Did Keith Raniere have sex with underage girls? This may not be the most important point, because whether guilty or not, he is likely to be considered a child molester in prison. This puts his life at risk. In this post, Frank Report will look at various allegations of statutory rape. However, this does not negate the requirement of the Bureau of Prisons to ensure he is not killed or abused in prison. In fact, it buttresses the argument since Raniere is likely to be seen as a child molester by inmates. The argument that he was not convicted of child molesting or statutory rape does not mean he will not be treated as such by inmates and therefore the BOP is urged to place him in a safe facility.
There is a debate going on in some circles as to whether Keith Alan Raniere, who is also known as the Vanguard, had sex with Camila, a 15 year old girl in 2005.
He was convicted of racketeering and among the predicate racketeering acts the jury was asked to consider was whether he possessed child pornography pictures of Camila and by taking the pictures did he sexually exploit a minor.
The jury found these two acts were proven.
To be clear, Raniere was not convicted of raping Camila, or even charges of possession of child porn, or the girl’s exploitation, the jury found him guilty of racketeering and these sex offenses were two of some 14 racketeering acts they found he committed.
It is, however, widely believed that he not only took pictures of her but had sex with Camila when she was 15. Consequently he is likely to be regarded, at least unofficially, as a sex offender and child molester in prison.
This, Raniere believes, will be dangerous for him once he is assigned from the comparatively safer Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn to a permanent prison, since child molesters are often targeted by prisoners, especially in maximum security prisons.
Raniere claims Camila’s story is not true and that he did not have sex with her until she attained the legal age of 17 and that photos were tampered with by the FBI to make it appear they were taken when she was 15.
Some of Raniere’s friends and followers have recently produced evidence, including several reports by IT forensic experts, that the nude photos of Camila which prosecutors said were taken when she was 15, were tampered with, possibly by the FBI. The tampering they allege is changing dates, adding data and photoshopping images.
It is a fact that an FBI witness admitted during the trial that the FBI lost control of the chain of custody and that someone accessed the devices during the time FBI had custody. Astonishingly, the FBI witness could not tell who it was who breached the devices that contained Camila’s photos while in their custody.
The followers plan to present their evidence of tampering with the Camila photos to the court and it may form part of an appeal or other legal process to exonerate Raniere. Their goal is a new trial for Raniere.
His followers seem to feel that either he did not have sex with Camila when she was underage or that there is enough reasonable doubt that no one should condemn Raniere at this point.
One of his followers told me, “Accusations of underage sex are very serious and should be handled with the utmost care and investigative scrutiny. I do not in any way condone such behavior. However, since this was not a charge against Mr. Raniere and there is compelling evidence that the hard drive containing alleged underage naked photos was tampered with, I have yet to form an opinion on the validity of the claim.”
The Source Herself
Camila did not testify at the 2019 trial of Raniere. She did, however, make a victim statement at his Oct 27, 2020 sentencing saying she began a sexual relationship with Raniere at age 15.
She said, “I met him when I was just 13, and from the start, I did not feel comfortable around him. I would even try to avoid being in the same room as him, but the adults around me would get mad at me for being rude and push me back towards him. This felt like a violation and a betrayal from the very people that were supposed to protect me.
“The very first time I was left to have a conversation alone with him, we talked about how I placed second on my eighth-grade spelling bee contest. I continued to avoid him after that for some time, but years later, he told me how he knew I was special from the moment we met at 13.
“He first had sex with me on September 18, 2005. He would expect me to celebrate September 18th as our anniversary together every year. That first time, which was my first time, I was 15. He was 45.
“This was after a few months of him asking me to go on walks in the middle of the night, which he would bring up topics of a sexual nature escalating in detail over time and asking me flippant questions about my sexual history, of which I had none.
“He told me keep it all a secret, immediately severing me from my family and friends and effectively making himself my only resource. Beginning at that time, he would ask me to sneak — sneak out of the house that I was living in to meet him at places where we were isolated as well as from everyone else so that he could have sex with me.
“He would often take me to his executive library where he would ask me to take my clothes off before coming up the stairs to the loft as he watched. During these secret meetings when I was still 15, he took naked pictures — naked pictures of me.
“The experience of being photographed is seared into my memory. As a 15-year-old that is not something you easily forget. He would have with me some type of sexual contact during every meeting. He wanted to take a picture with no exception.
“While he hid our sexual relationship from others, he explained it to me by telling me I was very mature for my age, and the flattering and the romance of hearing that when you’re a teenager; I know now that it was false. I was a child. I also know that it was no excuse to rob me of my youth or to interrupt my life the way he did. He used my innocence as — my innocence to do whatever he wanted with me, not just sexually but also psychologically.
“He manipulated me into what he wanted for his own reasons, for his own pleasure. He was calculated and methodical in the way he tricked me into a relationship and the way he manipulated me for every second of my life. He groomed me in his eyes. He shaped my being to his liking, or mine, he said.”
Judge Believes Camila
Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis said at the sentencing that he found Camila’s statement credible.
He said, “She is totally believable…. She was groomed from age 13 to age 15, and then she was seduced by Mr. Raniere and kept in an apartment and used for his sexual pleasure. That is the fact. That is not imagination, that is not a perception, that’s a problem for your client. That is what he did.”
Supporters Have Doubts
However, Raniere’s supporters correctly state that Camila’s statement was not made under oath and there was no opportunity for the defense to cross examine her.
Some have suggested that she might not be telling the truth. Some who were close to Camila when she was in Nxivm told Frank Report that she never spoke about having sex with Raniere when she was 15 and never spoke of anything that would reflect that she had an unhappy relationship with him.
She was described as cheerful, with a good sense of humor.
His followers said that it is curious that Camila, who did not testify for either side, chose to finally make a statement just prior to his sentencing, when the defense could not cross examine her or make any attempt to investigate or question the truth of her statements.
They question whether she has recently joined the civil lawsuit against Raniere and the Bronfman sisters.
In conversations with followers, Raniere has denied having sex with Camila when she was under the age of consent, which is age 17 in New York. Raniere did not testify at his trial and thus he too was not subject to cross examination.
Agnifilo Weighs in
His attorney, Marc Agnifilo, at the sentencing hearing, almost seems to suggest Raniere had sex with Camila, starting when she was 15.
He said: “I didn’t really dispute the [child porn] photographs all that much. The way I disputed them is they were never shown to anybody and the jury shouldn’t consider them as either child pornography or as a racketeering predicate because they were photographs that were taken and then for the rest of time they just stayed on a device, they never got sent anywhere, never got shown anywhere….
“What I think your Honor can glean from all this, and I don’t know if it cuts for or against them, but I’ll say it because it’s the truth, he’s in a 13-year relationship with her.”
Age of Consent Laws Are Inconsistent
Raniere has taught that age of consent laws are inconsistent and some underage individuals could be mature enough to consent to having sex with an adult.
See Video of Raniere explaining his view on age of consent laws etc.
He said, “Abuse is inconsistent, depending on where you are, what cultural you are, and things like that. And that doesn’t mean that the person is somehow ultimately abusive. They are abusive by some [legal] standard and you have to understand not only what that standard is, but the morality behind that standard….
“There’s the age of consent. Some states, it’s 17. Some parts of the world it’s 12…. What’s abuse in one area is not abuse in another.
“But what is it really? Abuse is – is the person a child, or is the person adult-like? Does the person have a certain type of understanding of, cognition, morality, to make such a choice?…. You know the little child, some little children are perfectly happy with it until they find out what happened in later in life, then it’s more society that abuses them than actually the parent….”
2012 Expose of Raniere by Times Union
Back in February 2012, Jim Odato for the Albany Times Union authored a series of stories on Nxivm. One of the series, entitled In Raniere’s Shadows, was rather shocking insofar as it focused on Raniere’s sex life and in particular quoted two women who alleged that Raniere had usex with them when they were underage, and also quoted a third woman, the sister of a deceased woman, who the sister said had sex with Raniere when she was underage.
It was alleged that Raniere was in his 20s when two of the girls were around 15.
With the third woman, it was alleged that he was in his 30s and she was 12.
At the time the story came out, according to several former Nxivm members, Raniere denied the allegations and members were told that the alleged victims had been paid by the Times Union to fabricate their stories. It was suggested that Edgar Bronfman Sr. may have been behind this effort. In addition to the billionaire Bronfman’s possible role, George Hearst, of the famous Hearst family, was the publisher of the Times Union. This suggested global and other mega-wealthy and powerful interests were conspiring to destroy Keith by attacking him on a subject that is among the most damning reputationally in America: Sex with underage girls.
A New Account
Yesterday, on Frank Report, one of Raniere’s former girlfriends, who often comments here using the moniker ‘L”, and whose identity I know, made a comment on this topic.
“L” does not identify the alleged victim, although it seems possible that it is one of the three women who were quoted in the Times Union story, Gina Melita. [not Gina Hutchinson]. Melita gave an on-the-record interview with the Times Union back in 2012 and bravely used her full name because she wanted to give credibility to the story.
However, “L” might have been referring to another teen girl.
Regardless of who the girl was, “L” wrote, “As many readers here know, I was Keith’s girlfriend for a few years. I left him a long time ago because he was abusive to me. When the lease on our apartment was up, I moved out to my own place and considered the relationship dissolved.
“Many years later (2011), James Odato contacted me to discuss Keith Raniere. In the course of our discussions, it became clear that Raniere had raped a friend of mine when she was 14 or 15 years old. And in discussions with Odato and that friend, it became clear that this had been done in my bedroom, on my bed, in that last apartment that I shared with Raniere. I was horrified.
“Fast forward to 2018 when the FBI put out a call for information on Raniere. I replied to them, fully expecting them to say that my information on Raniere was of no use to them. I was wrong. They wanted to know about long term, continuing patterns of abuse especially in regards to statute of limitations on criminal behavior.
“During my conversations with the FBI, it became clear that my young friend was raped in my room, on my bed, ON THE VERY DAY I MOVED OUT on Raniere.
“As I was hauling my stuff to my new apartment, he was victimizing my young friend on the bare mattress I had left behind. To say that I was even more horrified is underwhelming. As irrational as it may sound now, right then in 2018 – decades after the fact – I felt responsible for setting him off because I left.
“I cannot change the fact that that monster raped my friend, and I can’t change the fact that he did it the day I left him – on my bed, not even on his own. But I can continue to fight to keep myself grounded in knowing that HE was responsible for his criminal and reprehensible behavior – not ME.
“That’s how abuse is discovered ‘after the fact.’ When you are dealing with a lying, manipulative psychopath like Raniere, you can’t necessarily know all that’s going on. When the secrets come out, it is still traumatizing whether it happened 10 years ago or just last week.”
Gina Melita’s Story about Keith
In Odato’s article, he writes about the three girls who purportedly had sex with Raniere when they were under the age of consent.
Of Gina Melita, Odato wrote as follows:
“In 1984, when Raniere was living in apartments in Troy, he met Gina Melita, a 15-year-old from Cohoes who performed with him in an RPI theater group that included members of the community….
“She and Raniere, then 24, went to arcades together… He described himself as a genius and judo champion. She thought it was cool to be with an older, smart guy … He took her virginity in a dark room, her T-shirt left flecked with blood. She told him it was painful, yet a short time later, he wanted more. During their four-month relationship, he hounded the 135-pound girl to lose weight and urged her to keep their relationship secret from her mother.
“After a while, she said she told Raniere she wanted to break off the relationship but he told her they should keep having sex. Even as a 15-year-old, she said, she realized Raniere didn’t care about her….”
In a recorded interview with Odato, of which we have the transcript, Melita added a few more details that most readers have not heard before.
She said she once took a trip with Raniere and some older friends. She was 15. Raniere was 24:
GINA MELITA: I was falling asleep, watching a little television, and I remember watching, but we were both sitting on a bed watching. As I was dozing, he reached over and touched my face, and touched my legs a little bit. And was kind of making a pass.”
Sometime after that , Raniere took Gina to an apartment in Troy, New York.
GINA: The room was really dark, and we locked the door and had the deadbolt on it. I remember that. And, it was very painful. I was kind of in shock, I couldn’t believe how painful it was. And, you know, the first time, it was very painful. And later, maybe a half an hour later after the first time Keith, he was like, well, basically, I don’t know exactly what he said, but it was like, “Well, maybe the next time won’t be so bad.” So, he tried again…. I mean, you know, at the time, it seemed ok, to my 15-year-old mind, at first, but even later I realized that “I’m constantly lying about stuff, there’s got to be something wrong, here. There’s something wrong going on.”
Another underage woman Raniere is said to have had sex with during the same time period is Gina Hutchinson.
In fact, Gina Melita introduced Raniere to Gina Hutchinson, who was also 15-years old.
Hutchinson died in 2002, an apparent suicide, when she was 33. She is the subject of a 2019 documentary entitled the Lost Women of Nxivm.
Her sister, Heidi Hutchinson, was also in the film and has spoken many times on the record about her sister and why she thinks Raniere not only had sex with her sister when she was 15, but how he might have had a hand in her suicide or possible murder. For purposes of this article, we will avoid the topic of the cause of Gina’s death and merely recount what Heidi said about her sister.
During the Christmas season of 1984, Heidi came home from college and found her little sister Gina was having sex with 24 year old Raniere. Heidi said she caught Raniere crawling out the window of her sister’s bedroom.
Heidi, a teenager herself, confronted Raniere. He said he intended to marry Gina and that they were soulmates. Raniere told Heidi that Gina was a very old, mature soul who, he believed, had previously been a Buddhist Goddess.
While Heidi did not buy into his reincarnation theory, there was a practical aspect. The Hutchinsons were Mormons. Gina who was nearly 16, and could get parental permission to marry Keith when she turned 16.
Gina asked her older sister not to ruin her chance of marriage with Keith [the Mormons are strict about premarital sex] and because Keith was well-liked by their mother, and it was presumed they would marry, Heidi went along with her sister’s entreaty and did not report him to police for statutory rape.
Finally, there is Rhiannon.
Raniere was 30 when she was 12, in 1990. Her parents had divorced and she moved with her mother to Clifton Park. Her mother was a saleswoman for Raniere’s Consumers’ Buyline Inc..
Like many others, Rhiannon’s mother knew of Raniere’s reputation as being the smartest man in the world. When Raniere offered free tutoring for Rhiannon, her mother quickly approved and considered her daughter to be lucky indeed.
At the same time, one of Raniere’s live-in girlfriends, Pamela Cafritz, hired Rhiannon to walk her dog twice a day.
Cafritz encouraged her to visit the townhouse at 3 Flintlock Lane that she and Raniere shared with other women.
According to Rhiannon, Raniere urged her to talk about her life. He gave her a necklace — a heart with a stone in it.
As Jim Odato described in his story, “The girl had braces and bright eyes, liked to climb trees and play with Matchbox cars. Raniere was almost 30 and dressed in business suits. He was spearheading a company that boasted of selling at least 250,000 memberships nationwide. He was supposed to teach her Latin and algebra.
“Instead, she said, he told her she hugged like a child, her arms wrapped around him but her hips pushed away.
“He taught her to hug the way adults do, pelvis-to-pelvis….
“He took her virginity.
“The girl liked being able to hang out with Raniere and the women around him. She thought sex was just part of fitting in.
“‘They told me I was smart and took an interest in me; they let me spend every afternoon at their house,” she said. “It was exciting to be somewhere where people wanted me. I was perfect picking — insecure at the time… To have someone that mature and that well thought of to be interested in me, it was flattering. I was young, inexperienced, overwhelmed, out of my league.”
Consumers’ Buyline’s offices were on the second floor. According to Rhiannon, Keith Raniere invited her the offices and in the elevator they had sex, when she was 12.
Rhiannon said she had about 60 sexual encounters with Raniere. After some time, she started skipping school and wanted to leave him. She ran away from home, she said, because he lived nearby, and she didn’t feel safe at home.
In 1993, two years after their relationship ended, Rhiannon reported the sex with Raniere to police.
A school district document from the time shows Rhiannon received counseling for victims of sex abuse before filing a State Police report.
These documents appear to be authentic and are from the 1990s. If they are authentic, they belie the claim that Rhiannon was paid by the Times Union in 2012, to fabricate her story.
Back in 1993, Raniere was not prosecuted for statutory rape. By this time, there was no forensic evidence, so, according to Rhiannon, police asked her to wear a wire and confront Raniere to capture incriminating statements.
Rhiannon had been through cancer, had been in a juvenile home, and said she had a fear of Raniere which prompted her to run away from home. She declined to wear a wire. Police encouraged her to sign a waiver saying her claim that Raniere had sex with her was true but that she was not pursuing charges.
Rhiannon in an interview with Odato added some details that did not appear in the written version of the story, but were part of a video presentation.
RHIANNON: “I met Keith Raniere shortly after moving to Clifton Park, around 1990 when I was 12 years old. My mother became involved with a company he ran, called Consumers’ Byline.
“I was looking to make some extra money, so she got me a job stamping envelopes. And then I got to meet Pam Cafritz and Karen and Kristin, and Keith – and they offered me a job walking Pam’s dog – for 5 dollars a day, twice a day.
“So, I started going to the house at 3, Flintlock lane, to walk the dog – to pick him up and walk him in the morning before school, and after school.
“During that time I got to know Keith. He offered to tutor me in Algebra and Latin. Tutoring took place mostly at his business office in Rome Plaza….
“It started very gradually. It started with a hug. He’s taught me how to hug. He pulled my pelvic area close to him, and said: “Adults hug like that”…
“Shortly after the tutoring started, a sexual relationship began between Keith and myself, at the age of 12. It happened at various locations, mostly in his office in Rome Plaza, in the elevator, in empty business offices in Rome Plaza, in the broom closet – the janitor’s closet – and also at the house at 3 Flintlock Lane, where Pam Cafritz, Kristin and Karen lived with Keith. That relationship continued from the age of 12 till 13, when I ran away, and was eventually placed in the St. Anne Institute.”
At the time Rhiannon gave the interview, Raniere was free. She told Odato, “Keith Raniere is still in contact with children, he’s in contact with women, and I’m interested in making sure, you know, that I can do the best I can to protect other people.”
She was offered a chance to help. Prosecutors in Raniere’s case asked Rhiannon to testify at his trial.
Since rape was not one of the charges, her appearance was more or less like a character witness to show Raniere was inclined to have sex with underage girls, just as the prosecution alleged he had with Camila.
Rhiannon agreed to testify but the judge ruled against it since it was propensity rather than probative, meaning that the prejudice against Keith it would create in the jury would be greater than its evidentiary value.
Is He Innocent?
Did Raniere ever commit statutory rape?
Is it possible that Gina, Heidi, Rhiannon and Camila, four women, describing events from 1984, 1990 and 2005, are not telling the truth?
Most people looking at this would tend to answer in the affirmative – he is guilty. Camila did not know either Gina and none of them knew Rhiannon. These are separate accounts from separate women. Although some of his followers do believe that these women were paid to create this fiction about him.
Still, Raniere is innocent until proven guilty. He was never convicted of statutory rape. This is an important consideration, yet it may mean nothing in prison to other inmates.
What does matter is that Raniere is sentenced to 120 years in federal prison. In these prisons, child molesters are most despised. Though he was not convicted of child molesting, because of the allegations, particularly Camila’s, he will be likely considered a Chomo, and his life is in danger in prison.
This strongly militates toward the BOP placing him in a prison where he will be safe. In our next post, we will discuss what measures should be taken to ensure Raniere is safe in prison.
[…] Frank Report published a story entitled “As Raniere Faces Grave Risk Being Known as a Child Molester in Prison, Did He Really Commit S… […]
I don’t know if Raniere raped those women. What I do know is I don’t trust sexual allegations because I have first-hand experience of women accusing men of rape that was not true. It’s a terrible thing that anyone is abused by someone, sexually or otherwise. However, what evidence is needed to prove this? I would hope physical evidence is needed. Otherwise, we are open to being put in prison with no proof other than another person’s testimony. It is unfortunate that guilty people will go free in a system that relies solely on physical evidence, but the alternative is locking up innocent people because of angry lovers’ untrue allegations. Too bad I can’t put my name to this, but in the wake of METOO overcompensation for abuse, I don’t trust the public to not burn me like a witch.
So your assumption is that every one of those underage girls was lying? As I stated, I personally know at least one underage girl who WAS raped by Keith. And he used the same deceit and manipulation on her that he had used to get me into his bed – details were slightly changed, but the basic lying storyline was the same. Only difference was that I was 18 when he first had sex with me, so it wasn’t illegal.
I also know of another underage girl (13 or 14 at the time) who was NOT raped by Keith because she came to me and told me about how he had been touching her inappropriately and making her feel uncomfortable. I confronted Raniere over that and got back a lot of blaming the underage girl for being over dramatic. He had given her a “leg massage” on her bare legs that basically got right up near her crotch. I told Raniere as a grown man he should recognize how inappropriate that was for him to behave that way with a young teen, and told him to stay the hell away from her. I was already on my way out the door of my intimate relationship with him, but that incident was also a nail in the coffin of any continued friendship with Raniere as well.
Let’s even give the benefit of the doubt to your “experience of women accusing men of rape that was not true”. You think that’s enough to counter ALL the women who have related sexual abuse on Raniere’s part? Just in the article above, you have YEARS of these accusations. He is no innocent person locked up “because of angry lovers’ untrue allegations” – he is a serial rapist. You can doubt it all you want – I know it’s true. So does Heidi, and Gina, and Rhiannon, and every other woman he has abused sexually.
Should he have been charged with and convicted of rape? Probably. But since they didn’t have the kind of direct physical evidence that you seem to demand (what would you prefer – DNA, semen, pubic hairs, eye witnesses?), they charged him with the other illegal things he did, and a jury of his peers looked at the evidence they had and found him guilty.
@BeverageOfHerChoice Alison – putting this here because continuous scrolling through is making my eyes hurt. I find no issue with asking some of the questions you ask. I object to the manner in which you first negate another’s voice by imputing incompetence, hysteria, etc. And the manner in which you preface things which may imply agreement before stating your questions that are not in agreement. You asked an “anonymous” below to point out a blind spot to you. I can’t speak to their specific meaning, but I am saying you sound like you are gaslighting. It is very similar to how Raniere would work to invalidate his naysayers and insinuate his ideas and “ethics” (rapeable babies – really?) into others’ psyches.
Perhaps you do this defensively, but the general confidence in your writing makes that not as plausible to me. You seem very competent and deliberate in what you write – so “gaslighting” seemed more likely than “blind spot”. And perhaps your stylistic qualities in communication just rub me the wrong way. I’ll keep trying to listen with an open mind. After all, my “prolix” got LOL/Scott into hot water so maybe I’ve got my own blind spot or ten. I’m off to pour my own cuppa…
“the Mormons are strict about premarital sex” is correct, they strictly support it. LOL
This is how they get around the polygamy laws, the first woman is the official wife who they legally marry and the future “wives” are just girlfriends, even though they also have offspring by the married man – it’s a joke. LOL
To all of Frank’s critics including myself:
“Love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike.”
Jesus Christ, Matthew 5:43-47
When you recieve really bad news…BEER HELPS tremendously!!!!!!!!!
By making everything worse!!!!
This is nice guy signing off
— When you recieve really bad news…BEER HELPS tremendously!!!!!!!!! By making everything worse!!!!
I’ll drink to that.
Here is a quote I would like to share with everybody. It’s from Jesus Christ and it relates to Frank and his charity towards the Nxivm 5 and Kieth Raniere.
“Love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike.”
Jesus Christ, Matthew 5:43-47
This is all the justification Frank needs. He is unintentionally following a teaching of Jesus Christ.
I learned this one before I had my confirmation. Gotta love the New Testament.
F what is a typo I want to put F in front of Jesus’s name. I am not a total asshole
To me, that’s just an older cult, with older more well established atrocities. Like NXIVM, it has adherents that use the tech loosely and never met the leader.
The followers bring up a valid point: Raniere was not charged with statutory rape and the child porn charge may be trumped up by manipulation of the dates and images.
A retrial is a reasonable possibility if this can be proved.
Question to Mark Agnifilo: Why did you not vigorously challenge the prosecution’s claim of child porn during the trial and use forensic experts to debunk the truth of their claim?
Re Mr. ‘N’ :
N tried to do an exploit called a buffer overflow. It’s mostly not linked to the recent “other crap”.
By adding too many “Ns” what happens is there is an array or string overruns and gives the ability to inject code into the thread the server/program uses, via the memory that was granted memory by the operating system to the program.
If you have a tech working for you, ask him about it. The guy who N is is a moron.
Layman’s terms it’s basically piggybacking on to your server and injecting code.
This was a feeble attempt.
Here is the definition if you feel you wanna bore yourself.
A buffer overflow occurs when data written to a buffer also corrupts data values in memory addresses adjacent to the destination buffer due to insufficient bounds checking. This can occur when copying data from one buffer to another without first checking that the data fits within the destination buffer.
Link to more info:
The guy is not a “legit” hacker, but [redacted]. He definitely did try a “hack” that may have worked in 1995.
I just wanted to bring your attention to the feeble attempt:
Nice Guy, what the hell are your talking about?
If you type a ton of letter/characters into a comment box( input) back in the 90s you could cause a buffer over and cause server to crash like yours. It doesn’t happen nowadays. That’s why he entered all those “N” into his name.
But never-mind my point is moot.
Plus I had a few beers. 😉
Frank, on your end, the guy whose name is N not appear like he has hundreds of Ns in his name? The guy literally a ton of ends into the input comment box.
It doesn’t matter
Thanks, Nice Guy,
This was an interesting read, but I didn’t understand any of it. However, all the n’s were scary in a way.
I still have no idea why every person listening to him wax lyrical about children enjoying abuse and age of consent, didn’t stand up and run out right there and then. He was clearly trying to intellectualise, poorly, he preference for young girls and to prevent anyone raising red flags.
THANK YOU. I would have gotten up and left. I would have left if I had to call someone Vanguard and bow.
But to listen to his word salad and shit about children?
People listened. But I guarantee they felt uncomfortable. Guarantee they squirmed.
But they were too chicken shit to challenge him.
Most people are too chicken to challenge Amway and other MLM scams, too. LOL
Raniere will be safe in the Rockies!!!!
His speech about how the age of consent is 12 in some places ( including parts of Mexico, btw) to me serves no other purpose than to lay the foundation for his dirty deeds.
He is conniving this way, we see it in other examples. He plants a subliminal seed to pave the way for his manipulation.
100% spot on. I remember the first time I heard him say this. My immediate thought was, I wonder if he’s setting the stage for him to be doing it?
Every module had something he was paving the way for. Taxes, lying, non-disclosure, cults being ok, suicide being ok, murder being ok, etc
The group questions at the end of the modules were to hammer these things in by eventually telling us the “correct” answer.
Don’t forget women are monogamous, men are not.
It’s all subliminal manipulation.
He also taught, I recall reading, that Japanese mother’s “relaxed” their sons before exams.
Rape depended on the victim’s feelings.
Not all molestation was bad.
These weren’t lessons without a purpose.
The nude photos were in Raniere’s possession. The photos don’t show the appendectomy scar (which occurred when she was 16). Cami has publicly confirmed he took the photos. Cami has publicly confirmed they had a sexual relationship starting when she was 15.
There are two possible explanations here: (1) there is a grand, corrupt conspiracy to frame an innocent man which involves tampered evidence and inciting a witness to make false allegations against him … or (2) Raniere is a liar.
Which do you think is the more plausible scenario.
The foundation was shattered by the jury finding Raniere guilty on all counts and the judge sentencing him to a dozen decades of prison. LOL
While, yes, KAR is the low man on the prison pecking order totem pole, he’s still not somebody people will want to give more free PR too. Even killers know a fame chasing narcissist when they see one. If they ever even let him into general population – I honestly think that’s not going to happen. They’re going to stick him in isolation in supermax and leave him there because for him that WILL be one of the greatest punishments. To be stuck with nothing but his thoughts and four walls – no fawning acolytes, no vulnerable people to manipulate or control, no access to somebody else’s billions of dollars – he’s literally going to be trapped in obscurity and, given his crimes and his blatant disregard for peoples’ health and well being, that’s the punishment is ultimately deserves.
Raniere isn’t worth the cost of a supermax. LOL
He’s not worth the cost of the appeals either but, unfortunately, the law allows for those..
That’s called due process. LOL
Keith supporters: Has Keith ever asked or implied, or the very nature of curriculum ideology, to keep his secrets or not talk about details of your relationship to him?
Have you thought beyond your manufactured bubble to look at global cultures and the human rights violations in them.
Why are you pretending that it’s about a consensual lifestyle choice? Why are there volumes of information about the very manipulation you refuse to recognize?
You aren’t the chosen people, you aren’t special. You’re just regular people that were looking to find answers, and you found someone to create a world in which they were supplied pre packaged for you. What a relief, one person to please. One person to decide what is right and wrong. It’s easy, and it’s intellectually lazy. It’s infantilism, not a path to success.
It’s the DNA of Raniere and NXIVM to keep things secret, so they can’t even answer that question, or at least answer it honestly. LOL
On a personal level, I wouldn’t leave any underage girls alone with him if he were he out of prison. But from a legal standpoint, he is innocent until proven guilty. In this case, he wasn’t proven guilty, BUT as you said, it doesn’t matter. He will likely be viewed as a child molester in prison and should get whatever protection people convicted of those crimes are typically given.
Now, to really play devil’s advocate:
Agnofilo: “…I’ll say it because it’s the truth, he’s in a 13-year relationship with her.”
He didn’t say it was a 13-year sexual relationship. It could have been a platonic or otherwise chaste relationship for two of those 13 years. Technically? Maybe? Possibly?
A Raniere technique: listen closely, sympathize/empathize with the target, convince them your ethics/morality/ideals agree with theirs. Once you’ve got enough trust worked up, then start placing doubts to lead them where you want them. I have watched you use this same technique in almost every post you make. I think you are disingenuous in your claim of not being a Keith defender. Or maybe you were an acolyte of his and unconsciously use the same techniques just out of habit from long exposure? Technically? Maybe? Possibly?
This is a fair question. I don’t think Allison is a supporter, or acolyte of Keith, but perhaps she is. I like her style. I like that she offers reasonable doubt and provokes debate.
I can honestly say, I am not a defender of Keith Raniere, and yet, I want to defend his due process rights and, of course, I want him to be safe in custody. He did not get a death sentence. He got a life sentence.
I am also not convinced I support a 120-year sentence for his crimes of conviction. I am not referring to other crimes he likely committed. My sense of due process requires that he be convicted for them, then sentenced.
So Allison, would you kindly give your response. Even if you are a loyal devotee of Raniere’s, you are still welcome here.
I think you have seen from my previous posts that my opinions coincide with yours on most counts, Frank. I don’t see a need to defend Raniere’s due process rights because I’m fairly convinced he got due process – if his defenders truly feel otherwise, I encourage them to explore all legal avenues to help Raniere. On your other points, I believe I have previously stated similar sentiments (perhaps not so concisely – unfortunate prolix seems to haunt my writing style).
And I do not dispute that Raniere defenders are welcome here. But I am going to call it out when I see what looks like Raniere gaslighting techniques being employed here. Feel free to redact/censor me if you must.
All I ask, L, is for commenters to debate the issues and not attack the person. Call them out, debate them, show them as fools, but don’t call them fools.
I believe his followers are sincere and somewhere, somehow they may make a good point. I do not think his followers are dishonest. They may be misguided but they believe what they say.
Finally, Raniere is in prison. He is not going anywhere. Civil, respectful treatment towards his remaining followers, a patient audit of their views, might persuade them to listen to us in turn.
I have said to his followers numerous times, “I plan to deprogram you,” to which they say, “We are planning to do the same to you.”
So this is perfect. It gives us a chance to look for the truth together, which will, in the end, I believe, prevail.
If they are right and Raniere really is a misunderstood angel, then I will admit my horrible mistake. But, on the other hand, if they are wrong and I am right, then the devil will get his due. The truth will come out and if he is a devil, I expect his followers will look at the evidence closely since I did the same for them.
Then there is another point — if Keith was deprived of due process — if that happens to be true – even if he is guilty –then that must be pointed out. I am not in a position to make such a declaration at this point, but I am prepared to publish his supporters’ views.
What have we to fear? Keith is in prison. Appeals are extremely difficult to win. And I doubt Judge Garaufis is the kind of man who is easily intimidated. He won’t cave and let Keith out of prison because his followers say he should.
Perhaps as part of my efforts to investigate this case thoroughly and in part to try to deprogram his followers, I want to hear everything they have to say about Keith’s innocence and any breach of due process.
I hear you on this, Frank. And I do think I’m open to honest debate/discussion on it, most especially because I do hope at least some of his remaining devotees may eventually free themselves from seeing this monster as “good” and “innocent.” But open is the operative word there – I’m not sure all your posters are open about their intentions. That said, I’m taking a break for a while because I need to bleach that bastard out of my brain again.
I agree about the prolix part, even though I had to look up the word to see what it means. LOL
For one moment, I thought you were being agreeable Scott. But then I looked up prolix and I saw you were being insulting. I think L writes pretty damn well and offers some good insights.
@LOL/Scott – congratulations; you learned something.
Here goes Johnson…..again. Prolix…So very clever. Whooo! Wow!
L is one of the most literate educated commentators, who has inside knowledge, and is willing to share on the Frank Report.
Scott what is your special mission in life?
Mine is to try to generally be a good person and at times an honest person.
Re Frank’s Incredible Magnanimous Virtue:
Everyone including myself finds Frank’s magnanimity with regard to the Nxivm 5 and Keith Raniere somewhat annoying. It’s the truth.
Frank played a pivotal role in
Therefore, I personally feel we should trust the usurper, known as Frank Parlato, and let him guide us on his journey for truth and justice. I mean it. Let’s keep an open mind. I am still annoyed, but I’m keeping an open mind.
Note to self: Agreeing with someone is now considered by Frank to be insulting someone. LOL
NiceGuy 666, you are failing at your mission by your own admission – a good person is NOT “at times” honest. LOL
You obviously “forgot” what Scott’s mission is, so here’s a reminder: https://frankreport.com/2018/07/29/scott-johnson-explains-why-im-here/ LOL
Where exactly did Keith “there are no ultimate victims except me” not get his due process rights? Where was the opportunity for a substantive defense that he was denied? Where was the so-called “experts” (charging at a rate of $350 hour) who could testify on the stand towards the tampering of the photographs? Where was the smartest and most ethical man in the world in his own defense?
The fact of the matter is, he’s guilty as hell. What could’ve been done wasn’t done for the process of appeal and/or to do what’s being done now, i.e., a pathetic appealing to ideals and notions of conspiracy to try to cast doubt on the system and the process.
While it wasn’t a perfect trial, it wasn’t so bad that an appeal will probably be successful. LOL
I think the biggest error was stopping the cross examination of Salzman, but then Agnifilo diluted the error by not asking to continue the next day. LOL
I wouldn’t leave a small child with Alison. She doesn’t supply reasonable doubt, though it seems reasonable for people that are indoctrinated to accept this behavior as somehow nebulous.
Her comments are based on a lack of judgment in very key noticeable areas and very definite judgments that highlight where her biases lay.
She can deny all she wants, everything else she writes contradicts it.
You like shit-stirrers, we know…
I like healthy debate. If you call that shit-stirring, then I would suggest that that in itself is shit-stirring. Obviously.
The intolerance for ideas that we disagree with is a national disgrace and comes from that arrogant assumption that everyone is so sure they are right. I don’t have that certitude, for I find I am often wrong. If that is shit-stirring, this willingness to hear opposite views, then shit-stirring is a good thing.
@ Anonymous December 3, 2020 at 8:33 pm
—Her comments are based on lack of judgement in very key noticeable areas, and very definite judgements that highlight where her biases lay.
I would pay a therapist thousands to reveal these truths to me. Seriously. I’m open to new insights and few things are more valuable than a flip in perspective. Please share, if you can, what you believe are those key noticeable areas where I’m missing judgement and the areas where my biases lay. Maybe I have a blind spot. Like, for real! 🙂
Frank, I don’t see it as a 120 year sentence per se. Different crimes were assigned different chunks of time, to be served consecutively instead of concurrently. 120 is the total on that basis. I believe the judge did this for two reasons: 1) He recognizes Keith represents a continuing danger, and has shown no remorse; and 2) the consecutive nature of the sentences assures Keith will still serve life, even if his conviction on one or two individual crimes is overturned on appeal.
Had Keith wanted a more favorable sentence that would have allowed him to be released during his lifetime, he could have done many things differently, including: Not running away to hide in Mexico. Not threatening the prosecutors and the judge. Not calling the victims liars. Not orchestrating lewd dance parties outside MDC. Paying fucking child support. And on and on.
Keith dug his own grave with a backhoe, and I do not feel one bit sorry for him.
I’m not a defender or acolyte. I came to this story cold, with no connection at all. I get that you have a connection as someone who was personally involved with Keith and traumatized by the experience. And that is why, as you know, you would not be permitted to serve as judge or on the jury for his trial.
But that said, you and Keith’s direct and peripheral victims get a free pass for not being objective and are entitled to be as enraged as you may rightfully be. I don’t blame you and would likely be the same if I or my loved ones were directly involved with him and hurt. I can think of one narcissistic guy I dated in my 20s, and if it were him instead of Keith Raniere in this case, I’d probably be like, f*ck yeah, bury the a-hole. But again, that’s why I would not be allowed on his jury.
I think Frank’s ability to be objective here on principle is a good thing. Granted, he was not embroiled in a romantic relationship with Keith Raniere nor did he have an immediate family member directly harmed. But all the same, some people would be very vindictive and seeing red in his shoes. Hell, Keith might’ve tried to have Frank jailed for life if the roles were reversed, who knows. IMO, Frank is taking the higher ground. Um, and no, I’m not about to join the cult of Frank. Just sharing my sincere opinion as an uninvolved observer.
Frank has disclosed that he and Keith had many late night phone conversations. Maybe there was a bit of a romantic relationship between the two of them? If Allison and Nicki can have a legit marriage without living together and without sex, could Frank and Keith have a romantic relationship without the walks on the beach? Or rather, without prancing around Knox Woods together?
I looked at Keith as rather like a younger brother. And when we were both together with a group, the second smartest person in the room.
Oops. I got L and Heidi confused in my reply. My bad. I should not vodka and comment. The rest of what I said still stands though.
Raniere IS trying to have Frank jailed for life and that lawsuit is going to trial next May. LOL
I find that a very naive position to take here, Allison. And, at the risk of offending you, I feel that naivety may come across as somewhat patronizing. Your subjunctive engagement with this situation, should reasonably, be put in its place by others’ REAL testimony and evidential proof.
Frank has been – and still is being – subject to the full force of nxivm vexatious litigation. When people praise him for being brave here, it’s not just a question of fools blowing smoke up his ass for the sake of it.
And here is where it looks like manipulating the narrative…
Were you replying to me? I’m not Heidi.
Why raise the issue of “couldn’t be judge or jury”? My role would have been witness if the FBI needed me to testify. And I don’t characterize myself as “traumatized” – you did. I get a “free pass for not being objective”?
Sounds like you are trying to undermine the credibility of what I say here. And possibly also trying to undermine Heidi’s credibility (or vice versa) – although that may have been an honest mistake. And as I said, it is very similar to how Raniere would undermine and mislead people without revealing his true intentions.
I generally post here because what I have to say may be of use to Raniere’s victims in their recovery. I think I’ve been pretty open about that. Just sharing my sincere opinion that I don’t believe you are open about your intentions.
@NFW and @L:
Yeah, I was definitely not in top form when I wrote that reply last night. Typing Heidi instead of L was a mental / brain-to-typing-fingers glitch, nothing more.
I think I mentioned the judge and jury to try to highlight how people can have different perspectives on a subject based on their own experiences with that subject or lack thereof, and it doesn’t mean that a person who isn’t ready to commit to the same conclusion as you has ulterior motives. It could just be that they have a different perspective that is not necessarily coming from a dark place. I guess it’s a pretty obvious point, so yeah, could sound patronizing.
@L, saying this will probably make you more suspicious of my motives, but I was wrong for labeling your experience as traumatic or as anything at all. I was just imagining that if I had been in an abusive relationship and then found out that stuff happened on my move-out day etc, it probably would have been traumatizing for me. I should not have made the leap to saying that it was traumatizing for you. And I totally respect and admire your willingness to share your story.
Btw, I’m not being agreeable here for the purposes of manipulation or gaslighting. Isn’t it possible for a person to agree with you on some points but disagree on others without any hidden motive behind it?
@NFW: I’m aware that there was litigation against Frank, and I never thought people were telling him he was brave just to be sweet.
I’ve probably missed replying to some points/questions but gotta get going.
—Just sharing my sincere opinion that I don’t believe you are open about your intentions.
I’ll try to be as open as I can be about my intentions. I’m watching this story and sharing my thoughts and questions because a few alarm bells went off for me that this could possibly be something along the lines of a public lynching, and everyone deserves due process. Is it likely that it’s truly the case he’s a victim of vigilante justice? I believe the odds are high that it’s not, but is it evil of me to want to look into it to be certain?
I have a cousin way back in my family tree who was brutally raped and murdered at age 14 in Ohio. The locals rounded up three young men who they believed were responsible and lynched two of them; one of them escaped hanging because the victim’s brother begged the townspeople to spare him. Many years later, a guy made a deathbed confession that he was the one who raped and killed the girl and that he had participated in the lynching and encouraged the crowd.
Maybe the man who confessed on his deathbed was delirious and making stuff up and the three young men truly were guilty. Who knows?
I’m not saying Keith was unjustly arrested or that he’s innocent like those young men could have been.
But what is bad about looking closely at the process if there is even a remote chance that things weren’t done right?
@Alison – I read back, and I can see why we are at odds on “traumatized”. I did use the word myself in a more general sense. Frank left out the very beginning of my comment that probably would have explained it – “I’d like to share something here as illustration of what you said. I would not characterize it as abuse directed at me, but someone sure as hell was victimized.” I was replying to a commentator who was discussing the theory that Keith’s accusers were changing their stories to abuse “after the fact”.
My mind’s been sort of muddled lately, so it’s taken me a little time to finish my thoughts on our exchange here in the comments. Sorry for dragging it out, but here goes:
—Why raise the issue of “couldn’t be judge or jury”?
That really was a comment more on Judge G. than on you. It strikes me that perhaps he didn’t act as impartially as a judge should have on this trial. I have no problem with any citizen being figuratively out for blood and handing the alleged offender off to the courts to decide whether crimes can be proven and what the consequences should be, etc., but we should be able to trust that the judge/jury/process will be impartial aka as fair as they should be according to their role(s).
Excuse my impatience, but I just feel as if current Raniere supporters will never answer any direct questions. They talk only about their own good experiences with Keith. Or, they point to minor technicalities at trial they claim cancel out other direct evidence and testimony.
If you ask the hard questions, such as why didn’t Keith put up any form of a defense at trial, all you get is crickets.
I have asked many times on this site for a supporter to step up and relate one good deed Keith selflessly did for others (non-NXIANs) in need during his quest to improve humanity. I never got an answer.
I am all for open dialogue, but it’s hard to have a one-sided discussion. To this day they are accustomed to controlling the narrative. That is not a dialogue; it’s a monologue.
Change my mind.
Let’s give them some time. Consider Nancy that they feel it is them against the whole world. Give it a little time. Ask the questions and I will try to encourage answers.
“Consider Nancy that they feel it is them against the whole world.”
This of course is a delusion thought-reformed into them by the man himself and his cult. One of the most frequently cited quotes by the NXIVM kool-aid drinkers was the one about how it was small groups of people that changed the world, yada, yada, yada.
This theme of “us against the world” is very old and has been used by many even in modern times in arenas like sporting events. It’s little more than an emotional motivational tool that taps into the ego and its need for self-importance.
In NXIVM’s case, it was just another way by the VanFraud to play on the vanity of his followers as he drove them towards an inevitable cliff. Ironically, what is sorely lacking in them is not their emotions, but it is their critical thinking capabilities, which they’ve subjugated to the former.
As soon as Raniere is locked up and has no contact with the outside world, their brain fog will eventually lift, they’ll regret how “stupid” the were for a long time, and they’ll come to realize that the small group of people who were going to change the world was just a pipe dream that was never going to happen.
I have to agree with this Nancy I feel there is an intention to give an impression of entering a free and transparent dialogue. But no praxis. At all. As you say: crickets.
‘that said, I’m taking a break for a while because I need to bleach that bastard out of my brain again.’
Please come back soon, perhaps, meantime we could have one of your poems? [not a limerick]
I just needed to step away last night so I wouldn’t be responding in anger. I appreciate your interest in my more literary work, but I try not to share anything here that might make me identifiable in a more general sense. Friends, family, those who know most of the background on Keith probably recognize my identity if they read here, but I try to keep those same people insulated from any adverse connection to this through me.
OK, fair play. I write poetry too… I get overly excited whenever I see the word ‘poetry’ in an unexpected setting…
NFW: I too was worried that L was leaving us. Luckily it appears to have been a false alarm.
Love this point by L. Anytime we can call out “Raniere techniques”, I think we should. No doubt, the more you were around him, the more of da voodoo you picked up.
Couple of notes:
Re: Rhiannon. As you mention, no one else involved in the TU story knew her, knew her full name, how or why to contact her. Rhiannon came forward on her own out of the clear blue sky simultaneous to me and Gina Melita in 2009. I talked to O’dato and then got Melita’s permission to give her contact info to Odato after Melita found me on FB.
Despite Toni NataLIE’s bullshit story that she rounded up the underage victims for Odato — thereby indicating or implicating some kind of conspiracy, fuck you very much, Toni — and other reports by some eager to snatch the NX “take down” limelight — the TRUTH is that bc NXIVM was in the local news surrounding the Dalai Lama’s pending Albany visit, Rhiannon felt the same imperative to come forward at the same time that I did, that Gina Melita did, regardless of the potential consequences to our personal safety. (“Rhiannon” was much wiser about that.) Toni wasn’t involved in the developing TU story for another year or so, far as I knew. Odato came to LA to interview me early on and AFTER that interview he told me about the NXIVM 9, and that another girl besides Gina Melita had come forward. I had referred him to a couple of others I suspected were also raped but who have not and will not ever go on record. I only vaguely remembered there was a girl who walked Jack, Pam’s dog. (“Tell Mr. Goddit, I’m walking the dog.” Remember our little talks about that Tears for Fears tune, Keith, if you still have above-ground cell reception?)
Re: Camilla. Let’s not leave out Keith’s texts with Cami, wherein he threatens her with the release of her collateral – those graphic nude pics he took himself of her “way back when.” At about the same time Barbara Bouchey and others were snapped in the same spread eagle signature pose as Camilla.
Btw, I have no doubt there’s a torrent of other evidence SOMEWHERE in that stack of 42 library floors of gigabyte data. …You think? The fact that Camilla’s pics were apparently targeted by expert hackers, apparently, only evidences NXIVM’s long-standing practice of evidence and witness tampering starting with Nancy Salzman’s coercion on Mark Vicente to alter evidence in the Ross case AND/OR the level of penetration NX has on corrupt govt officials who could pull that off under the noses of the FBI. Were there deeper penetration, however, the FBI would not have admitted this.
What NX loyalists need to understand, IMHO, is that pursuing their vapid claims is not only futile but extremely self-destructive to each and every one of them.
I agree H. IF there is evidence of tampering, the higher probability is that the tampering was done by those Nxivm elements with a proven record, a damn good reason, and the wherewithal for doing so.
It sounds likely, given the different women. There might well be more too as men like this tend to be looking for young girls all the time. I never understand why these men do it when if they just wait until the legal age of consent in their state they can avoid all the trouble but, time after time, they choose to push the boundaries even if just one year younger than the legal age. Warren Jeffs of the FLDS is the same – had he kept away from anyone under 16 or whatever the age was where he was, he might be free now.
Can we call Raniere a male or a boy, and not a man? LOL
Thank you. LOL
Yes. He is a child molester. By his own admission. In emails. In texts. With Cami. There are hospital records. There is photographic evidence. Cami is subject to perjury laws in her own sworn testimony in deposition and interviews with law enforcement. This is classic gas lighting to attack process. Not the actual law breaking behavior. And separate the evidence into compartments. It is the totality of evidence. Focus on the victims. Stop focusing on the victimizer. The prosecution would never present cami as a victim without highest level of vetting her allegations. That would be an unforced error. Come on with this pathetic nonsense. It’s degrading to those who have come forward. Raniere had a chance to mount a defence. He did not. Because he could not. They could have called witnesses on his behalf. They did not. Because they could not. Stop re litigating. It’s over. He lost. He is a serial child molester.
Did Cami ever give sworn testimony in deposition and interviews with law enforcement? LOL
Good article, chock-full of important detail. But in my mind the question is: Is he truly a pedophile? It seems to me he is more a hebephile (those attracted to very young teens). I am not sure they make such fine distinctions in prisons.
It seems that Keith wanted the age of consent to be 12, as it is in some areas of the world. That might not sit well with prisoners who have young daughters.
There is no such thing in the legal world as a hebephile, the person is either underage (pedophile) and sex with them is statutory rape, or they are of legal age, and nonconsensual sex is rape. LOL
Scott, I was not saying that there is any “legal” distinction. I was asking whether prisoners who might potentially harm Raniere would make that distinction – i.e., that he had sex with very young teens as opposed to six-year-olds. I’m not sure it makes any difference, and it creeps me out that he was recorded talking about “rapeable” babies.
I am told by some of Raniere’s followers that Seduced took the rapeable babies out of context. I am looking forward to their explanation.
—I am told by some of Raniere’s followers that Seduced took the rapeable babies out of context. I am looking forward to their explanation.
I’d bet it was very much out of context. Anyone who’s read a basic philosophy primer knows people can discuss some crazy s*#% without necessarily having dastardly intent. I remember reading one chapter of a philosophy digest in a bookstore as a kid, then walking home dizzily, thinking, “Gee whiz, maybe I really am just a brain in a jar.” I don’t think that I had just experienced gaslighting or indoctrination. Or had I?
“Rapeable baby” is an abysmal choice of words, but I find it doubtful that there isn’t plenty of mitigating context left out of Seduced.
Not only is there no legal distinction, but most prisoners have never heard the term hebephile. LOL
“You cannot un-ring a bell”.
Raniere has a reputation as a sexual deviant with some victims being underage. This is commonly known. No amount of debate about the details will undo how he is viewed.
The only place that can guarantee Raniere’s safety is Super Max. All other placements will provide opportunities for harm to come to Raniere. Other inmates will be very motivated to bring harm to him. Very motivated and very patient, waiting for that brief window of opportunity to pounce.
It is always interesting the common knowledge that everyone has that may not true. California incarcerates approximately 1300 prisoners a year for sex crimes against children – and of those, only about 10 are murdered in prison, and it may not always be because of their sex crimes. The possibility that a high profile felon is found guilty of having a nude photo of a 13-year-old just doesn’t really put him into the serious pedophile category, considering what pictures are on the internet today. Even though we may believe that he had sex with a 12-year-old and a 13-year-old, those crimes were never adjudicated. This safety issue is just a nonissue.
As for Keith’s interest in the age of consent, over the world it varies from 11 to 21 years of age. A few exceptions exist if the man marries the girl, which then there is no age of consent listed. That would not do Keith much good as he doesn’t seem to be the marrying kind.
While others seem to want to consider what is best for Keith, I take the other track and ask what is best for his followers. It just might be appropriate for Keith to be assigned to the SuperMax, where he would have limited ability to communicate with his followers, giving them a break to consider where they should really go with their lives.
Unfortunately for Raniere, the documentaries and news coverage has increased his ‘celebrity’ and not in a good way. Nobody will be debating fine details…..it is the overall stain on his reputation cast by all of this coverage that puts him at risk—a reputation as a sexual deviant cult leader.
The only place that can guarantee his safety is Super Max. That will also make him invisible. That might be the only hope for those that are still brainwashed. It is a win win placement.
Raniere may have been convicted for just one underage crime, but the inmates will find out there were many more cases and they don’t care about which ones weren’t admitted to trial evidence. LOL
Prisons other than supermax can also severely limit Raniere’s communications with the outside world. LOL
St. Antony the Great
“A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, ‘You are mad; you are not like us.”
Raniere has a proclivity to molest girls.
He is going to prison where he might be killed for that proclivity.
Joe Robinette Biden appears to have a similar proclivity.
Democrats want to make Biden President so he can watch “Cuties” in the White House.
Top Democrats defend Joe Biden after accusations of inappropriate behavior
What are you doing with “St. Anthony” here???
You present strong points based on your research. What came over you to bring the Lord of the Rings and such into this all of a sudden?
Yes. He did. Thats obviuos he was a sadistic luciferian that want to rule the world . So It has been observed that pedophilia has relation with sociopaths,.so if anyone in society should be a pedophile is Raniere. It matches the profile . But he is the worst kind of sociopath, and a person that believes in rituals. The interesting part is how rihannon couldnt declare , she wasnt allow,.because It could be to damaging. Well yeah if he is a pedophile he should be allow to have a trial without those crimes. But he rape so Many kids and had protection for.years. for Cafritz that her family is close to the clintons. Or bronfman that they make.sure to silence the victims . Mayen Eve kill Kristen snyder, but maybe in a ritual? Thats the worst part the inclination to satanism. So Raniere thought that un sex you could.do Magic, even. Rapping kids
. And in the original acusation child trafficking was a thing, for.both Raniere and.mack, another one that seem to have a story with pedophilia, like that picture of marina Abramovich
If he did molest these girls–and the evidence that he did is far greater than the opposite–why should he be safe in prison? He’s a rapist. Those whom he molested obviously weren’t safe from him. Why does he deserve better? Why should their words hold less weight than a known liar and convicted criminal? The more witnesses there are that make the same or similar claims, the less probability that there is a conspiracy to fabricate them, especially if those who make the claims have no relationship to each other and have experienced the same type behavior independently over the course of a number of years. What goes around comes around.
How many women does it take to equal the word of one man?
It’s not about words, it’s about evidence. LOL