted the same!

MS was my source too but I forgot to mention that part, so no problem. Teamwork makes the dream work.

 

[DeDee]

Does anyone find it odd that KAK was not charged with trafficking or distribution of cp? Other than the obstruction charges, he only has possession of cp charges.

Just curious about why there's no distribution charges for KAK. Isn't sharing cp what his dropbox acct was set up to do?

 

[TL4S]

Does anyone find it odd that KAK was not charged with trafficking or distribution of cp? Other than the obstruction charges, he only has possession of cp charges.

Just curious about why there's no distribution charges for KAK. Isn't sharing cp what his dropbox acct was set up to do?

What I'm curious about are the dates of his charges. Did he seriously never download CSAM between 2/27/17 and 5/14/2020? Nothing prosecutable, at least?

 

[margarita25]

Does anyone find it odd that KAK was not charged with trafficking or distribution of cp? Other than the obstruction charges, he only has possession of cp charges.

Just curious about why there's no distribution charges for KAK. Isn't sharing cp what his dropbox acct was set up to do?

Oh really? No distribution?

Eta, you’re right, wow.

Indiana Supreme Court public access case search - MyCase
Case 52C01-2008-F4-000254
Kline, Kegan Anthony


Charges
Show all charge details
01 05/17/2016 35-42-4-4(b)(4)(B)/F5: Child Exploitation with intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of any
02 02/25/2017 35-42-4-4(d)/F5: Possession of Child *advertiser censored* with an aggravating factor found in 35-42-4-4(e)(1
03 02/25/2017 35-42-4-4(d)/F5: Possession of Child *advertiser censored* with an aggravating factor found in 35-42-4-4(e)(1
04 02/25/2017 35-42-4-4(d)/F5: Possession of Child *advertiser censored* with an aggravating factor found in 35-42-4-4(e)(1
05 02/25/2017 35-42-4-4(d)/F6: Possession of Child *advertiser censored*
06 02/27/2017 35-42-4-4(d)/F6: Possession of Child *advertiser censored*
07 02/25/2017 35-42-4-4(d)/F6: Possession of Child *advertiser censored*
08 02/25/2017 35-44.1-2-2(a)(3)/F6: Obstruction of Justice def. knowingly or intentionally in an official proceedi
09 02/25/2017 35-44.1-2-2(a)(3)/F6: Obstruction of Justice def. knowingly or intentionally in an official proceedi
10 02/26/2017 35-44.1-2-2(a)(3)/F6: Obstruction of Justice def. knowingly or intentionally in an official proceedi
11 05/14/2016 35-42-4-4(c)/F6: Possession of Child *advertiser censored* possession of photos, etc. showing sexual conduct b
12 05/14/2016 35-42-4-4(b)(2)/F5: Child Exploitation Disseminate, exhibit, or offer to do so; send or bring into I
13 02/25/2017 35-42-4-4(d)/F6: Possession of Child *advertiser censored*
14 02/25/2017 35-42-4-4(d)/F5: Possession of Child *advertiser censored* with an aggravating factor found in 35-42-4-4(e)(1
15 02/25/2017 35-42-4-4(d)/F6: Possession of Child *advertiser censored*
16 02/25/2017 35-42-4-4(d)/F6: Possession of Child *advertiser censored*
17 02/25/2017 35-42-4-4(d)/F5: Possession of Child *advertiser censored* with an aggravating factor found in 35-42-4-4(e)(1
18 02/25/2017 35-42-4-4(d)/F6: Possession of Child *advertiser censored*
19 02/25/2017 35-42-4-4(d)/F6: Possession of Child *advertiser censored*
20 02/17/2017 35-42-4-4(b)(2)/F4: Child Exploitation enhanced by an aggravating factor found in 35-42-4-4(c)(1).
21 02/17/2017 35-42-4-4(b)(2)/F4: Child Exploitation enhanced by an aggravating factor found in 35-42-4-4(c)(1).
22 02/17/2017 35-42-4-4(b)(2)/F4: Child Exploitation enhanced by an aggravating factor found in 35-42-4-4(c)(1).
23 02/17/2017 35-42-4-4(d)/F5: Possession of Child *advertiser censored* with an aggravating factor found in 35-42-4-4(e)(1
24 02/17/2017 35-42-4-4(d)/F6: Possession of Child *advertiser censored*
25 02/17/2017 35-42-4-4(b)(2)/F4: Child Exploitation enhanced by an aggravating factor found in 35-42-4-4(c)(1).
26 07/14/2016 35-43-5-3.8(a)/F6: Synthetic Identity Deception def. knowingly obtains, possesses, transfers, uses s
27 05/14/2016 35-43-5-3.8(a)/F6: Synthetic Identity Deception def. knowingly obtains, possesses, transfers, uses s
28 05/14/2020 35-42-4-4(b)(2)/F5: Child Exploitation-Disseminate, exhibit, or offer to do so; send or bring into I
29 05/14/2016 35-42-4-6(c)/F5: Child Solicitation Solicitation is for sexual intercourse. Def is 21+ years old an
30 02/25/2017 35-42-4-4(d)/F5: Possession of Child *advertiser censored* with an aggravating factor found in 35-42-4-4(e)(1

Eta: Very interesting, jmo. Now that you pointed it out...

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Does anyone find it odd that KAK was not charged with trafficking or distribution of cp? Other than the obstruction charges, he only has possession of cp charges.

Just curious about why there's no distribution charges for KAK. Isn't sharing cp what his dropbox acct was set up to do?

MOO I don't find it odd at all. Those expecting those charges seemed to base this assumption on the interrogation and interpreted the questions and/or statements of LE as evidence that proof existed. There was never anything to show KAK was involved with a "ring". No other cp arrests seemed to be connected to him.

Does anyone think it's odd that KAK is not charged in connection with the murders? I heard/read numerous times that the evidence was in the same interrogation.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

What I'm curious about are the dates of his charges. Did he seriously never download CSAM between 2/27/17 and 5/14/2020? Nothing prosecutable, at least?

MOO KAK's main preoccupation was not downloading CSAM.
KAK was a catfisher that primarily developed "friendships" with underaged teens for the purpose of soliciting nude photos and videos of the victim "doing things". He quit this activity once contacted by LE and apparently did not invent another online persona.

 

[TL4S]

MOO KAK's main preoccupation was not downloading CSAM.
KAK was a catfisher that primarily developed "friendships" with underaged teens for the purpose of soliciting nude photos and videos of the victim "doing things". He quit this activity once contacted by LE and apparently did not invent another online persona.

I understand what activities he's been charged with, so "download" was clearly not the right word choice on my part. Either way, I would be very surprised if he went almost 3 years without doing anything illegal in the CSAM world and then suddenly does it again, once, on 5/14/2020, then nothing again before his arrest months later.

I do also understand that a lack of charges may not reflect a true lack of activity, only a lack of prosecutable material. I'm simple curious about it.

 

[Fargo]

Does anyone find it odd that KAK was not charged with trafficking or distribution of cp? Other than the obstruction charges, he only has possession of cp charges.

Just curious about why there's no distribution charges for KAK. Isn't sharing cp what his dropbox acct was set up to do?

KAK is charged with numerous counts of distribution. Indiana calls it "Child Exploitation". It's under IC 35-42-4-4(b)(2).

(2) knowingly or intentionally disseminates, exhibits to another
person, offers to disseminate or exhibit to another person, or
sends or brings into Indiana for dissemination or exhibition
matter that depicts or describes sexual conduct by a child under
eighteen (18) years of age

https://icesaht.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Indiana-Code-Sex-Crimes.pdf

 

[FrostedGlass]

I'm baffled by the probable cause that we've seen, the one listing all of KAK's devices and what was on them. Shouldn't there be another one for the search warrant on Feb 25, 2017? There's no way they could have had all of the info prior to the search warrant, is there? I'm posting before 8 am so if this is a really stupid question, please ignore. And then the search where they took the dog last November?

 

[TL4S]

So I guess since KAK is apparently off limits on the Delphi thread, I'll repost this here. It's my own post:

"What better way for a CSAM user to make money than via transactions with other CSAM users. In the interview, KAK asks the LE why he wouldn't have used a VPN if he was doing all this stuff. Yeah, I actually wonder that myself. How did LE not know about a_shots using Yellow before 4/2022? Hmm."

Anyone know better how Yellow works? KAK might be off limits on the Delphi thread, but LE seems to still be interested in a_shots. For now, I'll treat that profile as separate from KAK.

 

[m00c0w]

A motion for continuance was filed yesterday/today.