This is Part 2 of Dani’s cross-examination by Keith Raniere’s defense attorney, Marc Agnifilo.
Part 1: Dani’s Cross Examination: Agnifilo Starts off With Fake ID Dani Made for Cami
After grilling Dani about her making a fake ID for her sister Cami, which Dani admits, Agnifilo queries her on her alleged episodes of stealing, as he works to impeach the witness in cross-examination.
During direct examination, the prosecution had introduced into evidence a so-called “Breach Plan” that Dani had written while she was confined to a room in Clifton Park. In this plan, she wrote that she had to pay back various stores, which suggests that she had then confessed to stealing from them.
Seizing on this, Agnifilo continues his questioning of Dani:
Q You had stolen many different things from many different people over the course of many years while you were in Clifton Park; isn’t that right?
A No, I don’t think that’s right.
Q No? So you stole the $6,000, right, you talked about that?
A Yes.
Q You stole from stores, didn’t you?
A I’m sorry, I don’t — I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Q Did you ever steal anything from a store in and around Clifton Park?
A I don’t remember.
Q You don’t remember?
A I don’t.
Q Did you steal things from people’s houses?
A I — as I said, I took money from Flintlock for food.
Q Okay. Other than Flintlock, did you ever steal anything from a house other than 3 Flintlock?
A No, not that I remember.
Q Okay. Did you ever steal a stereo from your brother Fluffy?
A No, not that I remember.
Q No? You are not saying no; you are just saying not that you remember?
A Yes.
Q You are not saying it didn’t happen?
A I don’t think it happened. I don’t remember it.
Q Did you steal from a Walmart?
A No, I don’t think so.
Q Did you steal from any store?
At this point, Moria Penza interrupted the questioning to speak to the judge:
PENZA: Your Honor, I just want to make sure — Your Honor, may we have a sidebar?
THE COURT: All right.
After the sidebar, they returned. Agnifilo continued to question Dani about stealing.
BY MR. AGNIFILO:
Q So let me ask you some specific questions.
A Okay.
Q Did you steal — you said you did not steal anything from a Walmart?
A No.
Q Is there a store called Arlene’s in the area of Clifton Park?
A I don’t know.
Q Marshals?
A That I do know, yes.
Q Did you steal from Marshals?
A No.
Q All right, I’m going to show you what — it’s already in evidence. It is Government Exhibit 907, page 109. This is — I think you reviewed this with Ms. Penza on direct examination?
A Yes.
Q … It was attached to a letter as part of a breach plan that you had sent to Keith if I’m not mistaken…. It says stores; it says: Pay back what taken, Hannaford, Walmart, Arlene’s, Marshals, and then it says Cohoes. You wrote this; right?
A Yeah, I think so, yes.
***
Q Why did you write it?
A I don’t remember. I mean, honestly, at that point, I was trying to, one, grasp what the ethical breach was and try to do everything I could to fix it, but I also was in a very kind of broken state, like a lot of things had already happened. And I don’t remember this in particular, so I will say that, but a lot of the things, even in this very list, are completely exaggerated, overblown things that I wanted to just make a grand thing. I did all this bad and now I’m going to do everything to fix it. Like a lot of the things on this list are like that. Perhaps that is some of it.
Q I just want to focus you on stores.
A Okay.
Q This is something you wrote and you decided to put an entry for stores; right?
A Yes.
Q And you then decided, next to stores, to put ‘pay back what taken,’ and then you mention a number of particular stores; right?
A Yes.
Q And why did you choose these stores?
A I don’t know.
Q Are you saying that you put them on the list but you didn’t take anything from those stores?
A That may be. I don’t remember.
Q You don’t remember?
A I don’t.
Q Do you remember writing this?
A I don’t.
Q No? You don’t deny that you wrote it?
A No, I’m pretty sure this is my writing and that’s my letter, yes.
Q You said that when your father and Kristin Keeffe … were taking you to Mexico, you stole money out of your dad’s wallet; right?
A Yes.
Q That’s in addition to the money he gave you; right?
A He hadn’t given me any money yet.
Q So you stole the money and then he gave you some extra money; correct?
A Again, it wasn’t extra and I didn’t keep what I had taken. I had given it back, yes.
Q Hadn’t your father and you had conversations in the past, before that time, about you stealing things?
A Yes.
Q And didn’t your father express disappointment with you over the fact that you had stolen things?
A Yes.
***
After eliciting this confession from Dani about her father’s disappointment about her stealing, Agnifilo plunged into another line of inquiry – starting with questions about Dani’s father.
Stay tuned for Part 3 of Dani’s cross-examination.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
[…] Part 2: Dani’s Cross Examination: Agnifilo Queries Dani on Her Alleged Stealing […]
This won’t work. All these women were having to make up stuff and clearly she wasn’t going round shop lifting all the time. It sounds like the FLDS where Warren jeffs would send people away until they repented, making them write often daily long letters setting out their wrong doings when most of the time they had done nothing wrong at all. In the end you have to start making things up. I bet scientology is the same.
Agnifilo is himself lying and exaggerating.
As Dani stated she had no clue what her ethical breach was so she was confessing to a multitude of made up sins to see if that would satisfy. Hell, she would have confessed to crucifying Jesus himself if that would satisfy Keith’s blood lust.
Unless you have been there, in a cult, and I have, you will not comprehend how they can pull a false confession from you.
You will do.most anything to get back in the good graces of the cult. Peer pressure works and works especially when your whole world, including your family, does not protect you and is paramount in pressuring you to please the leader.
We don’t know whether Dani made things up or not. She has admitted to having very sticky fingers.
🏐 🏐 🏐 STEAL THE VOLLEYBALL 🏐 🏐 🏐
I wonder what the FBI dog was trained to sniff out, see some of the later pictures here: https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Knox-Woods-suburban-development-and-unofficial-13925699.php#item-85307-tbla-20 Semen?
NXIVM was very good at getting people to write things that were not true but you wrote them to get them the f**k off your back. I know this from personal experience.
It was a way to set you up to come back and bite you in the ass just like KAR is attempting to bite Dani in the ass in cross-examination.
It also used to set the community against you if you were about to bail.
KAR and his merry gang of criminals used it to turn Dani parents against her.
False collateral, mayhaps?
Nothing Dani has said will impeach her previous testimony so far.
As a new court report stated a few days ago, Agnifilo is just going through the motions now. He knows that Keith is guilty and is just being an attorney for him to collect a big check from Clair.
Will this damage her credibility in the eyes of the jury?
This penny ante stuff– “did you steal a lipstick from Walmart”– is getting Agnifilo nowhere. I mean, really, she may or may not have shoplifted something once? And it can all be chalked down to Dani trying to come up with something to fix her so-called ethical breach and get everyone off her back.
The defense strategy is one of pure desperation at this point. I’d say it’d be best if Raniere just threw in the towel and changed his plea to guilty, but I want to learn this whole sordid story through to the end.
The strategy is to make her seem not credible—someone who can’t remember some things, yet somehow remembers clearly bad things that KAR did.