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

[TL4S]

I know this is from 6/23/22, and with RA's arrest, maybe is now outdated, but it's still interesting to me in regards to the investigation. This was MS's interview with Demi Johnson, a reporter who was with WISH TV, but who is now based out of FL. She is the one who reported KAK as the creator of a_shots the day after the Dec. 6, 2021 release. She covered the Delphi case and had several LE sources. This is a quote from her from the podcast:

"Who else are they looking at? Because I was told, in the very beginning, when I learned about Kegan Kline, that he’s not the guy, he just knows who it is, or is part of it. So, to me it’s like who do they know it is, or who do they think it is, and why can’t they go after that person? What’s missing?"

She goes on to wonder if there were mistakes made by police. She also said several times that the girls were communicating online, planned to meet up, IP addresses from that day, etc., but didn't clarify if this was information from her sources, or just what she saw along with the rest of us with the 2020 interview.

The Delphi Murders: A Conversation with Journalist Demie Johnson

 

[arielilane]

Is KK to be believed? In addition, KK said he did not know RA.
moo

https://twitter.com/x/status/1661432019711139846

The #MurderSheet Podcast spoke to Kegan Kline and asked about his possible connection to Richard Allen, the suspect in the Delphi Murders.

https://twitter.com/CourtTV

Kegan Kline Does Interview From Jail Before Sentencing

The Murder Sheet Podcast spoke to Kegan Kline and asked about his possible connection to Richard Allen, the suspect in the Delphi Murders.

www.courttv.com

 

[FrostedGlass]

I know this is from 6/23/22, and with RA's arrest, maybe is now outdated, but it's still interesting to me in regards to the investigation. This was MS's interview with Demi Johnson, a reporter who was with WISH TV, but who is now based out of FL. She is the one who reported KAK as the creator of a_shots the day after the Dec. 6, 2021 release. She covered the Delphi case and had several LE sources. This is a quote from her from the podcast:

"Who else are they looking at? Because I was told, in the very beginning, when I learned about Kegan Kline, that he’s not the guy, he just knows who it is, or is part of it. So, to me it’s like who do they know it is, or who do they think it is, and why can’t they go after that person? What’s missing?"

She goes on to wonder if there were mistakes made by police. She also said several times that the girls were communicating online, planned to meet up, IP addresses from that day, etc., but didn't clarify if this was information from her sources, or just what she saw along with the rest of us with the 2020 interview.

The Delphi Murders: A Conversation with Journalist Demie Johnson

Thanks; I wasn't familiar with that one. Is there anything in there that helps you understand where we're at today with the cases?

She and others may have had the advantage of seeing the unredacted versions of the documents. We'd be miles ahead if we could see what they see. OR maybe not. lol...

From the 29mm:
..."with the KAK situation and the a_shots profile, it really does seem like they are looking at 2 people at least; maybe more. And if they're looking at 2 people and they have proof that one phone was in one location the day of the murders and another computer or device was in another, how can they not figure out who was in each place at that time?"

IMO, that question is as good today as it was last year. EmilyAnne was being used as early as 2015 but no charges seem to stem from that. They're only from that small time frame in April/May 2016. That "Adam" person that they forgot to redact in the interrogation figures in somewhere, doesn't he.

 

[TL4S]

Thanks; I wasn't familiar with that one. Is there anything in there that helps you understand where we're at today with the cases?

She and others may have had the advantage of seeing the unredacted versions of the documents. We'd be miles ahead if we could see what they see. OR maybe not. lol...

From the 29mm:
..."with the KAK situation and the a_shots profile, it really does seem like they are looking at 2 people at least; maybe more. And if they're looking at 2 people and they have proof that one phone was in one location the day of the murders and another computer or device was in another, how can they not figure out who was in each place at that time?"

IMO, that question is as good today as it was last year. EmilyAnne was being used as early as 2015 but no charges seem to stem from that. They're only from that small time frame in April/May 2016. That "Adam" person that they forgot to redact in the interrogation figures in somewhere, doesn't he.

I don't know what any of it means. I'm firmly on the fence, because I can really see KAK knowing something about these deaths, or not. I do believe LE thought he knew something. Jmo.

"Adam" comes in during a conversation dated from within the date range of Count 1 - Solicitation, which KAK now claims wasn't him. KAK says he could see his dad's email being used to log in, but I'm not sure what that really proves, because it's still on his personal device, on accounts he created, and with an email he admitted to using to help his dad with work stuff.

It really comes down to the "two users" thing, doesn't it? Did Achey ever speak with LE in regards to that claim? Can LE prove the other user, if there is one? One thing that creeps back into my mind was the use of "Is it bad that...?" in several conversations with young girls, including L. That same phrasing was used with at least one of the "dad" exchanges. So was that KAK, or someone else?

 

[FrostedGlass]

I don't know what any of it means. I'm firmly on the fence, because I can really see KAK knowing something about these deaths, or not. I do believe LE thought he knew something. Jmo.

"Adam" comes in during a conversation dated from within the date range of Count 1 - Solicitation, which KAK now claims wasn't him. KAK says he could see his dad's email being used to log in, but I'm not sure what that really proves, because it's still on his personal device, on accounts he created, and with an email he admitted to using to help his dad with work stuff.

It really comes down to the "two users" thing, doesn't it? Did Achey ever speak with LE in regards to that claim? Can LE prove the other user, if there is one? One thing that creeps back into my mind was the use of "Is it bad that...?" in several conversations with young girls, including L. That same phrasing was used with at least one of the "dad" exchanges. So was that KAK, or someone else?

I'm really clueless about some of this because no one uses my cell phone or other devices.

Using this as an example and I'm not saying this is what happened to KAK:
Suppose I go away and leave my phone and computer on, unlocked, and the maintenance man comes in and decides to use my stuff for CSAM. Everything he does would look like I did it, right? When I download something, it has my name in the address line; if he downloaded something, it would still have my name attached to it, right?

 

[TL4S]

I'm really clueless about some of this because no one uses my cell phone or other devices.

Using this as an example and I'm not saying this is what happened to KAK:
Suppose I go away and leave my phone and computer on, unlocked, and the maintenance man comes in and decides to use my stuff for CSAM. Everything he does would look like I did it, right? When I download something, it has my name in the address line; if he downloaded something, it would still have my name attached to it, right?

I would assume so. What I question is how TK could log on to one of KAK's accounts with his own email. If KAK created the account, wouldn't it use whatever email KAK created the account with, which was likely one of KAK's? I don't use IG or SC, but that's how it works with any of my online accounts.

Like you, I don't let anyone else use my phone, so unless the user in question was doing it when KAK was asleep, when were they? And what about the multiple devices logging rapidly in and out of A_shots on the morning of 2/13?

 

[Megnut]

I'm really clueless about some of this because no one uses my cell phone or other devices.

Using this as an example and I'm not saying this is what happened to KAK:
Suppose I go away and leave my phone and computer on, unlocked, and the maintenance man comes in and decides to use my stuff for CSAM. Everything he does would look like I did it, right? When I download something, it has my name in the address line; if he downloaded something, it would still have my name attached to it, right?

Yes, but if you also checked your email, replied, perused typical websites (legitimate ones you habitually accessed, like in my case WS), it would be strong corroborating evidence you were doing so and not your maintenance man.

Jmo

 

[FrostedGlass]

Yes, but if you also checked your email, replied, perused typical websites (legitimate ones you habitually accessed, like in my case WS), it would be strong corroborating evidence you were doing so and not your maintenance man.

Jmo

Exactly! So with my browser, mm could see all the bookmarked sites I look at, visit them, post on them and everything would still look Iike I did it, right? He could probably even put links and screen caps of things he liked into one of my seldom-used desktop folders and I'd never know it.
Well, that's just scary to even think about.

 

[squareandrabbet]

Exactly! So with my browser, mm could see all the bookmarked sites I look at, visit them, post on them and everything would still look Iike I did it, right? He could probably even put links and screen caps of things he liked into one of my seldom-used desktop folders and I'd never know it.
Well, that's just scary to even think about.

well, it would depend upon what precautions you have, or don’t have.

I, for example, I have a back up program called Dropbox, and it sometimes warns me if certain actions have been taken with respect to things loaded up on my system.

it also depends upon whether or not the putative maintenance man knows enough about computers to know that such precautions exist; because he certainly would not be able to know whether or not you have them on your particular devices; so he’d be taking a chance, regardless.

there is also no upside, literally, to him trying to save anything incriminating on your device, unless a, he can be sure of being able to access it going forward in the future; or b, if the person in question is looking to be able to frame you.

 

[squareandrabbet]

I know this is from 6/23/22, and with RA's arrest, maybe is now outdated, but it's still interesting to me in regards to the investigation. This was MS's interview with Demi Johnson, a reporter who was with WISH TV, but who is now based out of FL. She is the one who reported KAK as the creator of a_shots the day after the Dec. 6, 2021 release. She covered the Delphi case and had several LE sources. This is a quote from her from the podcast:

"Who else are they looking at? Because I was told, in the very beginning, when I learned about Kegan Kline, that he’s not the guy, he just knows who it is, or is part of it. So, to me it’s like who do they know it is, or who do they think it is, and why can’t they go after that person? What’s missing?"

She goes on to wonder if there were mistakes made by police. She also said several times that the girls were communicating online, planned to meet up, IP addresses from that day, etc., but didn't clarify if this was information from her sources, or just what she saw along with the rest of us with the 2020 interview.

The Delphi Murders: A Conversation with Journalist Demie Johnson

Yeah, I agree with her... not saying I am a great genius, or super researched, on the topic, or anything like it; but it Was always obvious from the beginning, IMO, that either KAK was intimately related to the murder or he wasn’t, in about equal parts probability.

in other words, you could either tell me that he was the perp; or you could tell me that he was simply 'there'; had been uncovered as a coincidence along the way; and that the investigation was taking so much extra time because the FBI didn't want to lose their links to CSAM rings even if the rings have nothing to do with the murders.

I mean, an investigator follows leads, things happen.

 

[FrostedGlass]

well, it would depend upon what precautions you have, or don’t have.

I, for example, I have a back up program called Dropbox, and it sometimes warns me if certain actions have been taken with respect to things loaded up on my system.

it also depends upon whether or not the putative maintenance man knows enough about computers to know that such precautions exist; because he certainly would not be able to know whether or not you have them on your particular devices; so he’d be taking a chance, regardless.

there is also no upside, literally, to him trying to save anything incriminating on your device, unless a, he can be sure of being able to access it going forward in the future; or b, if the person in question is looking to be able to frame you.

Thank you. A case I posted a few days ago led me to wonder how hard it would be to put bad stuff on someone else's computer/phone if they had full access to it. And in KAK's case, too.

 

[squareandrabbet]

Thank you. A case I posted a few days ago led me to wonder how hard it would be to put bad stuff on someone else's computer/phone if they had full access to it. And in KAK's case, too.

My pleasure.

It's partly only because the app of which I am thinking, Dropbox, is currently (permanently?) set up to nag me with a popup anytime I voluntarily delete a file, asking me “are you sure you want to do this?', that it sprang immediately to mind.

I suspect in the unrelated case you were thinking of, that if it goes to trial, someone would probably do the same thing that I did in my post above at one point, and start trying to twin the “opportunity to put bad things onto a strangers' computer' with 'the motive to so do'.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I would assume so. What I question is how TK could log on to one of KAK's accounts with his own email. If KAK created the account, wouldn't it use whatever email KAK created the account with, which was likely one of KAK's? I don't use IG or SC, but that's how it works with any of my online accounts.

Like you, I don't let anyone else use my phone, so unless the user in question was doing it when KAK was asleep, when were they? And what about the multiple devices logging rapidly in and out of A_shots on the morning of 2/13?

I'm so lost on this stuff.

I have a provider and I can make multiple accounts in different names. If someone lived with me and needed to use my phone occasionally, I could make an email user name for them, too. If they did something shady on my phone, I'd know it but I wouldn't be able to prove that it was someone else and not me, right?

That logging in and out rapidly... I've had calls come in on my landline while I was on the cell; but that was rare and I only switched calls once. I just don't get what was going on with a_shots that morning. Was he trying to set something up? If so, why didn't he just cover one phone while he talked to the other person? Is it considered 'logging out' if you put someone on hold or is it a disconnect?

 

[FrostedGlass]

My pleasure.

It's partly only because the app of which I am thinking, Dropbox, is currently (permanently?) set up to nag me with a popup anytime I voluntarily delete a file, asking me “are you sure you want to do this?', that it sprang immediately to mind.

I suspect in the unrelated case you were thinking of, that if it goes to trial, someone would probably do the same thing that I did in my post above at one point, and start trying to twin the “opportunity to put bad things onto a strangers' computer' with 'the motive to so do'.

So, if the motive would be: I want to see stuff that's illegal to look at and if it's caught, I'm not the one going to jail for it.

 

[TL4S]

So, if the motive would be: I want to see stuff that's illegal to look at and if it's caught, I'm not the one going to jail for it.

There's information that we don't have, imo. In the affidavit, the "last used" dates are given, but not the first date of use. So in the case of the iPhone5, which had a lot of things deleted, there's nothing to indicate the date that phone was first activated. The iPhone4 was last used in Nov. 2016. Almost all his CSAM charges originate from that phone, but the iPhone5 came out in 2012, so how do we know if KAK already had the iPhone5 as his primary phone before the 2016 CSAM activity? If so, might that indicate that the iPhone4 was not being used by KAK anymore, therefore accessible to someone else? I'm not trying to push this scenario, but I'm trying to think of what possible arguments KAK might think he has here. JMO.

 

[FrostedGlass]

There's information that we don't have, imo. In the affidavit, the "last used" dates are given, but not the first date of use. So in the case of the iPhone5, which had a lot of things deleted, there's nothing to indicate the date that phone was first activated. The iPhone4 was last used in Nov. 2016. Almost all his CSAM charges originate from that phone, but the iPhone5 came out in 2012, so how do we know if KAK already had the iPhone5 as his primary phone before the 2016 CSAM activity? If so, might that indicate that the iPhone4 was not being used by KAK anymore, therefore accessible to someone else? I'm not trying to push this scenario, but I'm trying to think of what possible arguments KAK might think he has here. JMO.

When I read that, I wondered why the first date of use was omitted. That's pretty important, IMO. That's probably in that report that the PCA is based on. I remember KAK saying he hadn't used some devices for quite a while; but they were all at TK's house when it was searched. I wonder where KAK was in April/May 2016 and if those devices were with him or at the house.

 

[FrostedGlass]

There's information that we don't have, imo. In the affidavit, the "last used" dates are given, but not the first date of use. So in the case of the iPhone5, which had a lot of things deleted, there's nothing to indicate the date that phone was first activated. The iPhone4 was last used in Nov. 2016. Almost all his CSAM charges originate from that phone, but the iPhone5 came out in 2012, so how do we know if KAK already had the iPhone5 as his primary phone before the 2016 CSAM activity? If so, might that indicate that the iPhone4 was not being used by KAK anymore, therefore accessible to someone else? I'm not trying to push this scenario, but I'm trying to think of what possible arguments KAK might think he has here. JMO.

If TK bought an iPhone 6 in 2015, would that be any indication as to who was using what and when?

 

[steeltowngirl]

I would assume so. What I question is how TK could log on to one of KAK's accounts with his own email. If KAK created the account, wouldn't it use whatever email KAK created the account with, which was likely one of KAK's? I don't use IG or SC, but that's how it works with any of my online accounts.

Like you, I don't let anyone else use my phone, so unless the user in question was doing it when KAK was asleep, when were they? And what about the multiple devices logging rapidly in and out of A_shots on the morning of 2/13?

You can log into Snapchat with either a username OR email address.

 

[Springrain]

I listened to the KK MS episode. This whole time I've been thinking he's a random pedophile with no relation to the Delphi murders and after this episode, I still think that. JMO. I would not be at all surprised if he was linked to other crimes in the area and particularly in Miami County, but do I think he killed Libby and Abby or was in any way involved in their deaths? No, I don't.

 

[arielilane]

I listened to the MS w/KK podcast 5.22.2023 (summary of first 20 + minutes) IIRC, MOO and speculation.
I don't believe most of what KK said. Isn't he a known pathological liar, anyway, right?

KK wanted to talk about what TK and ex-gf had to say when on the show (not much stated here about the ex-gf).

TK will not speak with MS.

MS: TK said he did not believe you (KK) was involved in the (Abby & Libby) murders.

KK: He clarified why he is here due to TK and put some of the blame on him. He claims that people are texting him saying that they can read his “discovery.” If you see transcripts from his interview in 2020 with state police - if you read that you can see that they know that someone else was involved. Wednesday morning he got paperwork that he (KK) has never seen before.

KK said that he has been in an isolated jail cell for about one year and talks to a guard for about one minute a day. He won’t talk about Delphi until after he is sent to prison - MS will be ready and willing to speak with KK at that time.

He felt his public defender wasn’t providing him with all documentation.

KK said he spoke with underaged girls, but that even though he plead guilty to charges he is not guilty of several of the charges. He said he doesn’t know the law and just listened to everything his lawyers tells me. He claims he wasn’t informed of a 10 year plea deal offer.

“They” assigned him a new attorney but he doesn’t know the new attorney’s name. KK requested that his current attorney be removed.

He said he would never do that "stuff." He denied all of the charges except “maybe” seven (7) of them.

KK said authorities will not speak with him and he can’t get into the details. Their reason for this is because they can’t corroborate what he has told them.

He feels that TK is partly responsible for some of the things on his devices. He has no clue as to why TK hasn’t been charged. He does not think of himself as a pedophile.

He wants to withdraw some of his guilty pleas. But wants to discuss with a lawyer. He wants the jury pool from somewhere else/in another county.

Claims he was following lawyers advice he doesn’t know the law.

He did not know RA.

He wasn’t happy with what his ex-gf said as well.

KK uses the phrase “it’s crazy” often.

JMO