Allison Mack

Why Weren’t Allison Mack and Many Others Called as Witnesses at Raniere’s Trial? – Part 1

Keith Raniere’s trial lasted 27 days.

It started promptly at 9:30 AM on May 7, 2019 – and it ended at 2:50 PM on June 16, 2019 with Raniere being led away by U.S. Marshals to spend what may turn out to be the rest of his life in federal custody.

The first order of business on May 7th was a discussion between Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis and the defense and prosecution attorneys regarding two of the jurors who had asked to be dismissed from the jury.

Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis

The first was Alternate Juror No. 4 who asked to be let go because she had signed up – and already paid for – several courses at Queensborough Community College.

That sounded like a pretty reasonable request until a review of her receipt indicated that she had just done both of those things the day before the start of the trial.

Needless to say, Alternate Juror No. 4 did not get off with that lame excuse.

The second was Juror No. 9 who asked to be let go because his wife has stage 4 cancer – which meant that he had to be available to take care of their 6-year old son after school on those days when she was receiving chemotherapy.

Judge Garaufis granted his request – and replaced him with Alternate No. 1.

After several other minor matters were resolved – and Judge Garaufis had explained to the jury how the case would proceed – the prosecution and the defense both gave their opening statements to the jury.

And then, the prosecution called “Sylvie” as its first witness (Per a pre-trial ruling by Judge Garaufis, several of the prosecution’s witnesses were only identified by their first names).

Over the course of the next six weeks, the jury heard testimony from many prosecution witnesses, the last of which was FBI Special Agent Michael Weniger.

And when the prosecution was done presenting its case, the defense requested that several of the charges against Raniere be dismissed because the prosecution had not produced sufficient evidence to prove those charges.

After that motion was denied, the defense announced that it was not going to call any witnesses – including Raniere himself (After Judge Garaufis asked Raniere several questions about his decision not to testify, he then announced that “I find the Defendant has knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to testify in this trial”).

After both sides made their closing arguments to the jury, the judge instructed the jury how it should proceed in its efforts to reach a verdict.

After less than four hours of deliberations, the jury found Raniere guilty of all seven counts he was facing. It also found that the prosecution had proven that Raniere had committed every alleged underlying act with respect to those charges.

MK10Art’s splendid portrayal of Keith Raniere – right after hearing the jury’s verdict in his trial.

*****

What About the Potential Witnesses That Weren’t Called?

In putting together its case against Raniere, the prosecution had to make many important decisions.

Probably the two biggest were which people to call as witnesses – and which not to.

Now, with almost nine months having passed since the end of the trial, let’s take a look at some of the potential witnesses that weren’t called – and try to figure out why the prosecution decided to proceed without their testimony.

We’ll start with some of Raniere’s co-defendants.

*****

Nancy Salzman

Perhaps the biggest surprise is that the prosecution did not call Nancy Salzman, the woman who was the titular head of – and the public face of – Raniere’s criminal enterprise.

Nancy Salzman

Nancy could have easily provided testimony concerning all the charges against Raniere – as well as many of the related underlying acts.

And she could have provided some details and insight into Raniere’s motivations that no one else could provide.

So, why didn’t the prosecution call her as one of its witnesses?

Was it because of her allegedly fragile medical condition (Nancy was supposedly being treated for cancer – and had supposedly undergone a double mastectomy a few months before the start of the trial)?

Or was it because the prosecution was concerned that Raniere’s defense attorneys would try to shift the blame for some/all of Keith’s alleged crimes to her?

She was, after all, the President of NXIVM Corporation/Executive Success Programs – and a myriad of other companies and corporations that were part of the overall scheme.

From NXIVM’s Website

And it was her house in which FBI agents had found almost $520,000 in cash – as well as some Mexican and Russian currency.

Maybe the prosecutors were worried that she might hypnotize one or more members of the jury – or use her NLP expertise on them – and force them to find Raniere “Not Guilty” of any crimes.

What say you, Frank Report readers?

Why do you think Nancy Salzman was not called as a prosecution witness?

*****

Allison Mack

Allison Mack would have been a really entertaining witness.

Just imagine the media frenzy that would have surrounded the Eastern District of New York courthouse whenever she was in the area.

mk10art portrayal of Allison Mack being hounded by the media. 

And the packed courtroom – and packed overflow rooms – that would have occurred whenever she was on the witness stand.

Allison could have testified about the entire DOS operation – and confirmed Raniere’s role in it (Instead, the prosecution had Lauren Salzman provide testimony about those aspects of the case).

And she could have provided some gory details about the branding process – and the excruciating pain that every woman who was branded had to endure.

AMK10ART’s depiction of Allison Mack and Dr. Danielle Roberts branding a DOS slave

They could have even shown close-up pictures of Allison’s own brand – knowing full well that none of the jurors would have been able to get that image out of their minds.

Allison could have also given first-hand accounts of her sexual activities with Raniere – including some of their threesomes (Instead, the prosecution had to rely on the boring recitation of emails that Allison sent to Keith about some of those trysts).

So, why didn’t the prosecution call her as one of its witnesses?

Was it because they were worried that Raniere’s attorneys would have asked her about her role in DOS – especially in light of the interview she gave to Vanessa Grigoriadis for The New York Times Magazine?

Were prosecutors worried that some of the jurors would have been confused by Allison being both a perpetrator and a victim?

Or were they worried that Allison would act out her sorrow and grief even more than Lauren Salzman did when she testified?

Marie White’s depiction of Lauren Salzman

Maybe they were worried that some of the jurors would get distracted by Allison’s ankle monitor or her cankles.

Or perhaps they were concerned that Allison might start singing a love song to Raniere from the witness stand.

What say you, Frank Report readers?

Why do you think Allison Mack was not called as a prosecution witness?

*****

Stay tuned – more parts to follow on this topic…


About the author

K.R. Claviger

39 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

  • “The excruciating pain of branding” which they all, repeat ALL, chose, I repeat CHOSE to go through.

    They obviously all liked this nutty lifestyle.

  • What does Allison Mack have in common with China?

    They are both being sued for violation of Human Rights.

    Human Rights Groups Prepare Lawsuits Against China for Coronavirus Pandemic
    Human rights website Bitter Winter reported on Wednesday that lawyers are preparing to bring a variety of suits against the government of China for its irresponsible handling of the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic.
    https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2020/03/26/human-rights-groups-prepare-lawsuits-against-china-coronavirus-pandemic/

    • Why are you glad harm came to him?
      Is it because his news reporters’ facts are far more accurate than your bs?

      • NBC refuses to say that the Chinese government was involved in genetically engineering a dangerous virus to use as a weapon and when the virus escaped NB refused to admit that China concealed its responsibility for the epidemic.

        Instead NBC prefers to blame Trump for everything in order to elect the pervert Joe Biden as President.

  • Never mind where’s Waldo. Where is Frank Parlato? Is he okay?

    Fraaaaaannnnk! How are you, my brother? Come back, please. Tell us that your trial has been postponed, due to unforeseen events which were not really unforeseen, but what the heck.

    William Shakespeare just rang from the astral plane to offer his impressions of this article. His wire simply said WTF.

  • Prosecutor Penza actually screwed up.

    In retrospect, both Clare Bronfman and Nancy Salzman should have been compelled to plead guilty to RACKETEERING.
    They weaseled out of it.

    Attorney Neil Glazer in the Civil Suit will not let anyone weasel out of anything.
    Glazer even sued Sara Bronfman and Nicki Clyne both of whom escaped indictment altogether.
    All of the NXIVM defendants will be considered on the same level as Al Capone or Sam Giancana.

  • Whatever the tiny EDNY prosecution team did or didn’t do — whomever was or wasn’t called to testify — they got the job done.

    They are real, unsung heroes. As is their only completely unimpeachable star witness:

    Ms. Dani Fernandez.

    Few seem to realize just how difficult it is to convict the kind of money, power and global political clout NXIVM entrenched and shielded themselves in.

    I was among some of the longtime NX opponents when word came that Clare Bronfman was, indeed, going to be indicted — something none of us aware of the nuances and names involved thought would EVER happen.

    The EDNY prosecutors further managed to make all their charges stick through a gauntlet of razor sharp opposition determined to poke holes in their case.

    That formidable opposition, btw, still includes some insiders — within or in cahoots with the ultra corrupt Upstate NY (NDNY, New York State, even Western NY) justice system.

    [EDNY prosecutors HAVE managed to turn some of those blades around — with, at least, the revocation of Ex-Dr. Brandon Porter’s Medical license, for example, when at first it looked like he and branding Dr. Roberts were going to skate entirely unscathed.]

    So, while justice has not yet been meted out completely and proportionately — everyone on FR knows how I feel about Allison Mack vs. The Salzman’s, the overlooked, underage victims, the buried truth about the NX deaths, etc. — IMHO the EDNY prosecutors strategy at Raniere’s trial was beyond impeccable.

    It’s a miracle on the scale of David vs. Goliath.

    • Heidi, it’s good to hear from you.

      I appreciate your perspective.

      And I hope you’re doing as well as can be expected given the circumstances. Take care.

      • You too, AM. Hope you’re well.

        I’m hangin’ in there, worried sick over my son under the circumstances but that’s the only thing that’s plaguing me, so far.

        Take care!

    • Hutchinson, Bronfman plead guilty. LOL Not exactly much success to “…make all their charges stick through a gauntlet of razor sharp opposition determined to poke holes in their case.” LOL

      • It took nearly a year of intense investigation — pilfering through mounds of evidence and discovering the photo of Camila Fernandez sans appendicitis scar to date it — for the DOJ to obtain a plea from Clare, any of the defendants.

        Without that SUCCESSFUL, ardent effort, their RICO strategy, etc., it’s likely none of the defense attorneys would have advised her, any defendant to plead.

        In fact [shudder], they might have all gone to trial, continued to be uncooperative with investigators and gotten even Raniere off — and I don’t mean with a group blowjob.

        …Tell us, Schlock, did you resell those Amway tool kits and products you stole, er, rerouted, er, protected your competitors from being corrupted by? Or did you keep them for your private, personal use?

        • I misused the word ‘pilfering’ as to the DOJ investigators. I meant painstakingly examining.

          Pilfering means ‘stealing’ — appropriately used for Scott Johnson not the NX prosecutors — far as I know, anyhow.

        • Hutchinson, you don’t know when the Feds found the photo. They may have found it early and held it back for a while, hoping to find additional related evidence. Plus, that had NOTHING to do with Bronfman’s lawyers getting in the way. LOL

          Finding the nude girly photo may have been the best gift for all of the women, they could easily have been found guilty of all of the charges had they instead decided to go to trial and been convicted on all counts. LOL

          The investigators had plenty of evidence to convict all of them at trial without any of them cooperating. LOL

          I didn’t steal anything related to Amway, you nitwit. I am SO glad I banned you, and only you, and not any of the other 7+ billion other people on the planet from being on my show. You would be less than worthless with your presence. LOL

  • Kim Snyder
    These are criminals that keep getting written about. They ALL belong in jail!!!!!!!! They do NOT deserve aire time- which is what is happening. They were NOT seen as witnesses- because they did their own thing as criminals in this ring of shit!!!!!!
    People love ❤️ hearing about these dirt bags instead of the victims and their families. So screwed up in the head still writing about these criminals- and hiding the evidence that you say you have on my sister, Kris’ case. You are withholding evidence- to write about criminals. These people are MEAN, NASTY 🤢 criminals- that are NOT witnesses. They do NOT deserve aire time.
    Obsession is what this is. Obsession over people that NEED to be in jail!!!!!!!! They are criminals!!!!!!! Why do you keep writing about these worms 🐛? That is what they are, yet you withhold evidence form a victims family? Doesn’t that sound criminal?
    There has NEVER been part 2 of the LOST WOMEN- by ID Discovery- our family has been told that, that team is busy doing other things- so, that was a waste of our time.
    We shared our story for the idea 💡 of doing part 2- but that will never happen. I gave Kris’ whole case for this investigation- and evidence is still being withheld against us.
    These criminals do NOT deserve to be written about- they are criminals. Why are you so obsessed- and you have left the victims and their families behind.
    Obsession! Obsession! Obsession! Nasty!

  • What a disgusting piece of shit you are claviger, the day will come when you choke on your own words. You will NEVER hear any sexuall stories from Allison you sick pervert!

      • Raniere’s been saying that exact same thing word for word since at least the mid-late ‘80’s, Shadow.

        It’s not Mack’s quote, if she ever said it, and only shows how they put words in her mouth — like lines from a script — if she did.

        And, don’t you WISH?

  • I vote for potential blame-shifting and causing confusion between witnesses who had overlapping experiences, thus causing reasonable doubt and getting Raniere off the hook. The prosecution did a good job preventing both of these issues from coming up, as evidenced by not only Raniere not testifying, but also zero defense of him being introduced.

  • Why wasn’t Allison Pimp Mack called as a Witness?

    BECAUSE SHE IS A SCREWBALL!

    Allison Pimp Mack created documents that FALSELY accused a close family member of very serious criminal misconduct.
    Ms. Pimp Mack falsely accused this relative of sexually molesting her when she was a child.
    Furthermore, Ms. Pimp Mack falsely accused her relative of sexually abusing her young nephew.
    The boy would have been about four years old at the time.

    Not many jurors would understand or sympathize with such bizarre behavior.
    Most people realize that such false documents could damage or destroy or innocent person’s life.

    Moreover, Ms. Pimp Mack pledged her children to the NXIVM gang if she ever left it.
    Most mothers would fight like tigers to defend their children.
    Many women would sacrifice their lives for their children.
    Most jurors would not understand her willingness to sacrifice her children to belong to a criminal gang.

    While we are on the subject, many employers would regard Ms. Pimp Mack as a dangerous potential employee.
    A person willing to lie to advance her own perceived self-interest.
    In today’s litigious atmosphere, it would be imprudent to hire an employee with such a track record.

    Likewise, many males would find Ms. Pimp Mack as an unacceptable partner.
    A potential black widow.
    I suppose Ms. Pimp Mack could find employment selling doobies, blunts, roach clips and bongs in California’s burgeoning marijuana industry
    At the rate California is going, it will soon have legal opium dens.

  • Thanks, once again, for an interesting rundown. I think you cover each individual case pretty well.

    It seems to me that generally, prosecutors followed the keep-it-simple principle; they obviously didn’t need any more witnesses to convince the jury, regardless of specifics.

    But I’d say, across all these examples, the prosecution was probably also concerned that defense questioning might have elicited some remaining sympathy for Raniere from the witnesses who had been loyalist insiders, and could even have run the risk that one would have a change of heart as Leslie Van Houten did in the Charlie Manson case.

  • “Allison could have testified about the entire DOS operation – and confirmed Raniere’s role in it (Instead, the prosecution had Lauren Salzman provide testimony about those aspects of the case).”
    Except that Allison knew nothing as clearly stated about by Cami and several others…
    Allison believed in Raniere’s healing BS (because of her mental abuse through EMs, Starvation, Sleep deprivation and drugging)…
    The only thing she would have shown is that her plea deal was a joke as she was forced under COERCION by the prosecution to admit things she never committed…and the FACT that she is a victim.

    “Allison could have also given first-hand accounts of her sexual activities with Raniere – including some of their threesomes…”
    See the kind of pervert idiot you are? BTW, you talk about her cankles (which don’t exist…but whatever, it’s not like it’s the only lie or absurd thing you say) but you get all excited about her sexual stories?

    Which are Raniere raping her!
    Tell me then you are not a pervert…no need, you made your point and it’s obvious. Genius

    “Was it because they were worried that Raniere’s attorneys would have asked her about her role in DOS – especially in light of the interview she gave to Vanessa Grigoriadis for The New York Times Magazine?”
    No, because it is debunked with GENUINE MATERIAL PROOFS…So anything they (Raniere’s attorney) could ask wouldn’t change that this interview is a fake under Coercion…
    If anything, seeing how it’s clearly stated by Vanessa and how the proof showed that the story is faked to push Allison down the cliff, it would probably have meant the complete abandonment of the charges…
    The coercion is obvious and the fact she refused to give the interview until Lauren and Raniere’s intervention shows that she was a victim as any other victims…
    But she was targeted to be a victim and the scapegoat…the sacrificial lamb for Raniere so he could continue without worries…but then, the proofs screwed up his little story.

    “Were prosecutors worried that some of the jurors would have been confused by Allison being both a perpetrator and a victim?”
    No, it’s because the prosecutors knew that she would have been seen as a victim…She didn’t perpetrate any crimes…
    She collected the collateral (like some other victims did) and she was herself under all the abuse justifying the reason of the action of the other victims…

    She didn’t commit anything until AFTER the coercion , the starvation, the mental manipulation, sleep deprivation and drugging happened…
    She was not in a position were she could decide ANYTHING, and this is already quite clear in court.
    They never manage to show any kind of leadership in Allison.
    She was used as a scapegoat by Raniere, as the front …And for idiots (like you), it worked! Many idiots still prefer to aim at a VICTIM rather than aim at the real culprit.

    There isn’t as much rage against Raniere as there is against Allison…Worst, some who did worse than Allison(Lauren) or atleast the same (India) are getting a free pass for “compassion”.

    You and many choosed to do exactly what prosecution (and specifically Ms Penza) did…Ignore the fact and just go after someone who CAN’T ANSWER!

    At the beginning of the procedure, she said “All I ask is to be able to tell my side of the story” and this right was taken away from her.
    Why? just so that everyone could blame her as much as possible despite the FACTS.

    “Maybe they were worried that some of the jurors would get distracted by Allison’s ankle monitor or her cankles.”
    Why am i arguing with someone so low and so childish anyway…only the lowest idiot would follow your points.

    BTW, broken record…try to at least talk about something else because (or should I say someone else) at this point, you just sound like a maniac obsessed…

    • “Allison knew nothing”?!

      That’s your most unhinged claim to date. While obviously you can argue, however, implausibly, that Mack was totally brainwashed and a virtual zombie without free will, the fact that she was at the center of DOS and privy to almost everything going on, has been established as matter of fact including through the legal process that lead to her pleading guilty (and if she really were non compos mentis, Mack’s attorneys would have brought that up, and the judge would have addressed it before accepting her plea).

      She was Raniere’s right hand henchwoman, pioneered the branding and then organized the branding of others at her home, had the collateral dropbox in her name, helped Lauren Salzman edit Edmondson’s branding video that was released in retaliation, and many more such things for which there is clear evidence and even sworn court testimony.

  • Prosecutor Penza greatly underestimated the amount of time it would take to examine the witnesses. The judge would ask her ahead of time how long a witness would take, and Penza’s estimate would be off by a lot. Also, Mark Vicente and Lauren Salzman are extremely articulate and gave very verbose answers. But reportedly Penza felt she had made a good case in the time allotted. Two jurors had commitments that made it a time crunch at the end. All these reasons may be why there were fewer witnesses than anticipated.

Frank Parlato Investigates

Frank Parlato Investigates

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many, many others in all five continents.

His work helping take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg; “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson; “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La secta que sedujo al poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

Parlato has been featured prominently on HBO’s documentary “The Vow” and acted as lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.”

Parlato will be featured in an upcoming episode of American Greed.

If the whole world stands against you sword in hand, would you still dare to do what you think is right?

Got A Tip?

If you have a tip for Frank Report, send it here.
Email: frankparlato@gmail.com
Phone / Text: (716) 990-5740

Archives

%d bloggers like this: