(a)No evidence was offered to show that Kangas had been infected with chlamydia, but this does not weaken the victims' testimonies that Kangas had sex with them. As far as his medical records are concerned, we do not know what the contents were - and surprisingly, Kangas has not obtained a copy, despite the supposed importance he claims they had.
(b)We do not know what the medical records said about the specific issue of chlamydia - if they said anything at all about this particular matter.
(c)Kangas's Facebook messaging includes his attorney advising him that his medical records were not going to be admitted into evidence, and there is no indication that he objected to, or even questioned this. Indeed, from the information that is available, this action appears to have been accepted by all parties concerned.
(d)There is the obvious problem of why Kangas's claim that the 'suppression' of his medical reports harmed his defence and yet this 'suppression' was not mentioned at all in the appeal/hearing that followed his trial. For example, in the appeal on 8 December 2015, it was stated that in respect of the chlamydia issue, "the preponderance of the circumstantial evidence offered supported the score" (p4). But surely at this point, if this matter was so important - as Kangas claims - he should have submitted proof that he had never had this infection? And yet he did not do this...

NB. I even wrote to the Chippewa County 50th Circuit Court on 17 September 2017 regarding the medical 'evidence' but was advised no information could be given:

"Sent: September 17, 2017 12:11 PM
Subject: Case Register of Actions' 02/20/15.13-001293-FH.
...In the 'Case Register of Actions' 02/20/15 Page 7, 13-001293-FH (Judge Lambros) File 12/17/12 ADJ DT 06/19/14 CLOSE 07/29/14 , item 134 has a reference to a 'Miscellaneous order', "that def's medical and mental health records shall not be used at trl".
Is there any way I can have sight of these records? If not, is it possible to have a summary of what was stated? And failing this, is it possible to know why they were not admitted into trial?...
The defendant claims this record confirmed he had never had chlamydia and would have proved his innocence..."

Sent: September 19, 2017 2:05 PM
"Our staff is not authorized to disclose why or why not the Court did not allow something into a trial.
Sincerely,
Judicial Secretary/Court Recorder
319 Court Street, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan 49783."

     Consequently, it appears the only way Kangas can validate his claim is by obtaining the original medical record submitted, or a copy of it, from the party or parties who either hold it or produced it, and I sincerely hope that he will do this and I will gladly publish it here. Nonetheless, as I have stated above, the issue of the chlamydia is not central to the matter of the charges, or his conviction, as Kangas not having had chlamydia does not affect the evidence that is available and/or was provided, relating to him having sex with the two children who testified in court to him doing this.

    NB. It should be noted that the only person who appears to be identified as a 'doctor' on the court listing that Kangas gave me, is a Dr P Sorgi (item 107), and the only medical practitioner I could locate, of this name, in MI, is Paul J. Sorgi, MD, who is a specialist in 'Psychiatry, Child & Adolescent Psychiatry'. If he compiled Kangas's medical report, it therefore may have concentrated on mental rather than physical health issues, and not dealt with the subject of STDs. If this was the case, this may explain why the record was not entered into court, i.e., as it did not offer useful or pertinent data relating to the case (Kangas's mental health was never mentioned during either trial).

---

       The Jury deliberation

And in respect of the jury issue that Kangas raises:
(e)The jury only decided on a guilty verdict due to jury tampering.

    Kangas claims the second trial was a mistrial because of jury irregularities. I have looked into this matter and while it may initially appear there might be grounds for this opinion, this suggestion simply does not work. Apart from this issue being dismissed at appeal, as far as the supposed 'bullying' by one juror, it is inevitable that one or more jurors will take the initiative to convince others of a verdict. The fact remains that if it was so prejudicial, one has to ask why there was only one complainant, and he did not alert the court staff to this during the deliberations or before the verdict was announced, but left it until after the verdict had been decided upon and the jury had been dismissed?
     The second matter relates to a juror who failed to disclose in the voir dire that he knew the mother of one of the two girls who gave evidence in the trial. The problem with this is that Kangas's Facebook account includes messaging between Kangas and the mother, and they are on good terms. Her attitude, as displayed by the messaging, betrays no hostility - even when there is a suspicion that the daughter may be pregnant by him. Therefore if – and it's a very big 'if' - the mother spoke to the juror (with whom she worked) about Kangas (and no evidence whatsoever has been offered to show this), the most likely conclusion is that she did not say anything negative about him (Indeed, it is highly improbable that she would have even mentioned that her 13-year old daughter had been sexually abused - such an intimate and distressing family matter is hardly an issue that anyone would discuss with work colleagues.) Therefore, the juror's acquaintanceship with the mother would not have influenced his verdict. So, once again, Kangas's argument fails (and of course this is apart from the glaring evidence in his own Facebook account that he did have sex with the two children and is guilty).

     NB. In the appeal heard on December 8, 2015 (No. 323088 Chippewa Circuit Court: LC No. 13-001293-FH) it was stated that (my italics):

"The jury deliberated for just over three hours before announcing that it was deadlocked. The trial court then gave the deadlocked jury instruction, M Crim JI 3.12, and after further deliberations, the jury returned a guilty verdict. The trial court observed that each juror had received a copy of the deadlocked jury instruction, which included the direction that none of the jurors “‘should give up [their] honest beliefs about the weight or effect of the evidence, only because of what your fellow jurors think or only for the sake of reaching an agreement'.” The trial court noted that no one had asked for clarification of the instructions, nor had anyone passed a note to the court during deliberations informing the court of the juror’s allegedly bullying behavior. Finally, the trial court observed that when polled, each juror unhesitatingly gave his or her verdict as “guilty,” and that when the trial judge specifically asked the jurors after the trial if there was anything the court should be aware of, no one voiced any concerns".

For a copy of the instructions supplied to a deadlocked jury in MI, please see page 85 (3-21) of Criminal Jury Instructions: MI Supreme Court.

---

       The re-sentencing hearing

     The following section deals with the 'Motion and re-sentencing hearing' held on 22 January 2015, relating to the OV (Offence Variable), scoring and (re-)sentencing. It is included as it follows on from the above, i.e., it deals with the (i)chlamydia issue and (ii)offences.
     For further information regarding the OV and scoring, please see Sentencing Guidelines Manual. This summarizes the situation as:

"Each OV consists of several statements to which a specific number of points are assigned. The statements appearing in each OV quantify the specific sentencing characteristic addressed by that OV...The total number of points assessed for all OVs is the offender’s “OV level” and corresponds to the vertical axis of the appropriate sentencing grid." (section [B], p6)

     The transcript of the hearing shows the Defence and Prosecution attorneys and the Judge, discussed the chlamydia issue. Furthermore, Kangas was asked by the Judge whether he wished to say anything ("Before we move to sentencing then Mr. Kangas would there be any comment you care to make on behalf of yourself?") so he had the opportunity to say whatever he wanted to say on the matter personally (and not through his attorney), and yet he said nothing in respect of the issue of chlamydia or any 'suppressed' evidence: he only raised his objection to the narrative and pre-sentence report, and he concluded with the very definite words of (my italics) "That's all that I wanted to gain out of this re-sentencing today was to have that change. Just the narrative. That's all that I care about." (p13). So if the supposed 'suppression' of the medical report was so vital, why did he not raise this point? Over six months had elapsed since his June 2014 trial, so he would have had time to consider what needed to be said at this hearing.
     With regard to (i) and (ii), the following statements were made:
Defence: "There is some matters on the record that there was a sexual transmitted disease Chlamydia...However, there's no evidence tying the contracting of that disease to Mr. Kangas" and "the records [are] clear that they [the two girls] did test positive for a sexually transmitted disease but the length between Mr. Kangas and the complainants is tenuous." (pp.4,5)
Prosecution: "Both victims have clearly identified Mr. Kangas as a possible source of the...chlamydia." (p6)
Judge Lambros: "The court does recall the testimony from the victims and does recaIl specifically that by the preponderance of the evidence it could be determined through the testimony, that Mr. Kangas was in fact the source of the chlamydia. I believe OV-3 is scored correctly. By stipulation I would agree that OV-11 should be modified." (p8)
Note: If the medical report (that would have been seen by the Judge) had stated Kangas had never had chlamydia, would the Judge have said "by the preponderance of the evidence it could be determined through the testimony, that Mr. Kangas was in fact the source of the chlamydia"? (and why did Kangas's attorney not object to this remark if the medical report had stated that he had never had this infection?)
However, as noted above, while Kangas seeks to make the chlamydia infection of the two girls a central issue, the reality is that he was not convicted of infecting the two girls with chlamydia, but of having sex with both of them. The trial transcript is clear about the charge: "With two counts, That is, of criminal sexual conduct in the third degree with the victim being between the ages of thirteen and fifteen. And another count of criminal sexual conduct in the third degree, the victim being between the ages of thirteen and fifteen" (Transcript of Trial II, 19 June 2014, Part II of II, p.15). The girls could have been wrong about the source of the infection, and particularly so as there was a co-defendant, but their testimonies were certain about Kangas having sex with each of them, and it was for this that Kangas was convicted.
During the hearing the Defence attorney was provided with time for discussion with Kangas, so this was yet another occasion when Kangas had the opportunity to ask that the matter of the 'suppressed' medical report (and his claim that it stated he had never had chlamydia - "because it proved that i have never had the STD known as chlamydia" - Email received from Keegan Kangas, 22 September 2016) be raised. However, Kangas apparently did not request this as the Defence attorney did not refer to the medical report, or chlamydia at all, but only the pre-sentence report: he said:
"It appears that the author of the pre-sentence report...used the Sault Ste. Marie, or State 4 Police report: what was given in the police report as information of the proceedings or actual events of this case. However as you just ruled in this court there's really, the multiple penetrations, the multiple sex act never came out in trial. As a matter of fact both complainants said 'we only had sex once'. So it can only be, I mean it can't be both versions...I would ask respectfully that this agent's description of the offense portion be changed to comport to the facts of the trial...The agent's description does not comport with your ruling in court today that there was only one sex act, one penetration...[with?] each complainant." (p11)
Prosecution: "The question at trial, and certainly the issues at trial and the police report are two separate things. The issue at trial is question what Mr. Kangas did while at [the] house...The description in the police report about the other sex act, I believe was at the junk yard. And so accordingly and regardless, the trial testimony and the police report written together support the agent's description...The agent does a full investigation concerning the police report and the other sources identified that which is more extensive than just the trial testimony. So accordingly I don't, believe there's any basis for which the court can change this." (p12)
Judge Lambros: "It is clear the agent has at his disposal and discretion opportunities to review and access the pre-sentence report as they see fit. And clearly it's not limited to the trial. He or she can, can use all sorts of resources to create that pre- sentence report. And that's what they do typically. So, I am going to deny the request of [the defence attorney]..." (pp12,13)
Defence: "I think it's a error to include it in a pre-sentence report that Mr. Kangas has to use as his...credentials while he's in the Department of Corrections." (p14)
Note: The Prosecution and Judge both said the pre-sentencing and Police report included information that did not arise at the trial. However, it is possible that if there was a variation, this was because, as one girl reported, Kangas had 'sent people after' her and she (and perhaps the second girl too) were scared into minimizing Kangas's offences (see (9) below).
Prosecution [this is garbled, presumably because the transcriber did not hear everything said]: "It appears that Mr. Kangas is not asking for any change in the sentence by this court only a change in the evaluation and plan that said that neither of the people believe that the courts original imposed sentence was appropriate under the circumstances. The court had plenty of time to consider that. Certainly not think of anything that would of changed to ask the court to do something different. I would disagree with the (inaudible) that the court can only consider items for the PSI [Pre-Sentence Investigation] that are statements under oath". (p14)
Judge Lambros [my emphasis]: "In the sentencing of this court, the court sat in the jury trial and made a ruling based on the jury trial's testimony. I clearly took into consideration the testimony that was made from the victims at the jury trial and I also took into consideration specifically for the sentence. Irrespective of what was in it, I sat through the trial and based my sentence strictly only on the evidence that had come in at the jury trial. Irrespective of what's in the PSI, that's what the court viewed in the totality of fashioning the sentence and remedy, or sentence at the time of the sentencing. That being said I don't see any reason to, at this point, do anything differently than I did at the first sentence because I believe the guideline was adequately scored...
Does the range change?" (pp14,15)
Prosecution: "Does not. The OV is from fifty points, OV-5 is fifty points to seventy four. He was seventy points before.
OV-3 stays unchanged but there's a twenty five point reduction. So I guess it actually would be thirty five to forty nine. It would be a change." (pp15,16)
Judge Lambros: "What would that do to the guideline range then?" (p16)
Prosecution: "So we are C-4, that grid is thirty five to forty nine for OV and the cell is forty five to seventy five." (p16)
Judge Lambros: "So the guideline range now is forty five to seventy five, am I correct?" (p16)
Prosecution; "That's correct." (p16)
Judge Lambros: "I'm still within the guideline range at this state. So the sentence and disposition of the court is going to be, Mr. Kangas...five years to fifteen years on count one. Credit, for the Michigan Department of Corrections for your time served while you're there...On count two it's going to be the order and disposition of the court that you be sentenced to a term with the Michigan Department of Corrections for a period of five years to fifteen years with credit for, the established credit that the Michigan Department of Corrections determines...
You must register as a Michigan sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act. And comply with all the requirements of the same. Those terms are to be run concurently.
And I want to make it clear that I am still within the guideline range of forty five to seventy five because the bottom line would be a sixty month window of incarceration which is clearly within the guideline range.
First and foremost Mr. Kangas the sentence is punitive in nature. It's for the protection of society. It's to serve as a deterrent effect and it's to allow you the opportunity to rehabilitate yourself with the Michigan Department of Corrections..." (pp17,18)

     As a concluding note in this section, in addition to the opportunities Kangas had at the January 2015 re-sentencing hearing to mention the supposed 'suppression' of 'evidence', he had another at the previous hearing in July 2014 for the sentencing, but he ignored this too (my emphasis):

Judge Lambros: "Mr. Kangas...before we move to the sentencing phase of the proceeding, is there any comment you care to make on your behalf this morning?...."
Mr Kangas: "No your Honor."
Judge Lambros: "Thank you Mr. Kangas."
(Transcript of Sentencing hearing. 29 July 2014, pp5,6)

---

       The Facebook data, and Conclusion

     As we are dealing with court matters in the above, it may be appropriate to mention here how some might view the prosecution's performance in both the first and second trial as perhaps somewhat half-hearted: this may be because it sensed the two girls were not being altogether forthcoming. Indeed, the two girls answered all the questions put to them by both the defence and prosecution with courage, but it is difficult not to sense that certain 'underlying currents' were present. With the Facebook account, the situation becomes clearer...
     Kangas's 2013 Facebook account includes messaging from K., one of the two young girls, to Kangas on 25 May 2013 (something that obviously should not have happened as by this time the legal process had begun) and she made a profuse, almost grovelling apology to him, seeking his forgiveness. The messaging indicates that she, and possibly the other girl also, was/were frightened into saying as little as possible because in this message she referred to him 'sending people after me': apparently intimidated, she also said that she would do whatever she could to minimize the problems caused to him. And this was from a vulnerable 13-year old whom the court found Kangas guilty of sexually abusing.
     And despite all his protestations of innocence, on 11 February 2013 there is a Facebook exchange between Kangas and K. when he lambasts K. for telling others about him having sex with her and comments this could put him in prison 'forever' and she should not trust anyone.

     For all the time I was in communication with him, he repeatedly claimed that the two girls had lied about the sexual abuse (although he couldn't supply any coherent or credible explanation for them doing this), and he likened them to the 17th cent. accusers at Salem: he went on to develop his claim to include conspiracies against him by the local police, the prosecution and his own defence attorney. However, the above reveals that his claims, as other statements he had made, were absolutely false. As C. who revealed the Facebook content to me, said on 13 May 2017: "It's almost sickening how much he has people convinced of his innocence...Meanwhile, he's been guilty all along and doesn't feel an oz of remorse and blames these girls only."

     Conclusion. And finally, despite being warned of a possible 45-years sentence at the plea hearing in April 2014, and then being sentenced to 5-15 years, Kangas was paroled, after 5 years on his Early Release Date of December 2018. I have been advised that to secure early release, the inmate has to admit guilt to the Parole Board: if this is so, it means he was released in December 2018 because he had admitted he was guilty. So, after so many years of claiming to be innocent, it appears he finally admitted his guilt which of course is also an admission that he slandered his victims, he had subjected many people to downright lies, and accepted support, including money, from various people on the basis of his dishonest claims.

Supplementary The above refers to Kangas repeatedly denying involvement in the crimes for which he was convicted. However, pages appeared in 2021, apparently written by him, or on his behalf, that presented a different stance. Please see Supplementary - 2021