Guest View
By Shivani
This is in response to K. R. Claviger’s post Why Weren’t Some Potential Witnesses Called By The Prosecution?
By the way, that photo of Clare Bronfman is bone chilling and freakish. I’ve never seen it before.
She looks demonic and it is as if it’s a mugshot in a bad movie kind of a facial expression, too.
Claviger mentioned – among those who could have been called as witnesses but were not called – Joe O’Hara – writing that he was a convicted felon.
Claviger wrote “which automatically means he would have no credibility” to testify for the prosecution in Raniere’s case.
Nancy and Lauren Salzman, Allison Mack and Clare Bronfman are convicted felons too.
From a variant point of view, here’s.another slate of reasons how come these goblins didn’t get to testify, with Lauren being the exception here.
1) Allison Mack: Mack would have had to come up as witness before so many other witnesses were called who crucified her during their testimony. She lost credibility as a potential witness by exactly what was exposed about her in court.
Also, as the trial progressed, additional input from more witnesses became unnecessary to convict Raniere, and it would have become too repetitive. You learn to get a feel for the jury and never risk losing any of them to oversaturation.
2) Clare Bronfman: She arranged or at least semi-arranged an “understanding” that she would not be testifying, probably as part of her plea deal and perhaps somewhat nebulously. Her ivory tower is going to crash later.
3) Nancy Salzman: She was seen coming and going as a clever swine of a woman. She was not only a buffoon trying to act like a qualified therapist/executive. Nancy Salzman handed her daughters’ lives over to Raniere, and the prosecution team was well aware of this. It’s very likely, especially after deposing Lauren Salzman, that the prosecutors would find it more expedient to do their work without a word from Nancy Salzman’s twisted mouth.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
I can’t wait to see what your sentences are. You people are sick, I hope the other prisoners abuse you like you abused the children..now that would be awesome
“Mack would have had to come up as witness before so many other witnesses were called who crucified her during their testimony. She lost credibility as a potential witness by exactly what was exposed about her in court.”
Who? there is 1 damning witness, another one is not even connected and except a couple of mentions by Lauren, she wasn’t cited by anyone but Vicente and he defended her.
An Lauren’s mention mostly discharge Allison.
That is not true, nothing said in court would have destroyed her credibility…only lies would.
It’s only because she could have given a context and support further the demonstration that she was a victim…There is no other Reason (atleast, none logical).
As was mentioned in your last report of why certain reasons people didn’t testify, you had said Toni Natalie had committed crimes that could be brought up in cross examination.
Are there more than the computer trespassing case that she and others took and a plea deal on?
Did her deal mean that after a certain time frame her & others records would be expunged of this crime as long as they didn’t break any other laws.
They weren’t found guilty but the charges were not just dropped.
I remember early on in the investigation that Moira Penza said that of the top leadership of NXIVM about half were criminals and the other half were witnesses to crimes who had never come forward until after Raniere was arrested.
When Mark Vicente is the best, most stable witness you have, you are in trouble.
Of course Penza had to work with the material she was given.
Calling these women “goblins” or “ghouls” is entirely appropriate.
They all have deep personality flaws.
Allison Mack’s photo shows a woman with a goofy smile who does not quite appreciate the trouble she’s in.
One has to wonder if Allison Mack lives in the real world.
And your description of Nancy Salzman as a clever swine and a buffoon is right on the mark.
There are reports that both Nancy and Clare Bronfman are planning to revive NXIVM.
I remember the words of Judge Art Vandelay from the last episode of “Seinfeld” but they are quite appropriate for these defendants.
“I don’t know where or how you people found each other but you clearly deserve each other.”
Here is Judge Art Vandelay’s lecture to the Seinfeld defendants which also applies to the NXIVM defendants.
The photo of Bronfman lays bare her madness.
She reminds me of Susan Atkins, aka Sadie Mae Glutz, even though there is no obvious resemblance. It’s the madness in the expression thats similar.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8f/97/84/8f9784745c8fe30c9c404ed3367f43f7.jpg
I think both of you are projecting what you know about Bronfman into her image. If you didn’t know who she was, the question would be – if she was smiling a little more to show her missing teeth, do you think she’s descended from her brother/mother or father/daughter, and is she from Arkansas or West Virginia?