Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: Kangas's statements
Part 3: Examination of his statements
Part 4: Relevance of the 'evidence'
Part 5: The Brady Rule and the Defence Case
Part 6: Summary
Part 7: The Jury deliberation
Part 8: The resentencing hearing
Part 9: The Facebook data, and Conclusion


In the following, the names of innocent parties have been abbreviated or blanked out, and expletives used by Kangas have had asterisks inserted.

     Anyone who wrote to Kangas, and asked him about his convictions, should have expected him to tell them the following, which he mentioned repeatedly. This involves
five connected matters:
(a)Medical 'evidence' was submitted to the court.
(b)This 'evidence' confirmed that he had never had chlamydia (the infection with which the two girls accused him of infecting them).
(c)He didn't know why the 'evidence' was not admitted.
(d)This 'evidence' was 'suppressed'.
(e)The jury only decided on a guilty verdict due to jury tampering.

       Kangas's statements

    These are the exact statements made by Kangas from emails that he sent while he was incarcerated:

     (a)"My biggest issue is that the trial court suppressed my medical history from entering trial. my medical history was my only defense really because it proved that i have never had the STD known as chlamydia."
(Email received from Keegan Kangas, 22 September 2016)
     (b)"(suppression of medical history) is pretty much the only one that could get me anywhere."
(Email received from Keegan Kangas, 25 October 2016)
     (c )"And no, [name of attorney] did not object. or even let me know that my medical history had been suppressed...i have no idea why or who ordered the suppression. i myself asked to courts last january febuary to elaborate on that specifically as well as on a number of other documents and they sent me a packate of bullshit that didnt have anything to do with my case.
[Name of attorney] is not going to be a help. and i can guarentee that my medical history was suppressed because is was exculpatory to the prosecution. why else would it be suppressed "miscellaniously"? it would have said it was being suppressed via motion from the defence had it been suppressed FOR my favor. and there would have had to been a hearing on it, which there wasnt.
if i was guilty, if i had given those girls chlamydia, dont youthink the prosecution would have done everything in their power to get the medical document showing id had the std for evidence? you damn right they would have. they were SO DESPERATE."
(Email received from Keegan Kangas, 22 December 2016)
     (d)"suppressed mine so that the jury wouldnt know that i 100% positively did not have the std."
(Email received from Keegan Kangas, 30 January 2017)
     (e)"you should start off the campain showing that they suppressed my medical history because i never had chlamydia."
(Email received from Keegan Kangas, 13 February 2017)
     (f)"My medical history was subpoenaed (which means the court demanded its release to them upon penalty of law, to be used by the prosecution) and then it was promptly suppressed from being used as evidence in trial because it shown that I'd never had chlamydia."
(Email received from Keegan Kangas, 17 April 2017)
     (g)"I'm my case I allegedly had consentual sex with 2 minors when I was 19/20 and they were 13/14. that consentual sex lead to those girl contracting the STD chlamydia. I'd rather not get into the particulars of the case but I'm not a f***ing child molester. I've never even had chlamydia.
they railroaded me and suppressed my medical history from trial. there was two trials. the first ended in a deadlocked jury because of lack of evidence. I was convicted in the second only after the event of inter-juror bullying."
(Email received from Keegan Kangas, addressed to M. J., 23 June 2017)
     (h)"he [David] now says there's messages on my Facebook where I admit to having chlamydia but if I really did have chlamydia then why the hell did the court suppress my medical history in trial 2 after trial one ended in a deadlocked jury due to lack of evidence? doesn't make any sense. they were gasping for air in trial two. the only reason I was convicted was because of jury tampering, which I can prove to an extent".
(Email received from Keegan Kangas, addressed to M. R., 8 August 2017).

       Examination of his statements

(a)He submitted 'medical evidence (i.e. records)' to the court.

    There is no indication about what this evidence actually was, and we do not even know who compiled it, what their sources were, or the time or place of composition. In all the many conversations I had with Kangas, whether by email, letter or telephone conversation, he never actually told me the exact nature of this 'evidence' that he claimed had been 'suppressed'. Even if he did not possess a copy, he would have surely known what it contained, and yet at no time did he ever tell me what this was, even only a rough summary...
    He sent me numerous documents relating to his court cases, but he never sent me a copy of the medical records. Furthermore, in all the time that I knew him, I was never aware of him making an attempt to obtain the records, presumably held by his attorney, or obtain a copy of it from her. If his attorney was unwilling to do this, then why did he not obtain a copy from whoever produced it? By the time I contacted Kangas, he had been in prison for over two years and yet in all that time there was no indication that he had obtained the document, or a copy of it, or attempted to do this. I find that strange as he claimed it was so crucial to his case.
    As I tried to begin his campaign, I wrote "This is one of the questions I need to ask you about and I would like to start obtaining the information I need from you."
(My email to Keegan Kangas, 17 December 2016).
    I then wrote again:
    "Can you let me know about what you think about the questions I need to ask you about your case so I can start building up a statement?"
(My email to Keegan Kangas, 19 December 2016).
     But Kangas replied: "it would be cool if you could somehow get all the documents posted on the webpage and make it all viewable. theres alot of heavy shit in there, especially in the affidavit hearing, that people should be aware of".
(Email received from Keegan Kangas, 20 December 2016).
and then stated:
    "the appeals attorney refused to touch it (the medical history issue) and no, [name of attorney] did not object. or even let me know that my medical history had been suppressed... i have no idea why or who ordered the suppression.
    I myself asked to courts last january febuary to elaborate on that specifically as well as on a number of other documents and they sent me a packate of bullshit that didnt have anything to do with my case. [name of attorney] is not going to be a help. and i can guarentee that my medical history was suppressed because is was exculpatory to the prosecution. why else would it be suppressed "miscellaniously"? it would have said it was being suppressed via motion from the defence had it been suppressed FOR my favor, and there would have had to been a hearing on it, which there wasnt. i can send you a complete copy of the case register of actions so that you can see this.
    As far as what we are doing anyways we are raising awareness and trying to get funded for a real lawyer by making a campain page. not stablishing,examining,and explaining every action of defence to my case. just showing some valid documents to show that you dont have to be guilty to be guilty in america.
    if i was guilty, if i had given those girls chlamydia, dont youthink the prosecution would have done everything in their power to get the medical document showing id had the std for evidence? you damn right they would have. they were SO DESPERATE they brought in cops to tell a fabricated story about me a K* being caught in a closet together after some 911 hang up calls saying they arrested us, brought us to police HQ, questioned us, and let us go!?
    If that medical history was favoring the prosection they would have hammered me with it...right now i am fighting for my innocence and when you fight for you innocence your saying that someone was wrong. someone didnt do their job ect. and in my case, this involved multiple people including [name of attorney]. do not expect any help from them."
(Email received from Keegan Kangas, 22 December 2016).
    It becomes obvious that I was - clearly - having a major problem in obtaining a copy of the all-important (well, according to Kangas), medical report or 'evidence', and try as I might, I was unable to get him to produce it, obtain it, help me obtain it, or say anything, directly, useful about it.
    I then said;
    "There are two...issues that I feel we can/should target and the medical evidence is definitely one of these. We need to be able to say something about this...If it's used, we need to be able to say exactly what it was. If we say it showed you did not have the STD, then we have to demonstrate this. I fully agree we are not "establishing, examining, and explaining every action of defence to my case": I only want to establish and publicise...features that most clearly demonstrate your innocence...We need to be able to state the basic information and features of...the suppressed medical evidence."
(My email to Keegan Kangas, 22 December 2016).

    But he did not say anything further on this matter in respect of obtaining a copy of the medical evidence and I, along with anybody else, have to ask why he has not requested this supposed evidence, or a copy, from his attorney, or a duplicate from his doctor (or whoever produced it). I interpreted his remark of "do not expect any help" from his attorney, as his way of telling me not to make a request to the attorney for the document: I found this to be perplexing, in view of its supposed importance. Additionally, I was not attempting to "explain every action of defence" in his case, but simply seeking some information regarding what he said was a central feature of his defence. Indeed, as he made repeated reference to it and argued that it proved his innocence, it was very important. However, as S., another penpal found (see below), when asking Kangas for specific information, he suddenly became averse to providing this and unwilling to discuss the matter in any detail. As this was supposedly a principal factor that demonstrated his innocence, I found it bizarre that he declined to offer any details about it other than to keep saying it was "suppressed".
     At this point, I would draw attention to his remark in his email received on 22 December 2016 above, that "they brought in cops to tell a fabricated story about me a K [a 13-year old girl]* being caught in a closet together after some 911 hang up calls saying they arrested us, brought us to police HQ, questioned us, and let us go!?" However, the Facebook messaging shows this was not 'a fabricated story' at all and he is lying - please see Kangas's lies concerning the 911 calls - it was also even confirmed during the Facebook conversation he had with his own attorney on 6 June 2014 (referred to below). Consequently, one is justified in assuming that what Kangas also says about the supposed 'medical evidence' is false, or at least questionable. As he attributed so much importance to the 'medical evidence', but apparently did not want me to obtain this or a copy, I am inclined to think that, as other features of his case, the 'importance' is nothing more than his construct of fiction.
     After I spent a lot of my own time and money in contacting many hundreds of MI attorneys, I found three who were willing to assist him, but, to my bewilderment, on each occasion he did not follow their advice or even contact them." I therefore concluded his protestation of innocence was a time-wasting and dishonest charade.
    In (2)(g) above, Kangas lies again when he states "I allegedly had consentual sex with 2 minors when I was 19/20 and they were 13/14." In fact the girls were 13, not 14, and he was 20, not 19. One girl, K., testified that he had sex with her in December 2012 (i.e., after his 20th birthday), and the second girl, H., said he had sex with her on 25 January 2013, that again, was after his 20th birthday (he would actually be 21 later that year). This is a prime example of when Kangas 'rearranges' facts to suit his own agenda. He is keen to present himself as a 'teenager' when the offences took place, but the reality is that he was not a reckless teenager but a predatory adult. The cold hard reality is that he was an adult aged 20, and his victims were vulnerable 13-year old children when the offences were committed, and no amount of tampering with the ages, dates or the chronology will change this. Apparently, by bringing the ages closer together, he assumes the offences will not appear so heinous.
(NB. the actual ages were confirmed in the appeal heard on December 8, 2015 (No. 323088 Chippewa Circuit Court: LC No. 13-001293-FH): this stated that (my underlining): "two complainants...testified to sexual activity that included penile-vaginal penetration with defendant when they were 13 years old and defendant was 20 years old.")
    In (2)(g) above, Kangas uses the word 'consensual' for the offence, and presumably this is to lessen its seriousness: however, the C in 'CSC3' is not for the word 'consensual', but 'criminal'. Furthermore, 'consensual' means 'with consent', but a 13-year old child is, obviously, too young to give informed consent to a sex act. That is why there is a statutory age of consent, something that the court found Kangas chose to ignore - twice (and according to his Facebook messaging, apparently more than twice).
     To confirm the meaning, I cite three articles (my italics): (1)Pamf states: "Age can also determine whether a person can legally consent to certain sexual behaviours...Having sex with someone under the age of consent is legally considered a crime called statutory rape, even if the person under the age of consent agrees to sex taking place." (2)A dictionary rendering states that sex when one person "is unwilling or too young to legally give consent" is "non-consensual' sex". And (3)Legalmatch declares that statutory rape occurs when "a person over the age of consent engages in sexual intercourse with someone under the statutory age of consent, also known as a minor...Statutory rape is a strict liability crime, meaning that the consent of the younger not a defense." The salient point here is that "Statutory rape laws presume coercion, because a legally incapable of giving consent to the act." (Wikipedia). There was nothing 'consensual' about what he did to the two children.
    Consequently, it becomes absolutely clear that Kangas is lying, once again, when he refers to being accused of having 'consensual sex'. Apart from all of this, the word 'consensual' does not appear even once, anywhere, in the trial records...

    In his email of 8 August 2017 (in (h) above), he says that I claim he 'admit[s] to having chlamydia'. But I simply draw attention to how, in a message in his own Facebook account, he accuses a female, with whom he had sex, of transmitting this infection to him (see below). The email of 8 August 2017 also has him asserting that the jury was 'gasping for air', but please see (7) below in respect of his allegations concerning the jury and its guilty verdict. The only person 'gasping' here is Kangas himself as he makes an attempt to salvage something from this sorry tale. He has attempted to create doubts about his guilt by constructing a story based on a document which is, conveniently, unavailable for perusal...
    In an email of 1 April 2015 (above), he claims that he 'won' the first trial: in fact he did nothing of the sort as it was a deadlocked jury (if he had 'won' it, he would have been found not guilty - which he wasn't), and this meant that a second trial was necessary - and this found him guilty. And as an illustration of how Kangas lies and makes extraordinary (false) claims, he says 'they' (presumably he means the prosecution) 'threatened the jury' to convict him! (And like other claims he makes, he offers no evidence whatsoever for this wild allegation). Yet again, he introduces the chalmydia as a pivotal issue when it was not. Moreover, as revealed in (8) below, this matter was never raised as the grounds for appeal, apart from the fact that he had opportunities to raise the matter himself in court after the June 2014 trial. He also criticizes his attorney for not raising the matter, but as noted in (4) below, he praises her as "one of the best trial lawyers around".

    One matter to be included at this stage is an email dated 21 May 2017, I received from 'S', a previous supporter of Kangas, who attempted to help him but says he found Kangas 'evaded' giving answers to questions about the background to his case. His email included the comment (my italics):

    "If it's any consolation, he fooled me, too. I also bought the trial transcripts...And contacted several lawyers on his behalf...I bailed on him about a year ago, after 5 months: wading through those transcripts, I had a few questions, which he evaded, notably about the night of the arrest in that garage; his arrest, by two law enforcement agencies. He said it was a setup and they'd arrested someone else, as I recall. I sensed we were going down the rabbit hole and that I'd been played..."
    And this person was certainly not the only one who was 'played' by Kangas, costing both time and money...

       Relevance of the 'evidence'

    The next matter to be considered is Kangas's claim about the relevance of this elusive evidence: his clearest comment is when he says "[the] medical history was subpoenaed...and then it was promptly suppressed from being used as evidence in trial because it shown that I'd never had chlamydia." (Email received, 17 April 2017)
    So, in addition to this statement, the following also have to be dealt with as they are all related to this issue:
(b)This 'evidence' confirmed that he had never had chlamydia,
(c)He didn't know why the 'evidence' was not admitted.
(d)This 'evidence' was 'suppressed'.

    His Facebook account sheds important light on the matter: on 4 June 2014 he offered his attorney a defence if the prosecution didn't suppress the medical records, saying a defense for the chlamydia urine testing being positive would be that it was a 'false positive' as he goes on to claim he was passing kidney stones when the test was undertaken and he was diagnosed with a UTI (Urinary Tract Infection).
    In this, Kangas makes no reference to any test result for chlamydia being negative, but rather, he only refers to a positive result; and he offers a reason for this happening. The words used and the structure of Kangas's remark to his lawyer indicates that he wants/expects his medical report to be 'suppressed', as he offers a strategy to deal with a positive test result for chlamydia, if it's not suppressed.

    Two days later (6 June 2014), his attorney said that she had met the Judge and Kangas's medical records were not being allowed in (she also stated the police officers would testify to what they witnessed when they found Kangas and the girl at the junkyard.) It is noticeable that in the messaging Kangas made no protest about his medical records not being allowed into the trial, and no concern was expressed by him about this either: it is also noticeable that he did not even ask her the reason why the records were not being allowed. This would indicate that the records were not of any importance or significance.
    Therefore his claims that (c)He didn't know why the 'evidence' was not admitted, and (d)this 'evidence' was 'suppressed', are invalid. It should be noted that his attorney did not prefix her comment with "I'm sorry to advise you..." or "Unfortunately...", so it would appear she was not concerned by the medical records not being allowed. It is difficult to believe this was her opinion if the records had included anything of significant help to Kangas.
     In his email that I received on 22 December 2016, quoted above, he says "[attorney]...did not...even let me know that my medical [h]istory had been suppressed. i have no idea why or who ordered the suppression". But, as can be seen from the above, his attorney explicitly told him that the medical records were not going to be allowed, and according to his Facebook messaging, he makes no objection whatsoever. He did not even ask why, and that suggests it did not include anything of use to him, or have any relevance: otherwise, there would have surely been a protest or objection from him.

    Secondly, there is also the damaging conversation, on his Facebook account, with a girl whose name I will abbreviate to 'B' in the following. On 28 January 2013 (8.22pm), only a few days after the date that one of the two 13-year girls said he had sex with her, he had a Facebook conversation with B., who told him she been to a health clinic to obtain medication to treat "her problem." Kangas responds, angrily, calling her a f*cking bitch, saying she had infected him with chlamydia.
    Of course B. may have been mistaken about the transmission of chlamydia, but even if she was, it does demonstrate that Kangas's behaviour made him a possible recipient of such an infection: furthermore, it makes the medical confirmation, so strikingly absent so far, to be essential if he wishes to attribute so much importance to it.
    Thirdly, Kangas repeatedly says that if his medical 'evidence' had mentioned he had been infected with chlamydia, then the prosecution would have surely used it, but, as stated, the content of the medical records is unknown. What is known is that the defence attorney advised Kangas that the Judge had told her it was not being admitted, and it seems reasonable to assume this was because it did not contain anything that had any bearing on the case (presumably for either the defence or the prosecution). It may not have mentioned the subject of STDs/chlamydia, and until a copy of this medical report is obtained and made available for scrutiny, there is no reason to believe the subject was even included within it: and as noted above, the fact that Kangas had still not obtained a copy, nearly five years after the trial, begs the question of why he has not done so. A copy of this from his attorney or the person who compiled it would surely cost no more than a few dollars: Kangas told me that he was spending amounts, much larger than this, on music for himself, in March-May 2017.
     It should be noted that "Chlamydia the United States, is the most commonly reported bacterial infection", and some might consider it may have been Kangas's friend and co-defendant (who 'took a plea') who was responsible for transmitting the infection (NB. I only discovered the existence of this co-defendant when I noticed a reference to him in the court transcripts: Kangas only told me about him when I asked him directly. The co-defendant was paroled in 2018).
     It should be remembered that while Kangas places so much importance on the issue of chlamydia, this was not a central issue as he was on trial for having sex with the two children, rather than transmitting an STD: and as far as the sex offences are concerned, Kangas's own Facebook account supplies corroboration of the testimonies given by the two girls in court. It should be understood that if the medical records had stated that Kangas had never had chlamydia, this does not affect the charge that he committed sex offences against the two children as it simply means they were incorrect in believing the infection was transmitted by him (as stated, there was also a co-defendant, a friend of Kangas, who 'took a plea' and was charged with 'CSC - Assault With Intent to Commit Crim. Sexual Cond - 2nd Degree').
     It is remarkable, to say the least, that the Facebook messaging does not have Kangas asking his attorney why it had been decided to not admit his medical records - if they were so important to his case, as he claims.
    Fourthly, if the decision to not admit the 'medical evidence' was so damaging to Kangas's defence, why wasn't this specific matter raised in the hearings that followed the June 2014 trial?
    And fifthly, Kangas has stated, several times, that his defence was inadequate, and yet, in a Facebook message on 18 March 2014, he told his attorney (yes, the very same attorney he fiercely criticised in his emailings to me) she was one of the best trial lawyers around. And on 18 June 2014, he said in a message to his attorney that she had done a good job that day - this was after the main part of trial was finished, with only the closing statements still to be made. Kangas's impression of his attorney apparently only changed after he was found guilty on 19 June 2014.

       The Brady Rule and the Defence Case

    Brady Rule. In an email of 25 October 2016, Kangas wrote to me: "i wont find relief unless there are clear breaches of constitutional right. the brady violation (suppression of medical history) is pretty much the only one that could get me anywhere" and 22 December 2016, "i can guarentee that my medical history was suppressed because is was exculpatory to the prosecution." But in view of what I discovered, I believe this was yet another of his attempts to 'muddy the waters'.
    The Brady Rule (Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)), to which Kangas refers "requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government's possession to the defense" (per Cornell Law School). Furthermore, Cornell states "Brady material or evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule includes any evidence favorable to the accused - evidence that goes towards negating a defendant's guilt, that would reduce a defendant's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness". However, it is the defendant who has "the burden to prove that the undisclosed evidence was both material and favorable. In other words, the defendant must prove that there is a “reasonable probability” that the outcome of the trial would have been different, had the evidence been disclosed by the prosecutor."
     (i)In Kangas's case it is not known what the supposedly 'suppressed' medical evidence said, but if it had supported his defence, it is difficult to see how the judge and Kangas's own attorney would have agreed to it not being allowed - and how the Brady Rule could therefore possibly apply.
     (ii)There is no indication that the prosecution was even involved in it not being introduced into the trial (as the Facebook messaging above shows, Kangas's own attorney did not appear concerned about this - and nor was Kangas when she told him!): this surely means that Kangas would not have been able to show any "reasonable probability” that the trial verdict would have been any different, something the Rule requires.
     (iii)It is difficult to see how the supposedly suppressed medical evidence satisfies the condition of being evidence, useful to the accused, that the prosecution failed to disclose, as it had already been clearly disclosed before the trial began (and the submission was presumably done by the defence). It is clearly listed in the trial register - see copy here.
     (iv)As shown in (4) above, Kangas's Facebook conversation with his attorney indicated that he wanted, or expected the medical report to be 'suppressed'. This hardly upholds his argument about how the Brady Rule could have assisted him.
     (v)Even if the report had shown Kangas had not been infected with chalmydia and therefore had not infected the two children, this would not have invalidated the charges that he had sex with both of them (see notes in (4) above). Consequently, it would appear his claims about the Brady Rule and exculpatory data are yet further smokescreens and diversions from him.

     Defence Case. Some might find it remarkable that Kangas chose not to give his own testimony in the trial if he was innocent. As the following capture from the trial report (Trial 2, 18 June 2014. Vol 1/2. p197) shows (my underlining), the judge ("the court") asked the defence attorney if she wished to argue Kangas's case but she said that, having conferred with him, she did not and would 'rest'. As this also shows, the trial proceeded more quickly than anticipated and this was presumably because Kangas failed to say anything or offer any witnesses for his own defence during the trial, something that many would expect from an innocent person on trial for such serious crimes. In the upshot, with no witnesses for him, no defence 'case' being offered and no testimony given by Kangas or him answering a cross-examination by the prosecution attorney, one can reasonably conclude there was no meaningful defence to be offered to the accusations made.

     Indeed, in America, a defendant is not required to present testimony or a 'case' to answer the prosecution's accusation(s), and many attorneys argue that a defendant should not give his/her evidence/case. The Offices of the US Attorneys website states:

"After the Government rests, the defense has the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence to the jury. The defense also has the option of not having the defendant testify. There is no burden upon the defendant to prove that he is innocent...The defense may also waive his case. If the defense does not put on any evidence, the jury cannot assume that the defendant is guilty simply because they did not put on a defense. The decision to put on a defense is solely up to the defendant and the defense attorney."

    But, having said this, it then adds (my italics):
"However, the defense will usually present its own version of the case."
    A New York Times article of 2 November 2015, entitled 'When to Put the Defendant on the Witness Stand' states (my italics):
"Jurors will always speculate about why a defendant did not testify, especially if the person claims innocence. Courts routinely instruct jurors not to consider the defendant’s decision to remain silent and not take the witness stand in reaching a verdict, but the inference remains, even subconsciously, that someone claiming to be innocent would scream that from the rooftop...."
    As, unlike his co-defendant who took a plea, Kangas insisted on a trial, one would assume he would have personally defended himself and argued his case, and yet he chose not to do this. This is undoubtedly remarkable as since his conviction, he has offered numerous proposals to account for why he was found guilty (although most of these involve supposed conspiracies by his accusers, the police, the prosecution, the MI legal system, etc: moreover, they all lack any evidence, and are, conveniently, unprovable).
    NB. In July 2018, a penpal advised me that Kangas had, in 2016, admitted his crimes to him: I cannot verify the veracity of this statement, but if it is true (which I believe it is), this means the company that provides the prison emailing service will have a copy of any admission by Kangas (as it retains a copy of all emails).


To summarize the above,
< (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.
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.

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