This is Part 6 of the “Tampered but True?” series.
Part 1: Cami Pics Tampered but True?
Part 2 Cami Pics Tampered but True? EXIF Data Is Hard to Change… Is It Really?
Part 3: Cami Pics Tampered but True? Cami Says It’s True; She Was Photographed at Age 15 By Raniere
Part 4: Cami Pics ‘Tampered but True?’ That Cami Did Not Testify at Trial Raises Legal Questions on Pics on Appeal
Part 5 Cami Pics ‘Tampered but True?’ Judge Garaufis Weighed in on Raniere’s Relationship With Cami
In Part 6, I reprint an interview I had with cyber expert, digital forensics examiner and instructor and attorney, Steven M. Abrams.
He says the Cami picture evidence should never have been admitted as evidence at the trial.
Yes, he was paid by supporters of Raniere or by Raniere and, therefore, it is not surprising to hear him say the Cami pictures are unreliable evidence. Still, he does have credentials. Check out his Curriculum Vitae
And when I spoke to him, he made sense. He spoke as if he knew what he was talking about, Maybe you can judge for yourself.
Abrams: It does appear that way. I mean, it appears, first of all, that the evidence was grossly mishandled to start with. And by the time the FBI figured out that somebody had written over the data after they seized it, at that point, they probably knew that they had a problem. I want to be clear: I do believe that the data most likely has been tampered with.
I don’t necessarily think that it was necessarily the FBI that tampered with it. It was tampered with somewhere along the line.
It could have been tampered with before they [the FBI] got it, and then they then could have made matters worse by writing over some of the access tape before they had logged the hard drive and the compact flash card into their evidence.
At that point, that evidence should have been excluded. It’s just not valid at that point. And there’s really nothing they can do to resuscitate the validity of it. Part of the problem is that you don’t know when some of their date and timestamps were changed.
But you have the admission by the [FBI] agent in the transcript from the trial that he – that somebody – accessed the devices on the 19th of September of 2018, six months after they had it in their possession. And they know that because some of the access dates were changed to that day.
At that point, you say “Well, this evidence is no longer valid. It’s been written on, and it’s been written on by an unknown person – so your chain of custody now has a break in it.” There’s no way to fix that. There’s no way to say that the evidence goes back to the person you’re alleging it goes back to at that point. Because there have been intervening persons who have had access to that evidence between the person you’re alleging put the things onto it and the time that your examiner got to it.
Abrams: They grossly mishandled the evidence.
Parlato: They grossly mishandled the evidence?
Abrams: One thing I don’t understand is how the FBI can take this evidence into their possession in March and not log it into their evidence system for months and months and months after they have it. That makes no sense to me at all. It should go directly from whoever seizes it to evidence and be logged in and have an appropriate chain of custody travel with it throughout the FBI for the entire time it’s there. And that was not the case here.
Parlato: So, just the very fact that the agent himself [Senior Forensic Examiner Brian Booth], in testimony in the trial, admitted that somebody got into it. Shouldn’t just that alone have made the evidence unreliable?
Abrams: I believe that. In fact, I think I say that: I think that evidence is unreliable and should not have been relied on for anything, and should have been excluded.
Parlato: Even without any forensic work, just the agent’s testimony in the case itself, right, would be enough to raise a serious red flag, right?
Abrams: Right, exactly. Just the evidence that was testified to by the agent – that somebody had access, he doesn’t know who it was – should be enough to say, “That’s the end of this piece of evidence.”
Abrams: It’s possible. Once you have no control – once you lose control over the evidence, there’s no limit to the range of types of mischief that could occur to it… Anything could have happened to those pictures at that point because they hadn’t [been] logged it in yet, they hadn’t made a forensic copy of it yet. So, they don’t know what they’re starting from. And then somebody gets access to it. Now they have no way of getting back to where it was before whoever touched it, touched it. At that point, it’s irreparable, the harm is irreparable – there’s no way to fix it.
Parlato: So, they could have swapped a picture, right? They could have taken an adult woman’s picture and tossed in a girl’s picture if they wanted to – a child’s picture – and still be called the same file, or no?
Abrams: If what is alleged that they’ve changed the metadata on these pictures, then it is possible you could add additional pictures into the collection as long as you change the filename to be consistent with the pictures in that collection. And they would appear that they were part of a collection…Now we also have the situation that the EXIF file that’s on the hard drive shows that the picture was created with Adobe. And so that says to me that somebody has altered some of that metadata along the way and that the image has been altered because it went through Photoshop.
END OF ABRAMS INTERVIEW
It is true that Abrams was paid by supporters of Raniere. Yet, what he says cannot be entirely discounted. The evidence was grossly mishandled. It happened to be the linchpin evidence in the entire case.
[…] months ago, Frank wrote a series of posts about this issue. And in Part 6 of that series (https://frankreport.com/2021/05/19/part-5-cami-pics-tampered-but-true-forensic-expert-fbi-grossly-mi…), he wrote about an interview he had conducted with Steven M. Adams, a cyber expert, digital […]
RE Suneel & Cyber Dude Steve:
Suneel seems to be gifted at finding yes-men.
I’d love to know how many “experts” Suneel consulted with before hiring Steven Abrams and Dr. Munegowda…
…I’ll venture to guess more than I can count on my fingers and toes.
Cyber (lawyer) Steven Abrams looks like a guy who teaches at a community college — when he’s not working at Home Depot.
And if you think Suneel’s the fool playing Frank, I guess you never met Kristin Keeffe.
Damn, was she ever a head spinner in her day.
Truth or Dare: How long and how frequently has Frank harbored KK since her daring escape with Galen? And what was their prior relationship from the time she, Stone and Pigeon recruited his top-dollar services for NXIVM?
You sound jealous of Kristen Keefe. Why all the hate?
Raniere had the money and resources to use the courts to take Galen from Kristen Keefe. She had to hide.
Birds tether their nests long before laying their eggs. Even vultures.
Remember that time when FR did that analysis of Anderson Cooper’s Monarch induction replete with pics of the underground torture chamber where he was hung upside down as a sex toy tot beneath Epstein’s Temple and all?
And that time on here when MK10 and Chicky Rogue etc. outed yours truly as an unwoke survivor?
Sticks and Stones…no hate or jealousy here. I’ve known Kristin Keeffe since she was 19 years old.
I care about her nearly as much as my sister did despite the fact that Kristin helped shaped Gina’s life and death into a sacrifice to Keith in her stead. Yes, it’s been a horrific realization I came to through the facts in hindsight; too late for Gina. So all I can do is TRY to help prevent other victims from meeting a similar ultimate fate.
Some, I fear, are already too far gone in the delusion – the false, albeit partial reality-based constructs designed to permanently overtake the psyches of their prey.
“I was brainwashed,” Kristin Snyder allegedly wrote in one of her suicide notes, 4 months after Gina died. A couple years after they tried to convince the both of us – Gina and I – that we were “already dead” inside.
Catch 22 question for the experts: does a brainwashed person know they are brainwashed? Or might she not have been brainwashed into writing that by a brainwash boaster taking credit for a prior suicide?
You do know that brainwashing doesn’t actually exist…the CIA spent 20 years trying to figure out how to brainwash people…but couldn’t…”Brainwashing” is not supported by ANY science, academia or law…whoever figure out how to brainwash will make $$$$
—And that time on here when MK10 and Chicky Rogue etc. outed yours truly as an unwoke survivor?
And I know who you are and I don’t understand your lines of logic.
Fact is that certain commentors here on FR either really believe that there are Monarch ‘survivors’ among us, that NXIVM is a Govt. “Pschyop,” that Kris Snyder and Gina Hutchinson are still alive and acting as secret Monarch trained agents, etc. OR they are intent on selling or using this delusional crap somehow; whether they believe it or not and whether or not it has any basis in reality, which it does not.
I’m simply stating facts as I feel I must at times to protect myself and others from these irrational fallacies. No particular line of logic or goal but survival at this point. I’m still in shock that anyone could possibly buy into any of the Q ANON conspiracies…but, but, but, many most certainly do.
I see a distinct copycat pattern here – after KAR’S own heart – pertaining to manipulating snd exploiting the female characters among us to one’s own bitter ends.
CFAWEB, stop looking at this nonsense!
it was obviously the Illuminati and Edgar from the grave. Not the first time they’ve gotten one over on Vanguard.
Cyber lawyer Steven Abrams — looks like a guy, who teaches at a community college — when he’s not working at Home Depot.
Frank, where do you and Suneel get your computer experts…
…Alcoholics Anonymous or Comic-Con?
—Abrams: I believe that. In fact, I think I say that: I think that evidence is unreliable and should not have been relied on for anything, and should have been excluded.
The FBI had custody the entire time!
So, we’re to believe the FBI, Cami, and shadowy elements, conspired to frame Raniere….OMFG!
Device camera data images are recording devices. Whoever turns them on may initiate a logging in to the storage media without ever looking at anything. If any image was edited with its imaging enhance functions (think brightness or contras) to bring out the image, that does not mean the image was altered. Nor is it logical to discard all the images captured by the device since the date stamp of all the images is a totality of evidence for a particular date or scene. So noting the absence of a scar to determine the age of the subject would be supported by the set, dress, wall clock or other environmental observations which support or refute a doctoring of one favorite image.
The expert is grasping at straws.
—Whoever turns them on may initiate a logging in to the storage media without ever looking at anything
Excellent point! Totally true! Not debatable!
“A sweeping patio with an ocean view is a perfect setting for entertaining fiends.”
This real estate ad for a mansion appeared in the little, local Palm Beach newspaper many years ago, and I’ve never forgotten it. Such fuel for the imagination it was. What a fabulous typo.
“Freudian” slip? Over the next several weeks, that advertisement didn’t appear at all.
Back to the drawing board?
But if one’s friends happen to be fiends, why dither over the descriptive details?
I’m curious for an answer Frank.
You had dozens and dozens of articles maligning the NXIVM actresses Allison Mack and Kristin Kreuk and, to a lesser extent, Grace Park.
So, where are the dozens and dozens of articles maligning Nicki Clyne who still supports Raniere, NXIVM, etc.? Where is the article pointing out the FACT that in legal documentation, it was explicitly stated that Nicki gave all of the NXIVM collateral to her lawyer and would’ve pleaded THE FIFTH if she was called to testify on the witness stand?
Why are you giving these baseless NXVIM claims merit when there is much bigger fish to fry?
It’s worth exploring – these so-called baseless claims. As for Nicki, I have way more respect for her than Kristin or Grace.
Haha at Nicki getting more respect. I noticed you left Allison out of your response. As for the other two, is it it because they didn’t join your self-serving crusade against Raniere and Clare?
And why does Nicki get more respect from you? After all, she’d trade her master’s place in prison for you anytime. Is it because she’s out there defending someone no matter who it is? Or is it because she’s on the DOJ, prosecutorial corruption bandwagon like you? Her lawyer telling the government that she would take the fifth proves she’s done some bad stuff.
I guess supporting mischievous behavior and stupidity is A-OK as long as it’s self-serving.
Nicki should show her allegiance to Vanguard by getting a large tattoo of his face on her back–like Stone has of Nixon.
Deepstate. by now you should have learned that tattoos are a nothing-burger for this crew — try a large brand of his face. More bad-ass.
Frank, you may respect or even be friends with Nicki but she is currently spinning daily Raniere propaganda.
If ANYONE keeps putting themselves out there in that way about the allegedly purely positive effects of Nxivm/DOS/vanguard, there’s going to be pushback. Actually, I think she craves it. Knowing it is the only way to keep vanguard in his limited visibility and relevance.
Nicki constantly calls HBO’s “The Vow” scripted lies. Presumably, that includes you. And your contributions.
She disparages: Mark, Sarah, India, Catherine, all DOS defectors. Don’t you also respect them?
Nicki is very hurtful in her discounting of Cami. And others. Trust & believe she would do the same to you if it fit her free Keith Raniere agenda.
And you committed to eventually report on her marriage fraud. And you haven’t. It’s your blog. Your choice. I get it. I still appreciate you.
Who is going to start the schools needed to deprogram current college students so they can actually function in the real world?”
It’s too late to deprogram today’s generation.
Show on WNET 00 NYC’s PBS station
Taxpayers are funding a NYC PBS show where a drag queen named “Little Miss Hot Mess” teaches “drag queens in training,” also known as children, how to shake their butts.
The program, “Let’s Learn,” is a collaboration between PBS and The New York City Department of Education aimed at children ages 3-8.
Mary Margaret Olohan
Drag queen Little Miss Hot Mess sings “The Hips On the Drag Queen Go Swish Swish Swish” to a virtual child audience on an episode of “Let’s Learn,” produced in partnership by WNET and the New York City Department of Education and aired on PBS.
—As for Nicki, I have way more respect for her than Kristin or Grace.
That’s a powerful comment! I get where you are coming from…
… I 1/2 agree.
Kristen and Grace never owned up to the roles they played in NXIVM recruitment.
In fact, they openly lied.
Why Frank? (As for Nicki, I have way more respect for her than Kristin or Grace.)
Why? Sure, neither Kristin nor Grace worked to expose Nx, and falsely tried to minimize their connection to the sex cult. But Nicki was a slave master and group-bj-member and continues, continues (!) to support the cult and Vanguard. Does her publicly standing up for the cult and Vanguard earn “respect points” from you, even though Nicki continues to lie about what went on and what she did?
As I have written elsewhere: I respect Nicki for standing her ground. Even though I disagree with her view of Keith Raniere. I can also only judge her by my own personal knowledge. I have found her to be honest with me and she has been candid about what she did in DOS. I think she told me the truth about her and Allison Mack.
But I can respect someone who is on the opposite side. That doesn’t mean I agree with their position. I would add one more thing. Nicki seems to have escaped a lot of the harm some of the others experienced. I’ll explain more later but for instance her being a vegan seems to have helped her stay slender without the insane calorie restricted diet.
She is a gentle person, in my opinion, and consequently she was not accused by her “slaves” of the excesses that Allison and Lauren were accused of. No one is out there calling for her head like they do for Allison, Nancy, Lauren and others. I’m not saying she is an angel but at least she has the courage of her convictions.
She honestly thinks Keith is a wonderful human being and did not do the things he is accused of doing. I disagree, but I respect the fact that she sincerely believes this.
If nothing else makes sense, then leave it at this: Nicki thinks she is doing good, not evil and she thinks the whole world is against her. But she will fight on because she believes in it. It is wrong, sure. Keith is not a good guy. But she believes it. So that’s why I respect her.
One day she will find out I suppose about Keith and then with that same force that held to the good, she will turn from him. It will happen one day I think.
Dylann Roof believed in what he was doing when he killed nine Black worshipers in their church. He believes his cause is just. He’s sincere in his White Supremacist beliefs. Fanatics are always sincere in their beliefs
Having the “courage of one’s convictions” is not a good thing, it’s not a bad thing, it’s utterly dependent on what those convictions are.
Remaining loyal to a cause through thick and thin despite what everybody else says is perfect cult mentality. It’s the exact opposite of keeping an open mind.
Because the only way to defend Raniere is to shut out reality
Stubbornly believing in a cause after it has been exposed is pig-headed, reality-denying damn-fool behavior. It is not admirable.
“I don’t care what everybody else says” is an anti-social attitude. Maybe, just maybe you are right and everyone else is wrong, but you better be damn sure of your facts and your logic. Which in the case of Nxivm, just ain’t happening. Raniere isn’t the smartest man in the world. He lied about his accomplishments, he wasn’t a renunciate, his “tech” was purloined, he was a vindictive, horny, immoral con man. There was no government / media conspiracy to “get” him. And a master-slave cult branding a man’s initials onto women’s pussies wasn’t a feminist sorority meant to empower women.
Anyone who continues to believe in Raniere is not admirable. It’s sad and pathetic. And indefensible.
Defending Raniere is not some kind of noble lost cause.
I am not so sure she will ever turn on him. She would have to be willing to take in new information and question what she believes. She is so locked into fighting right now that it doesn’t seem possible. I would respect her more if she was at least being honest in her interviews and videos but they are deceptive. Would she be willing to answer questions here? Not necessarily about any criminal involvement that would cause legal problems for her. But just about Keith’s teachings and why she has such an unwavering faith in them. I also have a minor in philosophy so I am as much of a philosopher as Keith which is to say not at all. I would love to discuss what philosophy looks like, how it really works, and the diversity of views there. I am sure scientists, psychologists, etc could help her see that his views are not part of their fields either. It might be a less loaded way to help expose her to other ideas and give her some perspective so she can judge for herself.
==Having the “courage of one’s convictions” is not a good thing, it’s not a bad thing, it’s utterly dependent on what those convictions are.
Exactly. And if your convictions are based on objectively apparent stupidity and falsehood, it’s pigheaded and asinine. There is nothing noble or remarkable about it. Persistence is generally seen as a virtue, but you shouldn’t persist in banging your head against a brick wall.
In my brief interactions with Nicki, I found her reasoning for supporting Raniere rational and sound – from her own experience in her own life and for her own purposes.
Nicki is very smart, incredibly articulate, and her very own person.
These things are easy for me to respect.
We disagree on a few things, especially regarding how far Raniere should be fought for, but we agree on way more than we disagree. She has her own very real and true reasons for supporting Raniere from her own experience in her own life.
And from what she’s told me, I agree with her stance – for her.
Where we agree the most is that mainstream society is incredibly shallow and materialistic, and dumb.
People like Nicki, and me, sought alternatives to North American mainstream society’s milquetoast pabulum. We found the social courage to branch out and find alternatives that worked for us, for a while, and for as long as it worked. Then we graduated and moved on.
We’re not embarrassed, we’re not apologetic, and we’re not shameful or guilty for having the courage to try to live the best life we can with the one shot we have.
This is what anticultists don’t understand about former and existing cult members: They’re usually smarter, more courageous and more independent thinkers than anticultists are. And they value life enough to risk the humiliation the mainstream shames them with to create a better culture with better values. Most “brainwashed cultists” have the courage and the intelligence, and independence of thought, to create a better world than an anticultist ever could.
Most Anticultists, especially most pinheaded never-ins, don’t have the intelligence, or the courage, to do any of this. Most anticultists have never been challenged enough to question their own worldviews, or examine their own assumptions. They figure so many believe as they do – it must be true.
Their Torquemadan Certainty® fuels their shaming of cultists and ex-cultists in their onslaught to create uniformity of thought and conformity of belief – exactly the thing they accuse ‘cults’ of..
Socially coercive “brainwashing” techniques don’t just exist in “cults” – AntiCultists employ them all the time.
Social coercion to create uniformity of belief seems to be hard-wired into all homo sapiens as a tribal species..
This is my position on Nicki Clyne:
Nicki Clyne is a great person. She has more courage and more intelligence than 200 pinheaded anticultists who try – every day – to tear her down.
==Where we agree the most is that mainstream society is incredibly shallow and materialistic, and dumb.
So, both of you are over-generalizing, patronizing critics of practically everyone else.
==Then we graduated and moved on.
Ha! Nicki hasn’t moved on. At all. She’s still doing her master’s bidding.
==We’re not embarrassed, we’re not apologetic, and we’re not shameful or guilty for having the courage to try to live the best life we can with the one shot we have.
Neither is Raniere. But whatever.
==They’re usually smarter, more courageous and more independent thinkers than anticultists are.
Or they simply tell themselves they are to make themselves feel better. What is your scientific and statistical criteria for asserting such a bodacious claim?
==This is what anticultists don’t understand about former and existing cult members
Most people aren’t boxed into your invented category of “anticultistism”. Are people who have written (albeit controversial) research papers on categorizing cults, anti-cultists? I understand that cult is seen as a pejorative mainstream term–like many other terms–but that doesn’t mean it is completely arbitrary.
Most people don’t even care about other people’s alternative lifestyles (at least in Western societies where the freedom to engage in such is quite large) until the people who adhere to them begin to interfere in the lives of the former in destructive ways and/or break the law. Kind of like what NXIVM did with its racketeering enterprise and sextortion ring masked as a sorority
I know it’s psychologically comforting to the self to think and tell others that you’re on some high horse–you know, being self-identified as intellectually superior to a dumb mainstream society–but I see only your “anticultism” joining you and Nicki at the hip. But Nicki really only cares about one cult in particular–the cult of Raniere.
By the way, EVERYONE reinterprets their own past beliefs and history in terms of their current beliefs. It’s not just unique to “cultists” who return to “mainstream” society.
May 22, 2021 at 8:21 am
“Social coercion to create uniformity of belief seems to be hard-wired into all homo sapiens as a tribal species.”- Alonzo
Love the quote from the book Sapiens, which I actually read.
I found it rather pretentious and the author self-indulgent. His hubris is self-love to the next level. I bet he stands, in-front of the mirror and [redacted].
By chance, are the two of you brothers?
Really, Frank? You respect someone who constantly lies and manipulates. I’m speechless. And disappointed.
I respect Nicki because she at least doesn’t hide. Kristin and Grace hid and are still hiding. I do not have to agree with Nicki on Keith Raniere but she has been steady in her loyalty and unafraid to take the calumny of the world. I find that interesting. By that metric, I respect her.
Like others, Grace and Kristin were fooled and joined a social group they thought was doing good. They didn’t seem to be in very deep and had more than NXIVM in their lives, like a career and a life outside of it. Who would want to be associated anymore with a sex cult and bring all its negativity back into their lives? They don’t need it either to help them or hurt them.
“Who would want to be associated anymore with a sex cult and bring all its negativity back into their lives?”
Stop lying, Anticultist.
For 99.9% of anyone ever involved in any form of NXIVM, it was never a “sex cult”.
–For 99.9% of anyone ever involved in any form of NXIVM, it was never a “sex cult”.
Well, that’s certainly true. It just hid one and used a superficially legitimate corporate facade for what effectively turned into a racketeering and sextortion operation for primarily one man.
There were at least three layers. NXIVM, the first line leaders of DOS (who chose it and/or deceived others), and those of DOS (who were deceived).
—For 99.9% of anyone ever involved in any form of NXIVM, it was never a “sex cult”.
That’s analogous to saying O.J. Simpson was a great guy 364 days a year, except for the 1 day he killed 2 people.
Or that 99.9% of people had a positive experience when they met John Wayne Gacy except for the 11 men and boys he killed.
Bubba — you need to take a statistics course and spend less time in the philosophy department.
I will have much more to say on this topic when this series is finished.
In the meantime, however, I do want to point out what normally happens when the FBI — or any other police-type organization — has seized electronic evidence. The first step in most standard protocols is to make a duplicate/mirror image of the electronic evidence — which allows forensic examiners to examine the evidence all they want without disturbing its condition at the time it was seized. It does not appear that was done here — at least not by the person who accessed the camera card on September 19, 2018.
I also want to point out how some of the misrepresentations that are being bandied about by various commenters. Based on my original review of the trial transcripts — which was back when the trial was going on — here are some statements that I do not believe are accurate:
– The FBI waited six months to log the camera card into evidence. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim — and the only way to be sure, one way or the other, would be to review the FBI’s evidence logs.
– The camera card went missing. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim — and just because someone accessed it on September 19, 2018 does not mean it ever left the FBI’s evidence room.
– The FBI tampered with the camera card. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim — and the fact that someone accessed the card on September 19, 2018 does not prove they tampered with it.
To be sure, it looks like the FBI made a mistake by allowing someone to access the camera card on September 19, 2018 without going through the appropriate protocol steps. But, as of right now, that’s all we have evidence of: i.e., that an undocumented access occurred.
I look forward to your comments on this topic.
Claviger – How would someone even accomplish evidence tampering in such a case like this in secrecy?
There were so many eyeballs on it from all over the EDNY. Between Moira, Tanya, Mark, etc., you would think would all have had to agree to a conspiracy, or at the very least, whoever would attempt it would have to know to hide it very well from the others. And this would seem odd to me since they called in an expert to testify, knowing he could be cross-examined and it could be exposed. I just find it highly doubtful they’d all agree to it or have the balls to even try.
If a small case, like John Tighe’s, then I think it is possible. IDK perhaps it’d be easier than I think but in a major case like this, I would think it’s not possible. What do you think?
I think this is a classic example of how people who were part of NXIVM/ESP try to use one fact to prove several different things. In this particular instance, it’s a fact that someone accessed the camera card without going through the proper protocol of signing it out (It’s also possible that this access happened before the FBI made a duplicate/mirror image of all the electronic evidence it had gathered in the case). While that is unfortunate, it does not mean that “the camera card went missing” or that “someone tampered with the data on the camera card” or that anything else nefarious happened. It means that someone accessed the camera card without going through the proper protocol of signing it out.
And does anyone really believe that if the FBI actually tampered with the evidence, it would have left this sort of electronic trail behind?
If the photo wasn’t on the device or if it was tampered/photoshopped or wasn’t an original photo, keith would know that. he would know he didn’t have any photos of her and this was a set up. His attorneys would have raised bloody fucking hell and it would seem pretty simple enough to disprove if even suneel can do it with a google search. If somebody plants evidence against you, and you have keith’s resources available, why would you just let it go? With what they are doing, that would mean the apparent strategy is to try and get it overturned on appeal instead of during the trial? That makes no fuckin’ sense to me. Am I missing something here?
Nope…IMO, you are not missing a thing.
Thank you, Claviger. We all need a voice of reason, especially with these recent posts.
I don’t believe that the camera card was doctored, but I expect some curious agent or agents did access the collateral pics…for a while. A few hairy vagina pics are interesting, but dozens get old and increasingly boring. Even vaginas of minor celebs.
You seem to know what chain of custody is.
If someone accesses evidence and the chain of custody does not have a record of it, and if during a trial in a court of law the property and evidence expert himself can not say who it was who accessed it, or what they did with it, then he can’t testify to what was done, and chain of custody was lost.
The credibility of the evidence and its use in gaining a conviction has been lost, as well.
In a criminal trial with criminal penalties where people lose their property, their freedom, and even their lives, that evidence does not rise to the level necessary to convict and should be thrown out.
Thus, this evidence was “lost”.
A break in the chain of custody does not automatically make evidence inadmissible. Instead, it gives the defense attorney an opportunity to argue that it should be inadmissible. But the final arbiter of whether any evidence is admissible is the judge. And in this case, Judge Garufis ruled the photo evidence regarding Cami was admissible. So, no, that evidence was not “lost”.
“What he says cannot be discounted”
Sure it can. He’s biased, he has been paid to state a case. Therefore, what he says is tainted.
Using the same standard he applies to the memory card evidence, his opinions are tainted and can not only be discounted, they MUST be discounted.
If we’re to be objective in our analysis, we must be consistent here.
And aside from his opinion, what does he actually say about the evidence?
“ you have the admission by the [FBI] agent in the transcript from the trial that he – that somebody – accessed the devices on the 19th of September of 2018, six months after they had it in their possession.”
So if somebody looks at the evidence, the evidence is rendered invalid? Huh?! Is this some kind of Schrödinger’s Cat scenario? His claim is ridiculous.
Another point: when did this detail of the memory card data being accessed while in FBI custody become the “linchpin” of the case? Because the crux of the case was always the blackmailing and branding of women. The argument on the Frank Report, going way back, was that Raniere never would’ve been prosecuted and convicted if it hadn’t been for DOS and the branding. Specifically, branding women with KAR on their nether regions.
The issue of the accessed memory card file is a non-starter. A computer consultant’s speculations about what might have happened to the file while in FBI custody is nothing more than his opinions and theorizing. His opinions on the admissibility of evidence carry even less weight, being outside the area of his expertise.
It would have been irresponsible of Judge Garaufis to exclude the Cami file evidence simply because the files had been accessed. If this issue is brought before the appellate court justices (and I say IF), they’re not going to disqualify the evidence either. Not on the basis of Raniere’s friends’ speculations about FBI tampering. Because that’s all it is: speculation.
Go back and read the Raniere appeal motion. His lawyers specifically accept the date of the pictures as genuine. They’re not claiming FBI evidence tampering.
Great analysis . Thank you
Thanks, Aristotle. To make a six-part series about possible camera tampering and touting it as the lynchpin to this case is about the most ridiculous and irresponsible thing I have read here, when most agreeably it should be about the multiple abuses of women.
Frank, did you get the vaccine or do you still believe it is a 5g hoax? Do you care that you fooled some people? Do you think you got anyone killed with that stunt?
Who got killed? With what stunt? Are you saying to merely question the safety of 5G is tantamount to getting people killed?
Is your opinion then that people must believe everything they are told by the government at all times, regardless of nation or competence of the government, lest we get people killed?
Great response, Frank. I think it is important to question.
It is even more important to question baseless conspiracy theories from unverified and/or unverifiable sources.
Yes, sometimes the government lies, and sometimes half the government lies, bigly.
To Anonymous 5:15am and Frank
Frank is right!
After the government’s CDC lied to the American public, telling them, they didn’t need to wear masks and only needed to wash their hands…
…Why wouldn’t you question the government Anonymous?
At the time the CDC and WHO were lying Tucker Carlson, initially spoke the truth:
Tucker: The government has a coronavirus mask problem | https://video.foxnews.com/v/6145894012001
For the rest of my life, I’m questioning the government! I never thought I had to until the last year.
A must read. May consider a separate article as a public service:
Didn’t your old friend die of covid? The foolish guy who you would advise when he was getting senile. Your 5g articles were shared and influenced thousands …
Some people are asking why I’m posting this. I don’t believe any government, organization, or cult. I make my own conclusions like your self. And I immediately thought it was ridiculous when you did this last year. I posted this because I wonder if how you got there, what you eventually concluded, and if you think about the effects of these publications.
So, did you get the vaccine? Do you think you got anyone killed?
What is this? A fucking nunchuck attack from the back?
Settle the HELL down about what IS noyfb. Good God, ever look in the mirror?
“None of your fucking business” is exactly how I view this damned harpyish comment. You are so transparent that it is surprising that you can continue to fail to take account of it. For yourself!
Are you going to cross-examine everyone on earth, off of the tsunami effects of your very own choice to be MISERABLE? What a miasma.
Sorry, editors. This is kinda thorny. But I let it go. Ahhhhh!
And the magnolia flowers are starting to open now. Back to the bliss. Where I feel rather at home.
But grrrrrrrr to bitching at Frank about much of anything at ALL. Grrrrrrrr. And ho ho ho, too.
More Cuban coffee, asap.
Who runs the FBI?
Inspector Jacques Clouseau, of course.
The Pink Panther Strikes Again
Remember Sellers in 1979’s film, Being There? That story was from the amazing mind of Jerzy Kosinski, and Peter Sellers not only received some well-earned rewards for his acting work in Being There. He gave that role so much life that it has stayed unforgettable.
A kind of divine madness taking a look at what is or is not “true.”. It could be that you have inspired me to watch this movie again very soon.
Ah, Shivani, of course you would pick one of my all-time favorite movies — and one of my all-time favorite comedic actors. I will watch it again this coming weekend — and drink a glass or two of crisply chilled Sauvignon Blanc in your honor.
One of the all time great comedies!
Clouseau: “No, I don’t want a massage! Why would I want a massage from you, you imbecile!”
Concierge: “No sir, I said, ‘I have I have a message for you.’”
You really are such a surprise.
Rather dizzyingly so
but then, I’ve never been able
to hold much alcohol and prefer to use burning objects
Jerzy Kosinski has a book, The Painted Bird. It changed me forevermore.
Yes. Being There sounds very good.
Are you sure that you are an attorney? You did all of that? That is a lot.