1. Is the implication that the lewd Aaron sent to Geno is NOT from Signal?
Lord only knows what she's ever trying to imply and it's just my inference from what she's saying, so YMMV. Based on Nick's ill-advised
recent DM leak with a veiled threat that he still has "all the fucking receipts," it would appear that he (or the throuple collectively) have the Signal chat archived. Coupling that with Keanu's revelation that Nick and April were going back and forth with Geanu for more and more detail about the photo precisely because there were "many that we think it could be, but we can't figure out which one it is," it stands to reason that they were taking Geanu's description of the photo and then cross-referencing that against an archive of the Signal chat's lewds in an attempt to pinpoint which particular one it was.
With Keanu adding in present tense that "[t]hey don't even know what the photo is...
they don't have it," it would appear that any such attempted cross-referencing against the Signal chat was ultimately unsuccessful, which would make sense if the photo was not in the Signal chat in the first place. She further adds that the reason for this search being unsuccessful was "because" Kayla posed for the photo taken by Aaron, which would not need to have ever made its way into the Signal chat for Aaron to have had it to send to Geno, and it could have been confined to his device until being forever lost when Geno deleted his copy and Aaron's copy wound up in a tragic boating accident.
That said, the biggest flaw to this theory is of course that the only attestation to the Signal chat actually being
fully archived is coming from Nick, with only a single partially redacted DM screenshot to corroborate his claim, so it's
possible that he was lying about having "
all the fucking receipts" and he instead only has fragments of the Signal chat, in which case the cross-referencing against Geanu's description may have only failed because the photo happened to be in some portion of the Signal chat that the throuple failed to archive. We may never know unless Aaron's attorney takes the opportunity to ask about it.
2. Does the State even know what pic it is?????????? Sounds like they may not know if the thruple was trying to figure it out.
No idea, and from Nick's tweet that you quoted it sounds like Kayla isn't getting much inside information from the state even from the standpoint of a victim that would tend to be kept in the loop
somewhat for purposes of preparing for her testimony, but Aaron would know for sure as a result of required disclosures from the state. Whether he told Keanu much about those disclosures is anyone's guess, but considering how she blabbed about plea terms that she could only have learned from him, it wouldn't be surprising if he also blabbed to her about a failure to produce the photo being the reason why she and Geno are getting dragged across state lines.
3. If Nick/Kayla/April don't know what photo it is and neither does the State, what's stopping Geanu from denying that there were nipples and genitals?
4. I know that Keanu (and Geno?) have confessed publicly that Kayla was fully naked... but what's stopping them from denying it on the stand? They can claim they wanted clicks and views and barely looked at the pic.
For all the court knows, Aaron sent Geno an AI image. Even Geno wouldn’t be able to say definitively that what he saw wasn’t an AI image.
Judging by Geno's statements in the
Judge Dodell interview, the reason they didn't simply recant is because Geno is under the mistaken impression that contradicting their prior unsworn statement to police would be a crime. I hate to agree with Ralph about anything but he had a great point elsewhere in Geanu's Killstream interview that although lying to the FBI is statutorily criminalized (as many laypersons have learned from events in national news over the past decade), that has led to an unfortunate common misconception that it's a crime to lie to police generally, whereas in reality it is typically only a crime to file a false police report and whether any other type of false statement to police is a crime would depend on the jurisdiction.
In this case, just going off the only conceivably pertinent statutes at Minn. Stat.
609.505,
609.506,
609.50, and
609.48, Minnesota is such a jurisdiction that would have been especially forgiving to Geanu had they simply recanted, and still would be should they choose to recant at any given time. Even if they were to wait until they're put under oath on the stand to say for the first time that it was all "just a comedy bit" and Aaron
actually sent Geno a photo of Brooke Candy, it's not at all clear that they could be realistically charged with perjury for that matter. How on earth could the state expect to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in the eyes of a unanimous jury that Geanu's May 2025 sworn testimony to the Brooke Candy photo was false and that some unsworn random babbling about a Kayla photo to Saint Cloud PD in a 2024 flustered cell phone call was actually the truth? Unless there is a forensically recovered photo showing the latter to have been true, which there doesn't appear to be, there would never be a prosecutable perjury case. Not a fucking chance. Geno's just a pussy for not recanting, pure and simple.
5. Is this an excuse for Aaron to try to get all the Signal lewds into evidence as some effort to show that it was a shit show? (Omg, please make it so.) I know... not likely... but hope springs eternal.
Even with the "reasonable expectation of privacy" element being a way to shoehorn ample evidence of exhibitionist proclivities
outside the Signal chat into the defense strategy as many have suggested, that defense likely wouldn't allow much of a deep dive into what Keanu says are "many" non-disseminated Signal lewds because three witnesses' testimony to the Signal chat having been categorically private would lessen the "many" non-disseminated Signal lewds' probative value and run into
Rule 403 objections about the prejudicial impact of victim-blaming, slut-shaming, etc. outweighing the low probative value.
Instead, an alternative path to cross-examination about the "many" non-disseminated Signal lewds would be their effect on challenging witnesses' credibility, which is virtually always fair game: if the throuple flat-out told police that the disseminated lewd was obtained from the Signal chat, and if Keanu's testimony plus Nick's and April's texts to Keanu give reason to believe that the disseminated lewd was not obtained from the Signal chat, then the inference that the throuple made a false report to police (itself a crime per
Minn. Stat. 609.505) would form a basis to attack their credibility in that regard. One way to pursue that could be a line of questioning going through an archive of all Signal lewds and asking, one by one, "is this Signal lewd the one that you told police was the one sent to Geno? No? Ok, what about this one? Not this one either? OK, this one then?" Lather, rinse, repeat until all of them are ruled out and the witness looks like a liar.
The biggest problem with this approach is that Aaron claims his tragic boating accident leaves him with no Signal chat archive that his attorney could have used to walk through with the witnesses on cross, so unless he decides to suddenly stumble upon a backup archive stashed on an external hard drive somewhere that he "forgot" about until now, the only option would be serving a subpoena duces tecum on each of the throuple members to obtain copies of any and all portions of the Signal chat that have been archived on their end. There's now a decent shot at that subpoena not being quashed only because Nick was
dumb enough to establish a record on Twitter of still having "all the fucking receipts" that Aaron would now have a right to use in his defense. Nothing would be funnier than to see Nick hoisted on his on petard in that way, but Aaron's attorney doesn't seem to be that aggressive and will likely run out of time. The time to try out such a subpoena would have to be right about now with only a couple months left for motion practice on inevitable attempts to quash it at most or bury it with protective order stipulations at least.
