Suneel, your arguments in the post Suneel Smacks Back at Bangkok, Presses Allegations of FBI Tampering With Cami Child Porn Pics are, again, meritless.
First, you are claiming that you know more than an expert. Not buying it. Sounds like Dunning-Kruger to me, as do all your posts.
Second, the fact that the photos were accessed does not mean that they were significantly tampered with and the dates altered. It is more probable that the explanation is innocuous. As far as planting photos on Raniere’s hard drive and creating a 2005 folder, that is just ridiculous and does not deserve a reply.
Third, the reliability of the photos goes to the weight of the evidence and not admissibility. That means, the jury gets to decide whether they believe, based upon the evidence presented at trial (which includes the cross-examination of the expert), whether the photos are what the prosecution asserts them to be. Here, the jury clearly found that they were genuine.
Fourth, Raniere’s defense team was heavily influenced by his input, if not completely controlled by it.
At trial, Raniere did not dispute that they were from 2005. From what I remember, Raniere’s attorney Marc Agnifilo tried to get them thrown out because they were so old. Also, Agnifilo could have called his own experts at trial to challenge the prosecution’s expert.
I am sure if Raniere believed they were not from 2005, he would have made sure that his lawyers did this, but he did not. That is very telling.
Fifth, Closing arguments are just that, argument. They are not evidence. That means, aside from some basic rules, the prosecutor is permitted to argue what is in evidence. Raniere’s lawyers were free to do the same. Again, closing arguments are not evidence.
Lastly, the fact that the charges involving Cami were added in a superseding indictment three months before trial does not point to nefarious conduct on the part of the government or FBI. Prosecutors only charge what they believe they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps, they believed Cami’s testimony was needed to present their best evidence, and when that didn’t pan out, they decided the photos were sufficient. Remember, the government, in most cases, has one shot at an indictment. Waiting for Cami to cooperate was understandable and wise.
Suneel, if you want to make legal arguments, go to law school first. I almost did not want to write this because I believe you are using Frank Report to learn about the law. If you are going to continue making baseless arguments, as I am sure you will, just remember that you lose credibility with every frivolous argument that you make.
That is why you have lost nearly all credibility on FR.
At the sentencing hearing of Keith Alan Raniere, his attorney, Marc Agnifilo, admitted he did not dispute whether Raniere took nude pictures of Cami when she was 15.
Here is what he said:
AGNIFILO: As your Honor knows, he wasn’t charged with or convicted of having sex with Camila. He was charged and convicted of the photographs [of possessing nude photos of Camila when she was allegedly 15.] And if your Honor remembers my trial defense, I didn’t really dispute the 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.
So, that’s how I dealt with the photographs at the trial. I didn’t say anything one way or another about them. I didn’t say at the trial anything one way or another about Camila at 15 years old.