Kangas's denial of facts
Kangas made it clear to me that he wanted an attorney to undertake an appeal for him pro-bono. I now realize this is absurd as not one, but two girls gave evidence against him, and (I now discover) there is incriminating evidence on his old Facebook account. If he attempts to deny the messages were written by him, then the IP address, i.e., a digital fingerprint, will confirm the ISP account used, the sender, location, telephone number/account used, and the times of the messages. There would be no point whatsoever in another trial. Period.
He has made frequent reference to how he sought 'exoneration', but also said he intended abandoning his claim to innocence to secure parole in December 2018, but he would then retract this after being released in order to pursue exoneration. In reality, an admission of guilt (in order to obtain parole) would surely prevent exoneration, and in the upshot, his plans seem to be very confused. The fact of the matter is that there is no possibility that Kangas can succeed in having his conviction overturned.
Furthermore, I understand it is unlikely that a Tier III CSC3 sex offender will secure parole or an Early Release Date, when first considered (Kangas will be eligible to be considered for parole in December 2018.)
(791.233 Grant of parole; conditions; Sec. 33) says:
On consideration of his emailings to young females since incarceration, and some
of the remarks he has made (as included in  Conclusion), it would be astonishing if the Parole Board considered
it appropriate to release Kangas for some years to come in view of its obligation to protect girls and young women. In the sentencing hearing of 29 July 2014,
the Judge said the sentence of 5-15 years was to 'curtail' Kangas's targeting of young women. However, on looking at how he has behaved up to the present time, some may question how successful this has been.
|"A prisoner shall not be given liberty on parole until the board has reasonable assurance, after consideration of all of the facts and circumstances, including the prisoner's mental and social attitude, that the prisoner will not become a menace to society or to the public safety."|
It is disconcerting that he appears to believe the President of the United States may pardon him: in his email to me, received on 13 February 2017, he stated: "My best chance at getting my conviction overturned would be a pardon from either the govenor of michigan or the president of the united states."
The feature I find most worrying regarding Kangas's protestation of innocence is that he was found guilty at a trial by jury after not one, but two children testified to his abuse, and his old Facebook account confirms exactly what the prosecution
stated and what prosecution witnesses asserted (and, in stark contrast, totally contradicts what he told me). The fact that he continues to deny he committed the crimes indicates three possibilties: (i)he wishes to escape condemnation of the crimes by right-thinking people but this, obviously, means he feels no guilt; (ii)he actually now believes his own lies; and/or (iii)he denies the crimes not because he did not do them, but because he does not believe he did anything wrong. I am sure that I am not the only one who considers these options to be a matter of very considerable concern. Indeed, in his email to me, received on 23 January 2017, he said "even if i was guilty, who f*cking benefitted from putting me behind bars? me? my 'victems'? obviously neither of us benefitted" (this is quoted in full at the end of Item 13). What he overlooks here is that he is not supposed to be 'benefitting', but punished and rehabilitated (although I saw no evidence for the latter), and his victims can take comfort from the knowledge he is incarcerated and
that, undoubtedly, is of benefit to them.