My mistake in believing Keegan William Kangas (Michigan Inmate #937832) Looking at Kangas's 'suppressed' evidence (etc.)
In the following, the names of innocent parties have been abbreviated or blanked out, and expletives used by Kangas have had asterisks
Anyone writing to Kangas should expect him to tell them the following, which he mentions 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.
These are the exact statements made by Kangas from emails that he has sent:
(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).
Now, let's examine his five statements:
(a)He submitted 'medical evidence' 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'.
He sent me numerous documents relating to his court cases, but he never sent me a copy of this medical documentation. Furthermore, in all the time that I knew him, I was never aware of him making any attempt to obtain the evidence, 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 (presumably) his doctor who wrote and issued the document? By the time I contacted Kangas, he had been in prison for over two years and yet in all that time he had not obtained the document, or a copy. I find that very strange as he claimed it
was 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).
"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 [h]istory 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 fundamental or principal 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. In sum, 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. I interpreted his remark of "[name of attorney] do not expect any help from them", as his way of telling me not to make a request from the attorney for the document: I found this to be perplexing, in view of its supposed importance. Furthermore, I also interpreted his remark "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" as a rebuff to my request for information and exact details of the 'medical evidence'. To this day, I still remember my surprise at this.
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* 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 conversation he had with his own attorney on 06/06/2014 (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.
In (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. He was 20 on 13 October 2012, and 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 Keegan lies 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. Indeed, in the appeal heard on December 8, 2015 (No. 323088 Chippewa Circuit Court: LC No. 13-001293-FH), it was 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.")
Kangas also uses the word 'consensual' for the offence, presumably to lessen its seriousness: however, the C in 'CSC3' is not for the word 'consensual', but 'criminal'.
His claim on 8 August 2017 (in (h) above) that the jury was 'gasping for air' is his fictionalising - please see the remarks about his comments concerning the jury below.
One matter to be included at this point is an email dated 21 May 2017, from 'S', a previous supporter, who attempted to help Kangas 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 is 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..."
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 his statement that:
(b)This 'evidence' confirmed that he had never had chlamydia,
the following also have to be dealt with as the three points are all
(c)He didn't know why the 'evidence' was not admitted.
(d)This 'evidence' was 'suppressed'.
At this point, his Facebook account sheds important light on the matter: these are his conversations with his attorney on the 4th and 6th of June 2014 (My italics):
Kangas says "if they dont suppress here is a defense for my urine chlamydia test occuring positive...": here he says that he will claim it was 'a false positive' and 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) and treated with Bactrim [NB. whether there is any truth in this comment is unknown].
HIs attorney says she has met with the Judge and his "medical records are not coming in". She tells him his options which are to either take a plea or "try it" (i.e., to go to trial), and Kangas replies "Iets try it".
In the above, his attorney says,"Your medical records are not coming in", and in his reply, there is no indication of any protest by Kangas. Therefore his claims that (c)He didn't know why the 'evidence' was not admitted, and (d)this 'evidence' was 'suppressed', are invalid.
In his email that I received on 22 December 2016, quoted above, he says "[name of 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, he was explicitly told that it was 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 been surprise and/or an objection from him.
In the above, 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.
Look at what he says again (my emphasis): "Keegan: IF they DONT suppress HERE IS A DEFENSE for my urine chlamydia test occuring positive..."
The wording and structure of the sentence that Kangas uses, indicates that he wants/expects his 'medical history' to be 'suppressed', as he offers a strategy to use if it's not suppressed.
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 three days after the date that one of the two 13-year girls said he had sex with her, this exchange occurs (my asterisks):
'B(Girl): "bye the way i went to the health department today and took the pills to get rid on my problem."
'Keegan: "are u f**kin serious? so u gave me clymidia! your a f**kin bitch. omg wtfffff."
Let's look at that again:
"so u gave me clymidia!"
I would say that's a conclusive admission.
Thirdly, Kangas repeatedly says that if his medical 'evidence' had mentioned he been infected with chlamydia, then the prosecution would have surely used it rather than suppressing it, but, as shown above, it did not 'suppress' it at all: this is Kangas 'rearranging' the facts to suit the story he wants to tell. In the upshot, the problem is that we do not know what this medical data/'evidence' included and three years after his trial, he had still not obtained a copy of this. Furthermore, it was the judge who decided it was not going to be admitted, and the defence and prosecution apparently had no say in the matter. All we know is that the defence attorney told Kangas that the judge was not admitting it, and it seems reasonable to assume this was because it did not contain anything that had any bearing on the case, for either the defence or the prosecution. It may not have even mentioned the subject of STDs/chlamydia, and until a copy of this 'medical evidence' is obtained, there is no reason to believe the subject was even included within it: and as noted above, the fact that Kangas has not obtained a copy, begs the question of why he has not done so.
There is of course the possibility that it may have referred to Kangas having chlamydia, but the judge considered this would be misleading for the jury as it did not necessarily prove sex took place between Kangas and the two children: as reported, 'Chlamydia is the most commonly reported STD in the United States'. Moreover, the judge may have considered that it might have been the co-defendant (who 'took a plea') who was responsible for the infection (NB. I only discovered the existence of a co-defendant when I noticed a reference to him in the court transcripts: Kangas only told me about him when I asked him directly).
It should be remembered that while Kangas places so much importance on the issue of chlamydia (that I personally interpret to be yet another diversionary tactic), this was an incidental rather than a fundamental issue: after all, he was on trial for having sex with the two children, and not transmitting an STD.
In sum, we do not know what the 'evidence' was, and we can only speculate on a host of possibilities of what it included. It is remarkable, to say the least, that the Facebook messaging does not have Kangas asking his attorney why the judge had decided to not admit the medical record. It is possible that she did inform Kangas of the reason(s) when she saw him at a later time, but he is now 'rewriting history' to create a story of 'suppression' and unreasonable behaviour by the prosecution, both of which did not occur. Click here for copy of the court listing detailing that Kangas's medical report would not be used (note this also mentions his mental health record).
Fourthly, if the decision to not admit the 'medical evidence' was so damaging to Kangas's defence, why wasn't it included in the appeals that followed the June 2014 trial?
And fifthly, it should be noted that arguments that Kangas uses to 'explain' his conviction include:
(a)he has stated, several times, his defence was inadequate, and yet, in a Facebook message on 18 March 2014, he said to his attorney, yes, the same attorney he has criticised and condemned post-trial, "I know your one of the best trial lawyers around you have a good reputation and I believe we can win this!" (b)the 'real' reason why the police arrested him was not because of child molestation but because of his involvement in drugs: this would mean that the police coerced the two girls into giving false testimony about molestation. In his email received on 1 February 2017, he stated "why would the prosecution/police target me? cuz i used to sell drugs and had been a high priority target to the police for years because they couldnt actively catch me doing it. that would be my best guess". But he has provided no evidence for this fanciful allegation, and both his conviction and Facebook messaging state that he had unlawful sex with underaged girls, and his sentence was therefore appropriate and legitimate.
To summarize the above,
(a)We do not know what the content of the 'evidence' was - and surprisingly, Kangas has not obtained a copy, despite its supposed importance.
(b)We do not know what the 'evidence' said about chlamydia - if it said anything at all about this particular matter.
(c)Kangas did know why the 'evidence' was not admitted - his Facebook messaging records that his attorney told him, and there is no indication that he objected to this.
(d)This 'evidence' was not 'suppressed' by the prosecution - it was the judge who decided it would not be admitted. Furthermore, Kangas's claim that the 'evidence' was suppressed was not mentioned in the appeals that were made.
(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. This is normal and if it was prejudicial, one has to ask why there was only complainant, and he did not alert the court staff to this during the deliberations or before the verdict was announced.
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 him and the mother, and they are on good terms. Her attitude, as displayed by the messaging, betrays no hostility even when there is a fear that the daughter may be pregnant by him. Therefore if – and it's a very big 'if' - she 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. Therefore, the juror's acquaintanceship with the mother would not have influenced his verdict. So, once again, Kangas's argument fails.
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".