[Editor’s Note: Julia K. Brennan has commented on a number of Frank Report stories – but has always done so anonymously. Recently, she contacted us and asked if she could write a post about her viewpoint of Keith Raniere’s arrest, trial and conviction – which, as you will find out, is quite different from that of most of our readers and most courtroom observers. In the interest of presenting all viewpoints on a topic, we’ve agreed to publish her post without any commentary or editing].
_______________________
By: Julia K. Brennan
I began following the saga of NXIVM and Keith Raniere when the Frank Report ran the first story about the branding part of the DOS regimen.
Since then, I have gone back and read all the earlier posts on the Frank Report – and hundreds of other related stories in newspapers and blogs from all over the world. I tend to get a little obsessed when I find a topic that interests me.
I originally got interested in the topic because as a feminist, I was shocked by the idea that women willingly allowed themselves to be branded with Raniere’s initials.
That just sounded insane to me, especially in this day and age.
But the more I read – and the deeper I dug into the topic – the more I began to wonder whether Raniere’s arrest, prosecution, and conviction were really justified.
My biggest concern is that Keith was arrested, tried and convicted because of people’s revulsion about the branding – which, of course, is not illegal in and of itself.
Why did the prosecution only offer him a plea deal that would have required him to spend the rest of his life in federal prison? Were they trying to achieve a just result – or were they forcing him to go to trial so they could show-off in front of the media covering the trial?
But I have lots of other concerns about the various events that led up to his conviction.
_______________________
Impetus for Investigation and Venue.
To begin with, it bothers me that the investigation into Keith and NXIVM was the result of a front-page story in The New York Times. When did we decide to give newspapers that much power? Do we really want newspapers deciding who should be investigated and charged with crimes?
I’m also concerned that the investigation and prosecution took place in Brooklyn, NY – when, in reality, almost all the alleged illegal activities took place in and around Albany, NY.
If there’s something wrong with the Department of Justice’s operation in the Northern District of New York, steps should be taken to address that problem.
Four of the original charges against him were dismissed because there was no jurisdictional basis whatsoever for them in Brooklyn. I think the same can be said for most, if not all, of the other charges.
Allowing prosecutors to initiate charges when there is no jurisdictional basis for those charges is a dangerous precedent.
It also means that defendants in such cases are not truly being tried by a jury of their peers but rather, as in this case, by a jury made up of people from an entirely different locale.
_______________________
Concerns About Pre-Trial Rulings
I find it disconcerting that virtually every pre-trial ruling by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis was in favor of the prosecution.
Were Keith’s attorneys so incompetent that were wrong on every issue that arose before the trial began?
First and foremost, why was Keith not allowed out on bail?
He didn’t really pose any threat to anyone – and per the proposed bail conditions, it was extremely unlikely that he would have been able to escape from the country.
Forcing Keith to defend himself from a jail cell almost 200 miles away from his home was inherently unfair. And keeping him locked up for more than a year in one of the worst prisons in the country only exacerbated the unfairness.
Why were all of his co-defendants given bail – and he wasn’t?
Why was the case designated as a “complex case” – which prevented the defendants from being able to go to trial within 70 days of their arrest?
Why was the prosecution allowed to drag its heels on turning over evidence to Keith’s attorneys?
Why was there no mention of the fact that Co-Conspirator #2 – who is believed to be India Oxenberg – was not prosecuted even though she participated in many of the same alleged illegal activities as Lauren Salzman and Allison Mack?
Why was the prosecution allowed to utilize evidence that was not listed on the original search warrant for the 8 Hale Drive property? The prosecution went back – after the material was discovered – and got a second search warrant that included it.
Why did the court allow the trial date to be pushed back several times? By the time the trial actually started, Keith had been incarnated for more than a year.
Why did the court deny all of the other defendants’ requests to sever their trials from Keith’s trial, thereby forcing them to accept plea deals – and, in some cases, to agree to testify against him – in order to avoid being tried with him?
Why did the court deny Keith’s request to have his witnesses be guaranteed “safe passage” by the prosecution – or, in the alternative, to be allowed to appear via closed-circuit TV?
_______________________
Concerns About Trial
As bad as all the pre-trial proceedings were, the trial was even more one-sided.
All of the prosecution’s witnesses who were deemed to be “victims” were only identified by their first names – thereby giving them a different status than other witnesses. By contrast, the alleged victims who appeared at Jeffrey Epstein’s bail hearing last week testified under their full names – and were even photographed coming into and out of court.
Keith’s lead attorney, Marc Agnifilo, was stopped from finishing his cross-examination of Lauren Salzman – and was ordered to “Sit down!” by the judge in front of the jury.
The prosecution was allowed to introduce a good deal of evidence that had nothing to do with any of the seven charges against Keith – much of which was highly embarrassing to him. At one point, the entire courtroom was engulfed with laughter over a derogatory comment that was read aloud about Keith’s Erectile Dysfunction problem.
No real evidence was introduced to support the charges of sex trafficking and forced labor – but those charges were not dismissed after the prosecution had rested its case. Nicole had admitted to having fantasies about forced sex and most of the “forced labor” in question really amounted to nothing more than favors from one woman to another.
The prosecution was allowed to gloss over several key facts:
(a) That participation in DOS was entirely voluntarily.
(b) That all of the women who chose to join DOS were adults and that most of them were at least 24-years-old when they joined.
(c) That anyone who gave first collateral could have left once they found out what being a member entailed. Only those who chose to join had to provide additional collateral. So anyone who joined DOS had to give collateral a second time – voluntarily.
(d) That no collateral was ever released – not even for someone who went public about DOS, like Sarah Edmondson.
The jury never really deliberated in this case. According to some reports, they spent more time putting together their lunch orders than they did talking about whether the prosecution had proved every charged and alleged offense “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
In effect, the jury in this case participated in what amounts to a “reverse jury nullification”. They were so repulsed by the prosecution’s unfair presentation concerning Keith Raniere’s immorality that they did not deliberate. They decided to find him guilty of crimes he didn’t commit.
I don’t blame the jury. The blame goes to the judge who allowed cumulative evidence to come before the jury, evidence meant to inflame the jury, while at the same time allowing the prosecution to intimidate potential defense witnesses.
I heard that one possible witness for Raniere, Sahajo Haertel, was issued a subpoena by the prosecution just for showing up in court to witness the trial.
_______________________
The Trial Reeked of Injustice
As a feminist, I find it appalling that the prosecution resorted to such tactics in order to convince a jury that Keith did bad things to a group of women who chose to participate in those very things.
If a woman wants to be part of a harem, she doesn’t need permission to do so.
If a woman wants to get branded, she doesn’t need permission to do so.
If a woman wants to be a bad-ass woman, she doesn’t need permission to do so. Even if she wants to join a society that calls her a slave in order to become a badass woman – as counter-intuitive as that is – she doesn’t need the DOJ’s permission.
And she cannot rescind her consent retroactively – which is what this whole trial was about – retroactive withdrawal of consent.
I also find it offensive that the whole trial served to make women seem like infants. The men used their full names but the women, like baby Nicole, the ultimate whining crybaby, the devious and calculating Daniela, the muddle-brained Sylvie, who agreed, after all, to do everything she did – even not have sex with her husband and send Raniere nude photos – [she was over 30 for Godsakes] and the loudmouth Jaye, who talks tough so long as she can hide behind her anonymity. These are not brave women. They were dunces and fools sure but they volunteered to do everything they did.
In the end, the prosecution put words in their mouths. They consented to everything they did. Then they were told to cry on cue and say they were coerced. And using only their first names, they mouthed whatever they were coached to say.
Imagine the specter of a trial where half the women’s names were first names only and half were both first and last names.
Do you understand the injustice here? The bad women – Allison Mack, Rosa Laura Junco, Clare Bronfman, Daniela Padilla, etc. – their first and last names were used.
The good women – the “victims” [some of whom did as much as some of the other women] were referred to only by their first names. The entire farce was played out before the jury who could think nothing other than “one name good, two names bad.”
On top of that, the semi-sequestering of the jury, making them feel they might be in danger, had to weigh on them leading them at least subconsciously toward a presumption of guilt.
I don’t condone what Keith Raniere did. But I despise what was done to him – and the women.
The making of women into babies and railroading a man into prison for, in effect, daring to take women at their word – that they are adults. When clearly they weren’t.
If ever a case is ripe for appeal, it is the case of Keith Raniere.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
I say bring back the practice of shunning and isolate feminists like this one.
Is tbis woman freaking deluded?
Figures she titles herself a feminist.
So called feminists helped smuggle into the country and groom under age girls, girls mind you, for Keith’s sexual pleasure.
Yep, figures you think this way.
Lady, you have a warped sense of morals. I’d be afraid to have you around small children.
Frank, stop printing trash like this just to poke the bear.
Julia,
Sex trafficking occurs when someone uses force, fraud or coercion to cause a commercial sex act with an adult or causes a child to commit a commercial sex act.
Raniere happened to be his own middle man (supplier) and client(consumer).
Raniere used coercion, fraud, and the Nxivm enterprise to have sexual relations with the victims.
What do you not understand?
It’s sex trafficking and falls within RICO.
[Editor’s Note: Julia K. Brennan has commented on a number of Frank Report stories – but has always done so anonymously. Recently, she contacted us and asked if she could write a post about her viewpoint of Keith Raniere’s arrest, trial and conviction – which, as you will find out, is quite different from that of most of our readers and most courtroom observers. In the interest of presenting all viewpoints on a topic, we’ve agreed to publish her post without any commentary or editing]. — It sure would be helpful to know which Anonymous comments Julia has made, but Julia has a lot of company on this website. I just treat everybody who doesn’t use their real name or a trackable fake name the same that they deserve, as complete and total idiots.
By: Julia K. Brennan — Now that we know your “name,” is it real or fake?
I began following the saga of NXIVM and Keith Raniere when the Frank Report ran the first story about the branding part of the DOS regimen. — That means you’re not a “newby” to this site and should have a clue about what’s going on.
Since then, I have gone back and read all the earlier posts on the Frank Report – and hundreds of other related stories in newspapers and blogs from all over the world. I tend to get a little obsessed when I find a topic that interests me. — That means you should be extremely familiar with all relevant details of the NXIVM saga.
I originally got interested in the topic because as a feminist, I was shocked by the idea that women willingly allowed themselves to be branded with Raniere’s initials. — Why not be shocked because you’re a woman or a human being?
That just sounded insane to me, especially in this day and age. — Do you consider these brands to be insane as well? https://www.google.com/search?q=black+fraternity+branding&oq=black+frate&aqs=chrome.3.0j69i57j0l4.11575j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
But the more I read – and the deeper I dug into the topic – the more I began to wonder whether Raniere’s arrest, prosecution, and conviction were really justified. — I suggest you stop reading and start thinking, as it will become obvious below.
My biggest concern is that Keith was arrested, tried and convicted because of people’s revulsion about the branding – which, of course, is not illegal in and of itself. — Your concern is unfounded, the branding alone has nothing to do with Raniere, it was because of the blackmail associated with the “branding.”
Why did the prosecution only offer him a plea deal that would have required him to spend the rest of his life in federal prison? Were they trying to achieve a just result – or were they forcing him to go to trial so they could show-off in front of the media covering the trial? — Because they had all the evidence they needed to convicted him. They were giving him a chance to not completely embarrass himself in open court and save the taxpayers some money, but he wasn’t interested, because he’s an idiot.
But I have lots of other concerns about the various events that led up to his conviction. — I’m sure you do, and most are unfounded.
_______________________
Impetus for Investigation and Venue.
To begin with, it bothers me that the investigation into Keith and NXIVM was the result of a front-page story in The New York Times. When did we decide to give newspapers that much power? Do we really want newspapers deciding who should be investigated and charged with crimes? — It’s called the First Amendment freedom of the press. It was designed specifically to keep the government in check and make them do their job. It’s amazing you don’t understand and appreciate that wisdom from our Founding Fathers. Are you a millennial or younger? Don’t they teach the Constitution any longer?
New York Times Branding Story
I’m also concerned that the investigation and prosecution took place in Brooklyn, NY – when, in reality, almost all the alleged illegal activities took place in and around Albany, NY. — The NDNY had dropped the ball for several years and crimes were committed in EDNY. Hopefully the NDNY will go after Raniere and others as well in order to recover a bit of legitimacy.
If there’s something wrong with the Department of Justice’s operation in the Northern District of New York, steps should be taken to address that problem. — I agree, but that’s no reason to let Raniere commit crimes.
Four of the original charges against him were dismissed because there was no jurisdictional basis whatsoever for them in Brooklyn. I think the same can be said for most, if not all, of the other charges. — The EDNY already knew that and gave Raniere the option of keeping the charges in the EDNY or move them to the NDNY. The charges were MOVED to the NDNY, not dismissed completely.
Allowing prosecutors to initiate charges when there is no jurisdictional basis for those charges is a dangerous precedent. — No, it isn’t. It happens all the time. It was particularly appropriate in this case, as the NDNY had dropped the ball for several years and it was good for the EDNY to put pressure on them to do something for a change.
It also means that defendants in such cases are not truly being tried by a jury of their peers but rather, as in this case, by a jury made up of people from an entirely different locale. — Trials are moved outside of the local jurisdiction all of the time, especially when the locals know about the story and could be biased. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Raniere asking for a trial outside of the Albany area for that reason.
Concerns About Pre-Trial Rulings
I find it disconcerting that virtually every pre-trial ruling by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis was in favor of the prosecution. — That’s beause they made valid legal points and the defense didn’t.
Were Keith’s attorneys so incompetent that were wrong on every issue that arose before the trial began? — No, they were dealt a bad hand.
First and foremost, why was Keith not allowed out on bail? — As the judge explaind multiple times, he was a flight risk and a danger to others, based on previous behavior.
He didn’t really pose any threat to anyone – and per the proposed bail conditions, it was extremely unlikely that he would have been able to escape from the country. — Raniere knows lots of people in low places, as evidenced by the numerous lawsuits over the years.
Forcing Keith to defend himself from a jail cell almost 200 miles away from his home was inherently unfair. And keeping him locked up for more than a year in one of the worst prisons in the country only exacerbated the unfairness. — If the jail cell were next door to where Raniere lived, it wouldn’t have mattered. Jeffrey Epstein is getting the same treatment, that’s what happens when someone breaks laws.
Why were all of his co-defendants given bail – and he wasn’t? — Because none of them fled the country, they put up their own money or someone close to them did (Raniere has no money and no real relationships), and none of them led NXIVM.
Why was the case designated as a “complex case” – which prevented the defendants from being able to go to trial within 70 days of their arrest? — Because there were a lot of intricate details to analyze, they found new charges as they progressed, and the FBI/DOJ wasn’t getting any cooperation from any of the codefendants for several months.
Why was the prosecution allowed to drag its heels on turning over evidence to Keith’s attorneys? — Because the defense refused to give up evidence the DOJ needed to perform a full analysis. It’s not as if Raniere wasn’t aware of what they had.
Why was there no mention of the fact that Co-Conspirator #2 – who is believed to be India Oxenberg – was not prosecuted even though she participated in many of the same alleged illegal activities as Lauren Salzman and Allison Mack? — Maybe she made a deal, maybe they couldn’t find enough evidence, maybe she’ll be prosecuted later.
India Oxenberg
Why was the prosecution allowed to utilize evidence that was not listed on the original search warrant for the 8 Hale Drive property? The prosecution went back – after the material was discovered – and got a second search warrant that included it. — Because they found it during the first search, and that’s legal, as it is to have a second search warrant issued.
Why did the court allow the trial date to be pushed back several times? By the time the trial actually started, Keith had been incarnated for more than a year. — The trial date was pushed back because the FBI/DOJ found additional evidence to make additional charges and the case was determined by the judge to be complex.
Why did the court deny all of the other defendants’ requests to sever their trials from Keith’s trial, thereby forcing them to accept plea deals – and, in some cases, to agree to testify against him – in order to avoid being tried with him? — Because RICO cases are normally held as one trial, that’s the nature of rackets, it’s people working together to commit crimes and makes more sense to hold one trial. Nobody was forced to make a plea deal, it was their decisions based on the evidence. Testifying against Raniere was intended to try to get a lesser sentence, it’s done all the time.
Why did the court deny Keith’s request to have his witnesses be guaranteed “safe passage” by the prosecution – or, in the alternative, to be allowed to appear via closed-circuit TV? — Because that would have been highly unusual and unfair to the prosection. Witnesses who aren’t concerned about being honest and held accountable for lying are not good witnesses.
Concerns About Trial
As bad as all the pre-trial proceedings were, the trial was even more one-sided. — It wasn’t bad at all.
All of the prosecution’s witnesses who were deemed to be “victims” were only identified by their first names – thereby giving them a different status than other witnesses. By contrast, the alleged victims who appeared at Jeffrey Epstein’s bail hearing last week testified under their full names – and were even photographed coming into and out of court. — I’m not a big fan of using the first names only, but it is often done with sex related cases.
Keith’s lead attorney, Marc Agnifilo, was stopped from finishing his cross-examination of Lauren Salzman – and was ordered to “Sit down!” by the judge in front of the jury. — The judge really screwed up this one, but it probably won’t be enough to overturn the decision on appeal.
The prosecution was allowed to introduce a good deal of evidence that had nothing to do with any of the seven charges against Keith – much of which was highly embarrassing to him. At one point, the entire courtroom was engulfed with laughter over a derogatory comment that was read aloud about Keith’s Erectile Dysfunction problem. — It’s called context, it’s important to intorduce that evidence in order to shut down the defense to any hope of a recovery. This entire case was highly embarrassing to Raniere, and that is entirely appropriate, as he’s a disgrace to the human race.
No real evidence was introduced to support the charges of sex trafficking and forced labor – but those charges were not dismissed after the prosecution had rested its case. Nicole had admitted to having fantasies about forced sex and most of the “forced labor” in question really amounted to nothing more than favors from one woman to another. — Bringing in underage illegal aliens from Mexico, f*cking them and paying them little to nothing to work, such as writing book reports for Raniere, cleaning his filthy household, etc., is sex trafficking and forced labor. If the defense thought otherwise, they would have raised that objection. They didn’t.
The prosecution was allowed to gloss over several key facts:
(a) That participation in DOS was entirely voluntarily.
(b) That all of the women who chose to join DOS were adults and that most of them were at least 24-years-old when they joined.
(c) That anyone who gave first collateral could have left once they found out what being a member entailed. Only those who chose to join had to provide additional collateral. So anyone who joined DOS had to give collateral a second time – voluntarily.
(d) That no collateral was ever released – not even for someone who went public about DOS, like Sarah Edmondson. — (a) DOS was based on blackmail (collateral), that is not voluntary. (b) Blackmailing adults is still illegal (c) They could leave, but they were concerned about the blackmail be released (d) It makes no difference whether the blackmail was released, it’s still illegal.
The jury never really deliberated in this case. According to some reports, they spent more time putting together their lunch orders than they did talking about whether the prosecution had proved every charged and alleged offense “beyond a reasonable doubt”. — Juries normally take an initial vote, and apparently everyone thought he was guilty from the git-go, so all they had to do was go through the formalities of documenting their decisiopn, eat lunch, and come back to court with a guilty verdict. It was a slam dunk, there was no defense offered. How long does it take to talk about a creep?
In effect, the jury in this case participated in what amounts to a “reverse jury nullification”. They were so repulsed by the prosecution’s unfair presentation concerning Keith Raniere’s immorality that they did not deliberate. They decided to find him guilty of crimes he didn’t commit. — I agree about the reverse jury nullification, I made that point soon after the verdict came out on this website. However, there was nothing “unfair” about how the prosecution presented their case, the defense could have rebutted it, but didn’t. Which crimes do you think Raniere didn’t commit?
I don’t blame the jury. The blame goes to the judge who allowed cumulative evidence to come before the jury, evidence meant to inflame the jury, while at the same time allowing the prosecution to intimidate potential defense witnesses. — The defense could have objected to the evidence being presented and/or put on their own case, but didn’t. Saving tax dollars by delivering subpoenas in court is okay with me. If you think that’s intimidating, that is nothing compared to what they would have experienced on the potential defense witnesses would have experienced on the witness stand.
I heard that one possible witness for Raniere, Sahajo Haertel, was issued a subpoena by the prosecution just for showing up in court to witness the trial. — See above.
The Trial Reeked of Injustice
As a feminist, I find it appalling that the prosecution resorted to such tactics in order to convince a jury that Keith did bad things to a group of women who chose to participate in those very things. — As an anti-feminazi, I find it delicious justice, and the women didn’t choose to participate when there was blackmail hanging over their heads.
If a woman wants to be part of a harem, she doesn’t need permission to do so. — Nobody said she does need permission, but that’s not what happened, it was blackmail.
If a woman wants to get branded, she doesn’t need permission to do so. — Nobody said she does need permission, but that’s not what happened, it was blackmail.
If a woman wants to be a bad-ass woman, she doesn’t need permission to do so. Even if she wants to join a society that calls her a slave in order to become a badass woman – as counter-intuitive as that is – she doesn’t need the DOJ’s permission. — Nobody said she does need permission, but that’s not what happened, it was blackmail.
And she cannot rescind her consent retroactively – which is what this whole trial was about – retroactive withdrawal of consent. — She can rescind her blackmailed consent at any time. THAT is what this whole trial was about.
I also find it offensive that the whole trial served to make women seem like infants. The men used their full names but the women, like baby Nicole, the ultimate whining crybaby, the devious and calculating Daniela, the muddle-brained Sylvie, who agreed, after all, to do everything she did – even not have sex with her husband and send Raniere nude photos – [she was over 30 for Godsakes] and the loudmouth Jaye, who talks tough so long as she can hide behind her anonymity. These are not brave women. They were dunces and fools sure but they volunteered to do everything they did. — There were many men who were also made to look like infants, the biggest baby being Raniere. It’s common to not use the real name or last name for victims in sex related cases. All of your personal attacks on these women are meaningless.
In the end, the prosecution put words in their mouths. They consented to everything they did. Then they were told to cry on cue and say they were coerced. And using only their first names, they mouthed whatever they were coached to say. — All the prosecution did was ask them to tell their story under oath, and blackmail consent is not true consent.
Imagine the specter of a trial where half the women’s names were first names only and half were both first and last names. — It’s not hard to imagine, it’s done all the time.
Do you understand the injustice here? The bad women – Allison Mack, Rosa Laura Junco, Clare Bronfman, Daniela Padilla, etc. – their first and last names were used. — No, because there is no injustice. Perps deserve for their last, and middle, names to be used.
The good women – the “victims” [some of whom did as much as some of the other women] were referred to only by their first names. The entire farce was played out before the jury who could think nothing other than “one name good, two names bad.” — There are no “good women” in the NXIVM story, just women who did some good things and some bad things.
On top of that, the semi-sequestering of the jury, making them feel they might be in danger, had to weigh on them leading them at least subconsciously toward a presumption of guilt. — It was the past lawsuits and other threats that led to the jury being kept private, it’s totally Raniere’s fault.
I don’t condone what Keith Raniere did. But I despise what was done to him – and the women. — Raniere deserved everything that was done to him, and more.
The making of women into babies and railroading a man into prison for, in effect, daring to take women at their word – that they are adults. When clearly they weren’t. — There were a lot of babies in this story, and Raniere had every opportunity to offer a defense and didn’t. There was a lot of written evidence offered, including emails, texts, videos, etc., so it wasn’t just “their word.”
If ever a case is ripe for appeal, it is the case of Keith Raniere. — Good luck with an appeal, although I wouldn’t mind dragging Raniere through the mud a second time. I’m sure the prosecution missed some opportunities and probably knows more now than they did during the trial.
How to spot a cult sympathizer:
” That poor 12-year-old he molested.”
No mention.
“That poor 15-year-old he molested.”
No mention.
” That poor girl he locked in a room for 2 years.”
No mention.
“Thank God they got him. He was trolling for more kids (the virgins)
No mention.
Very, very dangerous group think…..
I believe if NXIVM DOS were fully and fairly examined it would be shown to be not only Raniere’s harem but also a BDSM cult catering to the women of NXIVM.
And I believe that the trial should have been held in Albany New York in the NDNY where the vast majority of NXIVM’s crimes occurred.
And I believe that Judge Geraufis should have rescheduled the testimony of Lauren Salzman for the next day rather than ending it abruptly.
All that said Keith Raniere is a uniquely unappealing person and our society still is not ready to accept polyamory or polygamy even if the parties are consenting.
And our society still has an apparent bias towards accepting women as victims even when they are predators as well.
Watch your spellcheck. You wrote polygamy. When you rape 12 year olds, then 15 year olds, then put out the feelers for virgin snowwhites, that’s psychopath. Not polygamy.
Are you a plant?
Actually, it’s statutory rape. Being a psychopath is not illegal, statutory rape is illegal.
It might have escaped your notice but Raniere’s alleged pedophilia occurred in the NDNY, near Albany.
Here is what I wrote”
“And I believe that the trial should have been held in Albany New York in the NDNY where the vast majority of NXIVM’s crimes occurred.”
Raniere was not tried for the alleged pedophilia that occurred in the NDNY near Albany.
The Judge ruled that the pedophilia cases should be tried near Albany where they happened.
Do you believe Raniere should be punished before he’s given a fair trial in the proper venue?
Are you a fool?
I believe Raniere should be punished wherever he committed crimes, and if the NDNY is compromised and/or incompetent, then the EDNY should punish him.
Why would the writer of this piece, if the writer has been watching as a spectator and from an uninvolved distance, even know the name, Sahajo Haertel – a person who has little or no name recognition to people who’ve watched this saga at a “distance”? Perhaps it indicates nothing much, but it is not typical. The only reason that I remember Sahajo’s name is because I’ve lived in India, have studied some Sanskrit, know the meaning of the word “sahajo” and love the word. (Sahajo is what we call “spontaneity” in English.)
Also, why would someone show scorn regarding any weeping or pain evinced by witnesses during their testimony? The writer implies that the feelings of those who testified were manufactured via coaching by the prosecution. Come off it. Simply visit any prosecution office and speak to someone who works as a victim advocate. It will be very eye-opening.
Very, very often it takes quite a gathering of inner courage to testify, as well as to reopen one’s scars. It can take a considersnle toll on witnesses.
I don’t find that a proponent of feminism, if it is perceived as a movement to help women, would decide to be uncompassionate, unable or perhaps unwilling, to feel and to respect the pain and sorrow expressed by others, particularly those who have been harmed. This would be the opposite of feminism to me.
And I watched a different trial, evidently. My notebooks contain the evidence presented in court which led to a swift verdict of guilt on all charges. We really do choose what we see.
*considerable*
Keith was not allowed on bail because there are a dozen females that are negatively affected by him, and for their emotional recovery, complete physical withdrawal from Keith is necessary. This makes him a person that should be jailed for the public safety.
If Keith Raniere’s conviction was unfair he is free to take legal action and appeal through his lawyers. The money for his appeal ($100k) will somehow come out of nowhere, as will the money for his lawyers filing the appeal. Then Vangone realizes how long the legal process is. It takes time. But then Vangone can deal with it so that he doesn’t get bored in prison.
Julia asks:
Why was Keith not allowed out on BAIL?
Answer: Because he FLED THE USA to Mexico and was apprehended while HIDING out in Mexico, accompanied by four sex slaves.
Keith also refused to cooperate with American immigration authorities and wouldn’t consent to coming back voluntarily, after he was caught. The Mexican government had to FORCIBLY DEPORT him, which shows his intention to flee the indictment.
Also… Keith was hiding 500 miles away from his newborn baby, who was living in a different part of Mexico.
Therefore Keith’s ‘excuse’ (that he was living in Mexico to be with his newborn baby) was determined by the court to be a scam, LOL.
Duh, Julia.
Guess what?
If you run away to a foreign land to avoid a looming indictment, you don’t get the presumption of being trustworthy enough to attend future court hearings.
Plus Keith was facing LIFE in prison, which is a strong motivator to flee.
=============
Julia asks:
Why was Allison Mack granted bail, since she was also facing life in prison?
Answer: Because Allison Mack had family members who put up their lifelong family home for bail, plus she put up her own retirement account (which is the last remaining money she has). Her family is not rich like Clare. If they lose their home it’s a big deal.
That creates a strong motivation NOT to flee, since she’d be bankrupting her parents and losing her own retirement savings.
Also… Allison Mack was granted bail while undergoing plea deal talks with the prosecutor (which made the prosecutor not oppose her bail motion, unlike Keith).
Whereas Keith had no family member’s put up anything of sentimental value.
Keith had no reason to show up in court since Clare’s $10 million bail package was meaningless, since Keith had already lost $60 million of Bronfman cash in the commodity market (and it didn’t even make a dent in their lavish wealth).
Get a clue, Julia. Stop pretending to be a feminist. You’re likely a closet NXIVM sycophant.
If you wanna know what a REAL feminist (feminazi) looks like, look no further then the looney cat lady from Vancouver (Flowers). She’s a feminist. You’re not. 🙂
==============
Julia asks:
Why was Keith convicted? Was it society’s taboo against branding?
Answer: Nope.
Keith held BLACKMAIL material over his sex slaves, dummy.
Julia, would you think it okay for your daughters or nieces to have Keith hold blackmail material over their heads while demanding they comply with being his slave?
No?
Then why the fuck are you acting so surprised about Keith’s conviction?
It’s illegal to hold blackmail material over anybody’s head for any reason, even if they hand over the blackmail material themselves.
Why?
…Because it makes it impossible for them to CHANGE THEIR MINDS and WALK AWAY in the future (for fear that the blackmail material may be released). It takes away their future ‘consent’.
Keith also used the initial blackmail material to DEMAND MORE BLACKMAIL MATERIAL every month, thus ensuring that they couldn’t ever change their minds (without fearing that their lives would be publicly ruined).
It doesn’t matter if he never releases the blackmail material, it’s the THREAT of releasing it that gives a blackmailer their power.
Duh, Julia. 🙂
What drugs are you on? Keith is among the worst humans to ever live on this planet! He should be ritualistically kicked in the balls for days.
I suspect Raniere was held in pretrial detention because 1) he fled from the country when he learned of the investigation and tried to make himself unavailable; and 2) When arrested he claimed to be almost indigent, so he could not later put up bond money in his own name. Thus, he would have no skin in the game to forfeit bond put up by others.
I think he shot himself in the foot there. If not for that, and his possible efforts to intimidate witnesses, I would have expected him to be under house arrest like the others. After all, they gave Clare house arrest, and she clearly could have posed a flight risk with her money.
In the interest of full disclosure, how much did Clare Bronfman pay you to share your fantasy about the crimes and punishment of Keith Raniere?
Dear Julia,
I’ll bet you can “fix” Keith! I encourage you to get on his visitors list. You very well may be “the chosen one” that Keith has searched for to have yet another avatar baby. I just hope that you are under 100lbs and don’t like garlic.
I’m OK that the New York Times article spurred law enforcement to action. The media does it’s job when it truthfully exposes abuses. FrankReport exposed these abuses first. If FrankReport had the reach of the NYT, it might have been Frank that spurred law enforcement to action. I would have been fine with that too.
Ms. Brennan, you say “Nicole had admitted to having fantasies about forced sex.” Fantasies and real life are two different things. Many women have fantasies that they would never ever want to happen in real life. Perhaps a predatory man like Kieth would somehow not understand that, but I would think another woman would understand Nicole’s terror.
You call Nicole “ultimate whining crybaby.”
Crying is a healthy release of emotion. Are you the kind of “feminist” who wants women to be like men? Or perhaps you feel, as Keith Raniere probably does, that crying in response to a painful memory is attention seeking and prideful.
I understand a feminist not wanting to see women be infantalized, I really do. But in this case, blackmail is blackmail, and victims are victims. You say the prosecution made these women into babies. Even under first names only, I say it took real courage for these women to bare their souls in testimony. However, I’m sure Keith would agree with you that a bunch of devious, calculating, whining, crybaby women took the great Vanguard down.
Dianne – Well put.
“Fantasies and real life are two different things. Many women have fantasies that they would never ever want to happen in real life.”
And women can choose the man in their fantasy. There is no choice when it happens for real.
Interesting view. Honesty about one’s self is probably a necessity to composing an opinion piece. First two items that struck me were the Libertarian objection by a self-proclaimed Feminist. Interesting!
The other affronts to fairness and process regarding bail and jurisdiction I believe point to two sets of facts. First, he was apprehended in a foreign country and reasonable likelihood of witness tampering prior to trial if given bail. Second, the home district had a persistent conflict of interest as they had previous experience assisting prosecuting the victims of NXVIM. Fair reason to pass the case to another jurisdictions, even if just for appearance.
Interesting that a feminist libertarian would object to a free press exercising its right to write about female teenagers getting conned into having sex with a 50-year-old man to improve human existence before its too late and he dies.
Interesting!
You held to a relatively reasonable tone until you got here and started name-calling…
“the women, like baby Nicole, the ultimate whining crybaby, the devious and calculating Daniela, the muddle-brained Sylvie, who agreed, after all, to do everything she did – even not have sex with her husband and send Raniere nude photos – [she was over 30 for Godsakes] and the loudmouth Jaye, who talks tough so long as she can hide behind her anonymity.”
Suggest you get another EM and try again under another alias. Then I’ll put more effort into refuting your statements.
Dear Julia K. Brennan,
I would bet any amount of money that you have been in correspondence with Mr. Keith Raniere.
Keith Raniere had sex with a underage teenager, whom he manipulated, which is an indisputable fact.
Julia, Keith Raniere will only bring you heartache and misery. He cares for no one except himself.
Look at Barbara Bouchey who still believes that there is some good in Keith Raniere.
You are a moth drawn to the flame or s lemming running to the sea….
…..I hope you enjoy the Shakespearean sting.
” Oh death where is thy sting”
I have not been in touch with Keith and have actually never met him. And if he did have sex with underage girls, then he should prosecuted for each of those crimes, provided the statute of limitations has not run out. But I don’t think he should be convicted on one set of charges simply because he did other illegal things.
Julia,
I get where you are coming from. You feel Raniere was railroaded because of the sensationalist NYtimes article.
If you have read all the articles on Frankreport and been following the criminal trial like you claim….
….I do not think anyone will be able to persuade you from your beliefs. At the same time you will find a tidal wave of resistance to your ideas and unique perspective.
At the end of the day the law is a man made construct. The law is imperfect and is applied in a subjective way.
A law just like a passage from the Bible is open to interpretation.
Individual perspective differs from individual to individual.
Julia you are going to be ruthlessly attacked as you have found no doubt for your beliefs. Take the vicious name calling with a grain of salt. They hate your defense of Raniere not you personally. You have not committed any crimes.
I don’t have the time to have an intelligent discourse regarding the Raniere trial but maybe AnnoyMaker does. Seriously!
*****
Now, not cut hairs, but……
The others irrefutable evidence besides the video of the young girl…. involved identity theft and tax evasion….
Raniere just like Al Capone claimed to have no income. Raniere was the sole beneficiary and executor of a multimillion dollar inheritance.
To be fair, Raniere needs to be held accountable for what he did do. He lied, misled, used, manipulated and conspired with others to coerce (blackmail) women.
The trial may have been slanted in favor of the prosecution but that does not mean Raniere is innocent of all charges.
I agree with your conclusion that Keith should be held accountable for any illegal acts he committed. But in this trial, the prosecution spent most of its time and effort muddying him up with evidence and testimony that had little to do with the pending charges against him. And the jury went along with this charade by convicting him on all those charges without giving any real thought as to whether the prosecution had proven his guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
I hear what you are saying and it is problematic that the EDNY was able to muddy the waters with concerns and issues for which Raniere was not being tried. His character and morality were assaulted so the jury was made to believe he was evil, thus a quick conviction with no in depth thought about the issues involved.
Normally, it is the job of the defense to protect their client from irrelevant, damaging information. How well did Agnifilo do to defend Raniere? Personally, I was disappointed the defense did not present a defense and Raniere did not speak.
I agree that Keith should be held accountable for the things he did. And I also think that he should not have been convicted for crimes that he didn’t commit. Does anyone really believe that what Keith did amounts to sex trafficking?
Yes. The evidence was strong enough to convict him. Rhetoric won’t alter that fact.
It is not sex trafficking in the conventional sense but it did involve coercion (blackmailing). It wasn’t classic blackmailing, either, but it was duplicitous and harmful.
The crimes are serious but I don’t believe the nature of the crimes warrants life imprisonment. Raniere wounded women’s souls in a deep way via his lying, manipulative, coercive behavior but he did not kill anyone.
That’s what RICO charges are all about – holding accountable those who directed and facilitated crimes, even if they avoided getting their own hands dirty. As commenters with relevant background observed, the trial was a classic RICO and human trafficking presentation, building up a complex case making it clear that Raniere had overseen crimes that included involuntary or non-consensual sex acts.
What do you think it was when, for instance, Raniere led that young woman to a room blindfolded, not knowing what to expect – and not having giving consent – and then having another woman over whom he held collateral, perform a sex act on her?
AnoyMaker,
Exactly! Thanks for the great articulate wrap up
Don’t be surprised. This trial was a show for the media and the jury. It’s obvious that the real objective was to focus all the attention on Raniere and on the women who were co-accused, especially on Allison Mack, being the one that had the popularity of a television star and there also was another tv star, Catherine Oxenberg, so the more important questions are:
1-because the authorities before which several people, especially two ex-KAR girlfriends, Barbara Bouchey and Kristin Keeffe, presented much evidence gathered by themselves and that was not used in the trial or at least not the part that involves people outside NXIVM; amd
2-we know that KAR had followers within NXIVM. But outside the company and the cult, there were people bought and bribed, but that would be in the best case, at worst it means that there were people helping KAR only to fulfill their own agendas, which would be much larger than just a number of fools having sex with many women.
Julia,
Sex trafficking occurs when someone uses force, fraud or coercion to cause a commercial sex act with an adult or causes a child to commit a commercial sex act.
Raniere happened to be his own middle man (supplier) and client(consumer).
Raniere used coercion, fraud, and the Nxivm enterprise to have sexual relations with the victims.
What do you not understand?
It’s sex trafficking and falls within RICO.
Fair points were made by the author:
1) the trial was really about revulsion against immorality (revulsion against branding, revulsion against rampant sexuality, revulsion against manipulation)
2) every motion or decision made by the court was in favor the prosecution / DOJ thereby allowing the proscution to “set the table” for the jury
3) giving a potential witness for Raniere a grand jury subpoena does hint at possible witness intimidation. Not allowing witnesses to appear without threat of arrest supports this notion even more strongly. Decisions like this made it difficult for the defense to present a case.
***
Agnifilo admitted that Raniere had no chance after the trials of co-defendants were split off and their deals with the prosecution were struck.
He was represented by very capable counsel. The trial is weeks of damning evidence, in front of an apt jury that deserved protection.
The trial was about Brainwashing. Racketeering. Pedophilia. False Imprisonment. Trafficking and more.
I don’t recall voluntary sex being listed as a count in the indictment.
Julia, you state you have read in depth about this case, maybe you should read about it again because all of your questions have already been answered.
Even the devil has an advocate, and this one is about the right level of idiocy for KAR.
She does manage to wholly overlook the criminal intent of a racketeering enterprise though, oh, and the slavery.
None of you apologists for nxivm criminality have a leg to stand on, but I do understand the fear of justice catching up and the scramble to ameliorate, redefine, lie your way out of it.
This kind of immaturity and inability to take responsibility for wrongdoing is par for the course among the remains, the detritus, of the nxivm criminal racket – many of whom, IMO, have sailed through doctor Porter’s psycho test, as their flat-line intelligence and sensibilities undoubtedly prove.
Beautifully stated
Commiserations to people affected by the power blackouts in New York and Michigan. Apart from Clare and KAR of course. I notice it started in Brooklyn. Has Vangone’s alleged super brainwave’s affected the powergrid again? He can’t complain about the cold this time. 😁
https://mol.im/a/7270847
LOL! Good one, Pyriel!
I have to agree, there should be a retrial
Women like her are why NXIVM and VanFake got away with what they did for so long. I wonder which current member of NXIVM “Julia” is.
Oh no, another brainwashed one? I don’t know where to start. Why no bail? Fled to Mexico once.
Voluntary branding? Like Jonestown voluntarily drank koolaid for mass suicide. Like the Manson girls voluntarily cut Sharon Tates’ stomach open. Like the Germans murdered millions.
Like a normal man trying to help people would allow himself to be called Vanguard.
How f—ing stupid is that?
Keith Raniere is a douchebag. The fake IQ test. The birthday parties. Vanguard. Catching glimpses of him playing volleyball.
He was artificially glorified.
So was Hitler.
Look at some of Raniere’s quotes. When you dissect them, they make no sense whatsoever. They are so stupid you wonder if they’re brilliant. But no. They are, in fact, stupid. This douchebag thought of crap to make up.
He pulled a Hitler on his followers.
Made himself look god-like, when in reality he was just a lying POS.
Every father and mother on that jury convicted him because they were thinking of their own daughters.
Your legal points are for the court to address. The human points are for all of us to consider.
I don’t think Alison Mack started out evil. Or any of them. I feel sorry for them. I wish them peace and hope they get deprogrammed. Some day they will realize who this slime was.
They got swept away by one big master manipulator.
But Vanguard, that joke of a man, got his.
I really don’t know where to begin, so I shall leave it to the people who are more knowledgeable about the US justice system. I will only point out two things.
“(c) That anyone who gave first collateral could have left once they found out what being a member entailed. Only those who chose to join had to provide additional collateral. So anyone who joined DOS had to give collateral a second time – voluntarily.”
You acknowledge that the DOS recruits didn’t know what being a member entailed until AFTER they had given their first collateral. Don’t you think that they would have found it difficult to walk away having already given damaging material that could ruin their own lives and the lives of their families? They were already trapped and any further collateral couldn’t be called voluntary if they felt that they had no choice. That also rules out your point: “(a) That participation in DOS was entirely voluntarily.”
You also state “(d) That no collateral was ever released – not even for someone who went public about DOS, like Sarah Edmondson.”
How could the DOS slaves KNOW that their collateral would not be released. It was the proverbial Sword of Damocles being held above their heads. And although no collareral was released, footage of Sarah Edmondson’s branding ceremony was leaked to the Mexican media during the trial.
Pyriel, Yes. My thoughts exactly. Those two points stuck with me also. And ALSO, ( re: “no collateral being released”) they were buying domain names in the name of the defectors and they were making plans to release collateral and discussing how to make it seem accidental. The only reason collateral was not released is because Sarah Edmundson blew the lid wide open with that NY Times article. This came out in trial I believe in some recording of Keith talking to Alison Mack or someone. They didn’t end up releasing any collateral because it would only incriminate Keith and DOS/NXIVM even more. I’d say the publicity around DOS came to a boil just in time for those defectors. Also, the DOS victims saw what happens to people who cross Keith– (Barbara, Toni… etc.). They all knew the stories. They knew the same could happen to them.
But Julia does bring up some valid and interesting points. That of India Oxenberg– I didn’t know that she was considered to be “Co-Conspirator #2”. How did she skate away from that?
The judge’s seeming prejudice. Yes, valid.
The length of time it took and the prosecution’s pushing the date back. Agree that was done a little too easily.
Julia writes: “Why did the court deny all of the other defendants’ requests to sever their trials from Keith’s trial, thereby forcing them to accept plea deals – and, in some cases, to agree to testify against him – in order to avoid being tried with him?”
Yes, Interesting question. Maybe someone has an answer to this?
Also the last name thing with the witnesses– that also is a very good point.
And the fact that it took a NY Times article to make something happen. I agree with Julia that it is not right for the media to be given such power to decide who should be investigated. I don’t know what’s to be done about that. I think the Northern District should’ve just done their job. And that should be looked into deeply and thoroughly. Unfortunately, I think corruption is so commonplace in politics– particularly in NY. I’m not sure what would happen, realistically. But you never know!
But then Julia points out: “the semi-sequestering of the jury, making them feel they might be in danger, had to weigh on them leading them at least subconsciously toward a presumption of guilt.”
But the semi-sequestering was not about the jury’s “safety” . I’d be surprised if they thought their safety was in danger. This was about keeping the jury members’ anonymity intact, wasn’t it? This was because they could have been tampered with or bribed by Bronfman money. That was a likely possibility. At least, that’s my understanding of the importance of protecting the jury.
Overall, it was interesting to read another perspective for sure. And Julia does bring up some good points. The libertarian-ish side of me also had a hard time grappling with the fact that they did consent kind of… And they all seemed into it– at one point or other. No one was kidnapped or chained or physically forced…
BUT I always go back to that initial collateral thing. They had to give that right at the start of their joining DOS– without knowing what it was going to entail or who was in charge. And once that initial collateral was given– (yes, voluntarily, but under false pretenses for most of them), DOS had them. Keith had them. That is coercion. And anything they did after that– more collateral, sex, branding, nude photos…etc was not really pure, unadulterated consent. And that’s criminal. It was a very odd case!
Frank: stop using this BS pics with the AM part, it was disproved in court! Even if it’s not defamation per se, it’s a lie (a defamation).
“My biggest concern is that Keith was arrested, tried and convicted because of people’s revulsion about the branding – which, of course, is not illegal in and of itself.”
Well not really , if you think about it, during the trial not much was given on the branding (because it’s not illegal)
I Believe they (the jury) were just disgusted by his general violent and abusive behavior toward his many victims
“To begin with, it bothers me that the investigation into Keith and NXIVM was the result of a front-page story in The New York Times. When did we decide to give newspapers that much power? Do we really want newspapers deciding who should be investigated and charged with crimes?”
It wasn’t, it’s Frank’s position…The investigation began when the victims decided to go to the authority about this
“I’m also concerned that the investigation and prosecution took place in Brooklyn, NY – when, in reality, almost all the alleged illegal activities took place in and around Albany, NY.
If there’s something wrong with the Department of Justice’s operation in the Northern District of New York, steps should be taken to address that problem.”
I agree that the problem with the NDNY should be fixed (if there is still one)
“Four of the original charges against him were dismissed because there was no jurisdictional basis whatsoever for them. I think the same can be said for most, if not all, of the other charges.”
True, nothing happened in Brooklyn, but at the same time, one of the victim (the iniator) was living in Brooklyn when the crime happened.
“First and foremost, why was Keith not allowed out on bail?”
Because he proved to be a risk of flight (contrary to the others)…He was arrested in Mexico
“Why was the case designated as a “complex case” – which prevented the defendants from being able to go to trial within 70 days of their arrest?”
Because it was…actually, most of the crime committed fits Nothing…it’s a complex case
“Why was there no mention of the fact that Co-Conspirator #2 – who is believed to be India Oxenberg – was not prosecuted even though she participated in many of the same alleged illegal activities as Lauren Salzman and Allison Mack?”
Agreed but it’s not believed, it’s known…i was even confirmed in the trial (as jayes was said to be India’s victim, not Allison)
“Why did the court deny all of the other defendants’ requests to sever their trials from Keith’s trial, thereby forcing them to accept plea deals – and, in some cases, to agree to testify against him – in order to avoid being tried with him?”
Agreed…fully
One even accepted to plea to crimes proved to be untrue (like Forced labor)
“The prosecution was allowed to introduce a good deal of evidence that had nothing to do with any of the seven charges against Keith – much of which was highly embarrassing to him. At one point, the entire courtroom was engulfed with laughter over a derogatory comment that was read aloud about Keith’s Erectile Dysfunction problem.”
True but some are circumstancial proofs…except his “erectile dysfuntion problem” and honestly, after what he put people through, i Don’t feel bad for that…how many time he embarrassed the girls? Like caging them or drinking from a puddle, or hitting a tree head first?
“No real evidence was introduced to support the charges of sex trafficking and forced labor – but those charges were not dismissed after the prosecution had rested its case. Nicole had admitted to having fantasies about forced sex and most of the “forced labor” in question really amounted to nothing more than favors from one woman to another.”
Agreed
“The jury never really deliberated in this case. According to some reports, they spent more time putting together their lunch orders than they did talking about whether the prosecution had proved every charged and alleged offense “beyond a reasonable doubt”.”
True but it was shown that Raniere is a monster and not much needed to be proved on that side…
“As a feminist, I find it appalling that the prosecution resorted to such tactics in order to convince a jury that Keith did bad things to a group of women who chose to participate in those very things.”
Feminist but defending Raniere…contradictory point here.
“If a woman wants to be part of a harem, she doesn’t need permission to do so.”
Except some of them didn’t wanted to but were coerced to be in (Allison, Nicole, India…amongst others)
“And she cannot rescind her consent retroactively – which is what this whole trial was about – retroactive withdrawal of consent.”
Agreed
“the muddle brained Sylvie, who agreed, after all, to do everything she did – even not have sex with her husband and send Raniere nude photos – [she was over 30 for Godsakes] and the loud mouth Jaye, who talks tough so long as she can hide behind her anonymity. These are not brave women. They were dunces and fools sure but they volunteered to do everything they did.”
agreed especially for Jayes…
“In the end, the prosecution put words in their mouths. They consented to everything they did. Then they were told to cry on que and say they were coerced. And using only their first names they mouthed whatever they were coached to say.”
Partly true, The prosecution did put words in their mouths (including lies that are disproved by the proof the prosecution introduced themselves) but the coercion is real! Raniere did threaten Nicole to release her collateral (her probably did it to others)
“The good women – the victims [some of whom did as much as some of the other women] were referred to only by their first names. The entire farce was played out before the jury who could think nothing other than “one name good, two names bad.””
True and it was raised by the défendant attorney’s but dismissed by garaufis
“On top of that, the semi sequestering of the jury, making them feel they might be in danger, had to weigh on them leading them at least subconsciously toward a presumptive guilt.”
Absolutely…and it was fully unjustified for this case! The impact is absolute and that explains the decision to say “guilty on all charge”
I agree with some of you point but i wouldn’t feel compassion for Raniere…i’d be more worried about the other victims who will be jailed (like Allison and to a certain level Lauren, Clare and Kathy)
Ok. Step back. He allegedly raped a 12-year old. A 15-year-old. And was actively seeking “pure virgins” to continue. That’s enough for a conviction. Open and shut.
Bet if he was Father Vanguard, you’d be whistling a different tune.
Good point.
Conveniently, Brannon skipped over the underage sex and child porn issues in her piece of apologia – among other damning points not addressed.
EXACTLY. notice how the story gets skewered?
Let’s see if the feminist addresses the alleged rape of a 12 year old. A 15 year old. The conjuring of ” pure virgins” which certainly sings of minors to me.
Maybe since this was about just unfairness, Keithy the Powerful would have taken the stand to explain himself. Or maybe the weazel wouldn’t have been cowering in a closet when the feds arrived.
So Ms Feminist: remember VANGUARD was talking about incsst with minors in various cultures?
Think he was being educational? Think he was applying that VANGARD IQ?
Or thinking he was laying the foundation to get his hands on some underage virgins?
You all make the same point: Keith did lots of illegal things and deserves to be in prison. But that still doesn’t mean he should have been convicted for crimes he did not convict.
Just because someone robs banks does not mean that they should be found guilty of some other crime. And, IMO, that’s what happened here.
Raniere got convicted because the prosecution convinced the jury he’s a scumbag. And the jurors didn’t bother to consider whether he committed all the crimes he was charged with. They just voted “Guilty” because they were convinced by the prosecution that Keith is a bad guy.
You refer to him as ” Keith” Ms. Brennan.
Interesting……
Excuse me but the point isn’t that…
I said that i support that he should be in jail, I also clearly stated “no compassion for Raniere”.
What i agree with the author is that the trial used pieces that had no impact (or some unnecessary witness that didn’t help the case (Jaye, for example).
What i agree is that the judge didn’t really completly give a fair trial (rejecting every demand (some were justified but some were definately not))
Also he “allegedly” raped a 12 year old…That is allegedly! It has to be proved in court to be considering that it’s enough.
The result is satisfying for me (as he’ll spend a LONG time in jail) but for justice, this is a dark time as the trial was not a proper trial.
Also i remind you that if Raniere was reaching the right judge ,pointing the MANY mistake, all this could have been for nothing!
It’s not like their wasn’t proof of his crime.
I was also interested in it from the start because it could have gone either way, although the more I learned and heard on KR tapes etc the more I was sure he did enough wrong he was guilty. I looked at it slightly differently from someone who knows about BDSM etc and for whom a huge amount of what was done IF (huge if) there is consent is pretty normal (although would never appear normal to juries). I am also interested in cults (as a family member was in the Rajneesh group back in the day) and our family is full of psychiatrists etc and as a lawyer who had read Oxenberg’s book (I am from the UK) it all seemed pretty interesting. I also weirdly felt slightly similar to KR only in the sense I had the early IQ tests (although my pretty high score was supervised and “real” or in KR speak “authentic”) so I suppose being a bit of a devil’s advocate, contrarian person I could see both sides.
However he chose to break the law so I am content with the verdict.
People say to me all the itme it’s not fair I am picked on (by the law) because all these others get away with it – that is never a defence under the law. As my mother used to say – life isn’t fair.
It could not have gone either way if he did have sex with minors and was actively seeking new minors.