In August 2021, I was made aware of a Linkedin page for Kangas: furthermore, two personal pages on a website at had appeared in about July 2021.
 The purpose of Linkedin is to "Find the right job or internship, connect and strengthen professional relationships, and learn the skills you need to succeed in your career."[1] However, when viewing Kangas's Linkedin page (on August 10, 2021), instead of him detailing past employments and his education record, etc., he had made a number of assertions that I suspect would make any prospective employer recoil.
    For example, he refers to his CSC3 (Criminal Sexual Conduct, category 3) convictions but then says a child is unable to be a pedophile. The reader may be bewildered as to why he says this: the most logical explanation is that he is claiming to have been a child when the CSC3 crimes were committed, so he cannot be classified as a pedophile. As I found so often with Kangas's remarks, this is nonsense, apart from the fact that the subject of pedophilia is far more complex than the image he presents. The definitive Green Book of the World Health Organisation states the condition is present when: "A. The general criteria for F65 Disorders of sexual preference must be met. B. A persistent or a predominant preference for sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children. C. The person is at least 16 years old and at least five years older than the child or children in B."[2]
    The same classification is repeated elsewhere, e.g., Psychology Today, although this adds the condition is present when there is "Recurrent, intense...behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger) for a period of at least 6 months...The person is at least 16 years old, and at least 5 years older than the child..."[3]
    As these clearly state a pedophile can be 16 years of age, this obviously means a child can be a pedophile, thus wholly invalidating Kangas's ill-informed, sweeping assertion. What is pertinent here is the absurdity of his argument as he appears to be saying he was a child when the offences for which he was convicted occurred, but this is nonsense as he was a 20-year old adult. As clearly stated in the court record:

A jury convicted defendant of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC III) (sexual penetration with a person between 13 and 15 years old), MCL 750.520d(1)(a). He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 5 to 15 years' imprisonment...Two complainants, KH and HC, testified to sexual activity that included penile-vaginal penetration with defendant when they were 13 years old and defendant was 20 years old.
Subsequent to the sexual activity, both were screened for sexually transmitted infections by a school nurse, and the test results were positive for chlamydia. The complainants named defendant as the individual with whom they engaged in sexual intercourse, and the nurse reported it to the authorities."[4]
    Furthermore, if he is using the term to simply denote a child molester, then once again he is incorrect as, sadly, children can and do molest other children.[5] Nonetheless, he appears to be admitting to the CSC3 crimes, something he vigorously avoided doing before and during his incarceration.

    In his Linkedin page, he also comments that he was arrested before he could legally consume alcohol (the age limit being 21 in Michigan), so he wasn't an adult! Because he cannot, obviously, excuse his behaviour, he offers up ludicrous smokescreens to obscure or blur the matter. It is noticeable that he fails to follow this remark through to any logical conclusion. Indeed, he was 20 (and couldn't drink alcohol), but so what? Is he saying that anyone under 21 should not be held accountable for sexual assaults on underaged children? In fact, in the case of the second assault, the court heard this occurred in January 2013 and he was 21 later that year, so he is splitting hairs. The alcohol issue is a classic red herring and no matter how much he dislikes it, adulthood is attained at age 18. All of this appears to be his desperate attempt to present himself as a child when the sex assaults occurred on the two young girls, and this means he has to make an absurd attempt to argue that a 20-year old is a child...
    (In 2022 he amended his Linkedin page: this is dealt with in [h] of Summary page.)

      In the case of the personal webpages, these included numerous personal photos of him and his giirlfriend. In view of the content, and the assertions made, I consider these were either produced by him or on his behalf. By November 2021, the website and pages had been removed with the note "Website Expired. This account has expired". This was surprising as Whois states the domain would not expire until July 2022.
    The statements included on the webpages (viewed on August 21, 2021) made various claims (for some reason these were written in the third person), and one statement asserted that anyone who considers an 18-year old to be an adult is a "moron". Once again, as with the Linkedin page, there is a ludicrous attempt to argue that someone who is actually an adult is not: in this case, someone who is 18 is presented as a child...
    The problem with this is that 18 is not only the age of majority/adulthood in Michigan, but in nearly every US State, and not only that, but in most countries of the Western world![6] However, 18 as the age of adulthood has no relevance whatsoever to his own conviction as he was not 18, but a 20 year old adult at the time of the offences. This, once again, is a red herring.
      The webpages also referred to the crime (in fact it was crimes) for which he was convicted, but the pages raised the question of whether this should be deemed a "crime" (in inverted commas, presumably for effect). They also made the statement that it was committed when Kangas was a teenager even though court documents, available on the internet,[4] show this to be absolutely false. Nonetheless, here there is an admission that he committed the crimes although the writer makes a futile attempt to lessen his guilt by making the false claim that he was a "teenager". I assume the attempt to portray Kangas as a teenager at the time of the offences is to present a Romeo and Juliet scenario. Moreover, presumably as it is realized the reader may know that Kangas was 28 when the webpages were written (2021), the pages assert the crime (in fact crimes) had occurred nearly ten years ago. This too is false as the second of the two offences occurred in 2013 - eight years previous, and not ten, so this attempt to create an image of him as a "teenager" - by falsifying chronology - also fails. It is noticeable that the statement omitted any mention of the girls' age: they were just 13...
    With regard to the webpages' reference to 'crime' (in the singular), he was actually charged with and convicted of two offences and there were two sentences because there were two 13-year old girls, and this is not only mentioned in the online appeal court record (see [4] below) but in the Michigan Public Sex Offenders Register entry for him (that refers to two counts).
    It is surely disturbing that the webpages claimed the child victims said the molestation was in their "interests" at the time: this is a vile and outrageous remark and even if it were true, they were only children and obviously unable to make such a judgement. They certainly said nothing of the sort during Kangas's trials in 2014, despite the opportunity to do so, if they had wanted to. In sum, the supposed defences offered for him in the webpages had the appearance of utter desperation. Nonetheless, this was an admission that he had sex with the children.
    It should be noted that the webpages questioned whether sex involving children should be unlawful and this also appears in Kangas's email of January 23, 2017, a copy of which is in [g] on this page.
      The rambling homily repeated the claim that a child cannot be a pedophile, but again, this is incorrect - see above and references [2], [3] and [5] below. It then condemned the imprisonment of teenagers for sex offences. Again, this has no bearing whatsoever on Kangas's case because the court records clearly show he was an adult of 20 years of age, and therefore not a "teenager".
    It should be noted that while the webpages protested about teenagers in prison (supposedly "thousands upon thousands") who "fill" the Sex Offender Registers, this conveniently overlooks that many US States have legislation that attempts to lessen the penalty for a teenager who has sex with another who is underaged. For example, if one teenager is underaged and the older one is not but is under 18, and their ages are within four years of each other, the older party will not be listed on the Register (an internet search for "Close in Age" or "Romeo and Juliet" legislation will yield more information). Nonetheless, such legislation would not have assisted Kangas because of (a)the fact he was not a teenager and (b)the seven-year age difference between himself and the two young girls. In fact many States have a higher age of consent than Michigan.

      The webpages also made a number of other claims:
    (i)Firstly, it was claimed that the MI Sex Offender Programming Director had declared Kangas is not a sexual predator. If the Director said this, then it is curious that Kangas remains on the MI Public Sex Offenders' Register. Referring to the purpose of the Register (Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act: SORNA), the US Dept. of Justice website says (my italics): "Sex offender registration and notification programs are important for public safety purposes. Sex offender registration is a system for monitoring and tracking sex offenders following their release into the community." Additionally, it would be interesting to see a written copy of this alleged declaration, as the very opposite was said by the State Prosecutor at Kangas's trial, i.e., Kangas was a predatory adult, preying on children:
"We are here in this courtroom this morning because of Keegan Kangas. An adult man, a sexual predator who targeted two 13 year old girls."[7]

    (ii)the webpages also said that Kangas's convictions would soon be 'reversed': naturally, there should be some explanation for this, but nothing was provided in the webpages about when or why such a 'reversal' should occur. Presumably the only way they could be 'reversed' are on appeal, and yet there is no mention of lodging an appeal or any grounds for doing so. Kangas has already made an appeal and an application to overturn that appeal decision, but both failed.[8] It is difficult to envisage any possible grounds for a "reversal" as: (a)the testimony of the two girls was accepted as truthful and accurate; (b)Kangas's interest in young girls was revealed in his trial when the Police testified that on February 9, 2013 Kangas was found late at night, under a blanket, with a 13-year old girl; (c)his Facebook account has messaging which confirms he had sex with the two 13-year old girls (furthermore, Kangas sent a Facebook message (January 10) to an acquaintance saying he was pursuing another underaged girl and was looking forward to "bedroom time" with her: this too was in 2013, when he became 21 years of age.)
    (iii)the webpages added the note that Kangas was paroled without there being any "advanced" conditions in respect of being a sex offender. It's unclear to what the "advanced" refers, but when he was released in December 2018, his MDOC page had a lengthy list of over thirty parole stipulations, so conditions were imposed on him: one was '1.2. Responsible adult present if with child 17 or under' and another was '1.5. Treatment program (sex offender) as approved by agent'.

      In the upshot, the author of the webpages needs to explain:
  (a)The grounds for claiming an 18-year old is a child. And why should this opinion outrank the opinion of the majority of the world's population who do consider that an 18-year old is an adult?
  (b)Why there is a repeated reference in the webpages to him being a child/teenager at the time of the offences when he was an adult of 20?
  (c)Why, during his incarceration he repeatedly denied his guilt, but the webpages admitted it (even though there were attempts to mask his age at the time of the offences)?

      What is pertinent here is that he pleaded 'not guilty' when prosecuted in 2014. Furthermore, while incarcerated he also repeatedly and categorically denied that he had sex with the two 13-year old girls (whom he accused of lying). But these pages, produced in 2021, acknowledged that he committed the crimes (even though they included absurd excuses and false/misleading information in an attempt to lessen the seriousness of the offences). This means that his many earlier denials were a lie (see [d] in this page for further examples of his lying). In view of his appalling track record, surely it is reasonable to question the validity of anything he says?
    (It also cannot pass unnoticed that the pages (apart from describing Kangas as "successful" and an "angel"), introduced preposterous smokescreens and red herrings, and adopted the same attitude that he had while incarcerated, i.e., making excuses, blaming others, making sweeping statements without corroboration, and distorting the facts...)

  The above relates to online statements included in webpages written by, or written on behalf of Kangas: the above is based on a reading of the pages on August 10 and 21, 2021. The content has been copied so there cannot be any attempt to deny what was stated therein.

* As the author of the pages seems to be confused about Kangas's age at the time of certain events, the following table may help:

   October 13, 1992
   End of 2012[i]
   Sex with K, a child of 13
   January 2013[ii]
   Sex with H, a child of 13
[i]Transcript of the trial of Keegan W. Kangas, Sault St. Marie, April 23, 2014. Vol 1/2 (p96).
[ii]Transcript of the trial of Keegan W. Kangas, Sault St. Marie, April 23, 2014. Vol 1/2 (p131).

For details of events in 2022-24, please see item [h] in Summary page

[1]What is Linkedin.
[2]WHO Green Book. See sect. F65.4 Paedophilia (pdf).
[3]'Pedophilia', Psychology Today.
Court of Appeals. People of the State of Michigan v Keegan William Kangas. December 8, 2015. No. 323088. Duplicate - Court of Appeals. People of the State of Michigan v Keegan William Kangas. December 8, 2015. No. 323088 (pdf) and Court of Appeals. People of the State of Michigan v Keegan William Kangas. December 8, 2015. No. 323088.
[5]e.g. 'When Kids Molest Kids' and 'Child-on-child sexual abuse': the latter includes a number of academic articles dealing with this issue. The article 'Pedophilia' also has academic articles listed in its references: see reference (5) in particular.
[6]e.g., "The "age of majority" - the age at which an individual is legally considered an adult - is 18 in most states, including Michigan" ('Michigan legal ages laws'): "For most purposes, you become an adult when you turn 18, an age established by The Age of Majority Act" (Michigan Gov): also 'Age of majority in Michigan' (pdf): 'MI raises age'.
[7]Transcript of the trial of Keegan W. Kangas, Sault St. Marie, April 24, 2014. Vol 2/2 (pp.3f)
[8]An appeal to the State of Michigan Court of Appeals was considered on December 8, 2015 and rejected.
Details here. An application for leave to appeal the December, 8 2015 Court of Appeals judgement was made to the Michigan Supreme Court: this was considered and rejected on May 24, 2016. Details here.

Written and compiled: December 2, 2021