This is not one where you want it to go away via a technicality.
The Rule 33 motion, expected to be filed by Keith Raniere’s attorneys, is one of the most interesting aspects of the criminal case against him.
Either it is a fabricated, last-ditch, fully disprovable bunch of hogwash, or there is something very insidious, very devious, very dangerous going on.
In order to find out, and I am reluctant to jump to any conclusions until I have seen the evidence, there might be a needed period of investigation. That’s what Frank Report does.
It may become clear and apparent, once the evidence is in, that there is nothing to the allegations that the FBI tampered with the most important evidence in the case against Raniere – the naked pictures of a 15-year-old Camila.
If there is a particle of truth to the alleged tampering, however, this is a matter of grave concern, even though the alleged victim is the despicable Keith Raniere.
If FBI agents did not tamper with the evidence, they will easily withstand scrutiny, just as an innocent man indicted withstands the scrutiny of trial.
Be assured that whatever cyber experts Raniere retained – and I understand he has retained three new ones, including one who was a forensic specialist with the FBI – they will come under scrutiny.
If these experts are scrutinized for their reports, challenged honestly on the truth of their findings, this is welcomed. If they are challenged on their right to challenge the FBI, if attempts are made to intimidate them and get them to back down, or because Raniere is a villain or guilty anyway, so this should die without the truth being known, then I expect there was tampering.
What impresses me is, I am told by Raniere supporters, that the cyber experts expressly state tampering occurred by the FBI.
Either they are lying or telling the truth or they are misinformed or mistaken or they know not what they are talking about. Either that or they do.
It is not easy for a cyber expert, who depends on the goodwill of clients and her/his reputation in the field, to make a claim of FBI tampering.
All of the experts, I am told, make their living in the cyber field. One of them is a longtime veteran of the FBI, a top cyber expert and knows the protocol of the FBI. Another is a cyber attorney whose work in New York and other states has been hailed as top of profession. He is one of few attorneys who understand the intricacies of computers and the applicability of the law.
The third expert, I am told, is one of the deans of the cyber industry, a pioneer in the field. He has been called as an expert witness in possibly more cases than any other person in America.
All three are Americans. All three say the FBI tampered with evidence, according to the Raniere sources.
It is true these experts were paid by the defense and, therefore, the question is were their opinions purchased and slanted because of that?
I have not seen the receipts but perhaps they should be produced as part of the Rule 33 motion process. I am told the experts were paid their standard fee – no more, no less – which are billed at an hourly rate.
If this is true, we are talking about people who depend on their reputation as experts and if they got paid what they normally charge, it is fair to ask would they risk their reputation to lie for Raniere?
These experts are not members of NXIVM, according to my source. They have no connection whatsoever to Raniere – and never met him or took a NXIVM class.
One expert was with the FBI when Raniere was arrested and convicted.
Assuming the experts are independent and competent – and that their reports are valid – we have to explore this. If there was tampering by the FBI with the hard drive and camera card, even if the judge chooses to dismiss this on a technicality, I would not be inclined to let it go.
The technicality I can imagine this being tossed out over is that lawyers for Raniere failed to find the tampering evidence before or during his trial. A Rule 33 motion requires that evidence be newly discovered and not available through due diligence during or before trial.
I can hear the argument for tossing it out revolving around the fact that Raniere’s attorneys should have called cyber experts during the trial.
But is this a lack of due diligence?
If tampering did occur, how could anyone expect defense lawyers to detect it? They are not cyber experts, nor do they have the color of law at their back.
According to Raniere sources, the defense never received the camera card or a forensic image, and the government reports provided at trial were created the day before FBI Examiner Brian Booth’s testimony [June 12], just days before the trial ended. It seems hard to imagine how anyone could expect Raniere’s attorneys to get an expert to evaluate the evidence in time to challenge it
Reports of tampering require significant study and when the FBI is being accused, it requires 10 times the amount of study and extra caution for they bite back.
Then again, who expects tampering from the FBI? This is not to claim it does not occur or that it did, but that it might be unreasonable to expect due diligence to include detection of FBI tampering during a trial with last-minute submissions of evidence by the prosecution.
I am told the camera card changed. There were 37 pictures added to it. That the camera card changed under FBI watch is the allegation expected to be presented, among other findings in the Rule 33 motion. The pictures were not there before and, according to what I’ve been told, the experts claim this is provable. But the evidence of these camera card changes were not submitted to the defense.
There are other findings, some of them apparently complicated – like a parent backup folder which is younger than the files it contained, or how alleged tampering could be the only cause of botched up labels and reversed names and pictures of at least two of the nude women’s pictures.
According to the source, times and dates of files made impossible changes, impossible to attribute to some glitch – but simple to understand that every change supported the government’s narrative.
Of course, I can hear the echoes of readers howling, saying you know damn well he sexually abused Cami when she was 15. What are you trying to do, get a criminal off?
I suspect it is true. I suspect Raniere did have sex with Cami when she was 15. She says it is true. The FBI believes it.
But that would not give them the right to plant evidence if they did plant evidence.
Questions arise, such as why did the FBI agents not turn in the camera card and the hard drive for months after they seized it to the evidence room? How was it that they only discovered Cami’s pictures a month before trial was scheduled and delayed giving the evidence to the defense until the eve of jury selection?
Who identified the pictures? Suppose that same person also had pictures or access to 8 Hale for years? Suppose they really were the Cami pictures when she was 15 but not found on a hard drive at Raniere’s library, with supporting evidence on the camera card.
If that was the case, if Raniere took the pictures but did not have possession, they would need Camila to testify. She would not testify during the trial.
He may be guilty but they could not prove it. But I do not care how guilty he is. There is due process – and if the FBI cheated to get a guilty person convicted, then it won’t be long before they cheat to get innocent people convicted.
If the FBI tampered, no expectation of due diligence should prevent this evidence from being presented to the world.
No one can be diligent enough to detect law enforcement tampering, for they have control of the evidence and the ability to lose custody or modify evidence at will and time to tamper if they so desire.
That law enforcement can tamper and get away with it if the defense does not immediately discover it during trial is a recipe for tampering.
Only a complete and thorough investigation of the claim of tampering will settle this. An evidentiary hearing is required, the experts must be called and the agents must be called. They might refuse to testify on 5th amendment grounds.
That does not prove they are guilty. The FBI agents are entitled to the full protection afforded by all of their due process rights. Even if they breached Raniere’s due process – and I have no idea if they did or did not until I see the evidence – they are still entitled to due process.
Let us see the evidence and examine it thoroughly.
And let us not accept the dismissal of the investigation of this via a technicality. This is too serious to fail to either prove it is false, just another lie by Raniere or, that to get a bad man, the FBI used even worse measures.
I think we will soon know the truth.
I have to disagree with Frank to some extent. Whether the evidence is newly discovered is debatable (or at least, I’m not going to trust Raniere’s characterization of it). But the core of Rule 33 is that a new trial is only to be provided “in the interests of justice.”
This means justice for the defendant. It does not mean justice on an institutional scale.
Camila did not testify during the first trial, so these photos came in. But she has since testified via affidavit. Without any coercion or reason to lie that anyone knows about. This is very, very good evidence that Keith slept with her. There is no reason to doubt that it happened.
We should not have a new trial here because the photos, even if they were doctored, prove a point that is not reasonably in dispute. Forcing a victim of a sex crime to take the stand is highly disfavored and not considered particularly “just.” Almost certainly, that is what would happen if we had a new trial. She would testify. The photos would come in to bolster her testimony. The outcome would be the same.
If doctoring did occur, that is a bad thing, but Rule 33 is not a disciplinary process for bad actions by the FBI. If the bad actions did not create an unjust outcome, there is no reason to entertain the allegations in the Rule 33 context.
A 120 year sentence for a person with no prior criminal history or any record of violence is a “just outcome”?
Raniere has quite the history. Stop showing how new you are.
By “new”, do you mean I haven’t swallowed and internalized every hysterical anti-NXIVM accusation ever spewed about Keith Raniere?
You clearly haven’t done your homework on the Raniere topics that are out of your wheelhouse.
It’s obvious you know some things very well. Especially when juxtaposed, it’s obvious you don’t know other facts/storylines/accusations about Raniere well at all.
If I’m wrong and you have done the grueling homework required to legit know Raniere’s history, then you are being too simplistic and trying to fit everything into the same narrative.
Kind Sir,
You “swallowed” all the “spew” and vitriol froth in regards to Raniere; thereupon did the blue-flame shineth upon you?
OK, well, you’re right. I apologize.
It is grueling. It is almost impossible for outsiders to know the inside of any minority sub-culture like NXIVM as clearly as those who lived it.
I was hoping that you, as an Ex, might help me understand. Most Exes of other ‘cults’ I know jump to help members of the public to understand why they should hate the cult as much as they do.
I have pro NXIVM sources who can and have helped me to understand. It seems like Anti-NXIVM sources, like you, try to hide stuff and blame people for the difficulty they face in understanding.
The first thing we did in the 1990’s, at the beginning of the Internet, was to publish all of Scientology’s confidential materials. I can find no NXIVM documents on “Exploration of Meaning” procedures anywhere on the Internet.
If you haven’t worked to expose all this NXIVN technology, why do you sit there and accuse me, an outsider, of being ignorant?
Whatever, Nutjob.
I was hoping I could rely on you to learn more.
Moving on…
Alanzo
Just watch The Lost Women of NXIVM. Only for the record, this is the second time I’ve offered this advice to you.
IMO, trying to find details on EMs isn’t worth it. They just stole from Scientology and mixed it with NLP and Ericsonian Hypnosis. The meat and potatoes of NXIVM was between Keith’s ears. His desires and insecurities is where the story lies and where the crimes were created.
I was trained as an auditor in Scientology.
In order for me to appreciate what NXIVM was doing to thier customers, I need to see thier tech. But it’s not available on the Internet so anyone can see it.
That’s a problem, especially if you want people to “come up to speed” without giving them everything they need to understand.
I understand. Read the patent info on Rational Inquiry. That should give you something. I’d like to know how much he stole from Scientology.
The tech wasn’t crazy. The worst thing was using it to collect dirt. The bad stuff came from Keith to the inner circle. All while the inner circle thought he was the smartest man in the world.
While there isn’t much on FR about EMs, Frank has personally written dozens, if not hundreds, of articles solely about Keith. Without doing some catch-up on what Raniere has done to people, careful about defending him too much. But don’t get me wrong. I get some of what you sell. However, defending Keith (like you have a pattern of doing), is different than defending Keith’s rights (like Frank does).
Nutjob
Alonzo’s words are scripture and directly from the mouth of Alonzo!
I am aghast that you, a mere mortal, would imply Alonzo is naïvé….
…Careful where you tread or Alonzo will smite you like he did to the hippie Moses.
Jim Del Negro has passed away according to Ivy Nevares.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CTNSbqypQ0n/
Nicki used to spit venom at Frank Parlato.
Now Nicki’s Twitter page links to this story.
Nicki’s got the hots for Frank.
Nicki Clyne
@nickiclyne
·
23h
Things are about to get interesting…
“He may be guilty but they could not prove it. But I do not care how guilty he is. There is due process and, if the FBI cheated to get a guilty person, then it won’t be long before they cheat to get innocents.”
https://twitter.com/anukasan1977/status/1432457096952532997/photo/1
https://twitter.com/nickiclyne?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Nicki Clyne clearly does not like Cami. The way Nicki derisively speaks of Camilla makes it very obvious. Nicki bears no empathy or fondness for Cami. Nicki even calls Camilla a liar.
And the feeling is mutual.
Cami really did not like Nicki. “Anyone but Nicki” one text to Raniere states. Cami did NOT want to be tied to Nicki thru DOS or their lifetime vows to Keith.
How much of this is a personal grudge for Nicki? Jealousy? Raniere calls Cami his #1.
It’s been noted how Nicki Clyne evolved her look, dying her brown hair blonde and growing it out to more closely resemble Allison Mack, once it became evident that Raniere favored Allison. Nicki even tried to sing as Allison did so beautifully.
The deeply fanatical (“I still love him” Nicki emotionally stated in a very recent interview) Clyne may be driven by a desire to prove to Raniere that she is the most devoted of all Keith’s harem women.
To show Keith that Nicki alone can fix it. And save Raniere. Nicki thirstily desires that #1 slave spot and the path to it has finally been partially cleared. In that same interview Nicki admitted to feeling jealous about sharing Raniere with other woman
Nicki probably believes that if she can free Raniere and be one of the last slaves standing then Keith will marry her. They will live happily ever after – with no Cami, Dani or Allison to compete for Keith’s affection.
Nicki can birth the avatar baby and have all that blue light producing semen all to herself.
Or at least Nicki can find the virgin successor.
If things turn out as you describe and Nicki gets a virgin girl for Raniere, who in all likelihood must also be underage, this is guaranteed to land Nicki and Raniere in prison, and sooner than they can imagine.
Nicki Clyne clearly does not like Cami. The way Nicki derisively speaks of Camila makes it very obvious. Nicki bears no empathy or fondness for Cami. Nicki even calls Camila a liar.
And the feeling is mutual.
Cami really did not like Nicki. “Anyone but Nicki” one text to Raniere states. Cami did NOT want to be tied to Nicki thru DOS or their lifetime vows to Keith.
How much of this is a personal grudge for Nicki? Jealousy? Raniere calls Cami his #1.
It’s been noted how Nicki Clyne evolved her look, dying her brown hair blonde and growing it out to more closely resemble Allison Mack, once it became evident that Raniere favored Allison. Nicki even tried to sing as Allison did so beautifully.
The deeply fanatical (“I still love him” Nicki emotionally stated in a very recent interview) Clyne may be driven by a desire to prove to Raniere that she is the most devoted of all his harem women.
To show Keith that Nicki alone can fix it. And save Raniere. Nicki thirstily desires that #1 slave spot and the path to it has finally been partially cleared. In that same interview, Nicki admitted to feeling jealous about sharing Raniere with other women.
Nicki probably believes that if she can free Raniere and be one of the last slaves standing, then Keith will marry her. They will live happily ever after – with no Cami, Dani or Allison to compete for Keith’s affection.
Nicki can birth the avatar baby and have all that blue light producing semen all to herself.
Or at least Nicki can find the virgin successor.
Nicki is possibly a lame-assed altruistic, rather than in any way erotically passionate about any sort of penis husbandry from Keith Raniere. The 120 year anterless squatter who’s stuck in an Arizona prison seems biologically unsuitable for tricky dickie Nicki, to me at least.
The past could really be the past by now. She, the Nick, seems to be positioning herself more now like a befuddled humanitarian, who’s in part a sucker and also a sad sack for personal attention, thirsty for grabbing after some limelight. For herself, primarily. And in part, Old Saint Nicki looks to be the huzzband type, too. Ah yes. So husbandly.
Nicki appears to be in-Clyned, ‘ho, ‘ho, ‘ho, to be rather a manly chiquita. She doesn’t even need to grow a beard like poor, rich Chastittie Boner. Um, Chastity Bono. Today one can buy a dick and call it legitimate. Welcome to As the World Churns.
Besides, Raniere (rhymes with canary) has even more pronunciation problems now, and probably it is a permanent condition. Also, he already has his 100 watt, or is that $500,000 (thanks, Clare Bronfman,) grandé twat, plus his avatar baba louie, with the bossy cow, Marianne Faithful Fernandez, who has the beleaguered Claire Bronfman sponsoring her stipend and who probably has the shrinking canary, Raniere, over a barrel. Who’s the boss?
So. It is a lot like a high fructose syrup version of a Chekhov play. It cums in three acts, and the play has featured Three Sisters. Plus one brother, one mother and a Hector. The sperminator and Marianne named their son Kemar. How very ego trippy. Such as it is.
Nicki hasn’t even got room enough left to sit on Marianne’s sunroof.
Keith, as a typical narc, was using triangulation: making women jealous of each other to gain fuel. He gets more attention and he feels empowered and grandiose because women are fighting over him. It could do Nicki good to understand how triangulation works.
Good point
—Keith, as a typical narc, was using triangulation: making women jealous of each other to gain fuel.
Great obstinate!
Observation
Where do I find this article that you mentioned in your comment?
Just google “triangulation narcissist” or “triangulation psychopath” there is a ton of info online
Well, I’ll be blowed. 23 skidoo has switched gears to 33 skidoo. Who’s ready, besides me?
Keith finally reached his target teen audience!
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/most-famous-cults-history
Disaster! Prince Andrew Sweats Epstein Survivor’s New Lawsuit!
Roberta Glass True Crime Report
On August 9th, Epstein trafficking survivor Virginia Giuffre filed a civil lawsuit against Prince Andrew in the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges that Giuffre was trafficked to the prince by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The lawsuit contends Giuffre was sexually assaulted by the prince three times beginning when she was a minor. Prince Andrew has twenty one days to respond to the lawsuit.
Everyone’s favorite guest, Roberta’s Mom joins her to speak about this latest development in the Epstein/Maxwell story.
The Roberta Glass True Crime Report is produced by Ati Abdo MacDonald
Intro by Tuesday Money of the Tuesday Money YouTube channel
Many thanks to Roberta’s Patreon supporters
https://youtu.be/T4MkhjnV9DY
In his disastrous BBC-interview, he said that he was perhaps “too honorable” because he wanted to tell Epstein in person he could not see him anymore. So he went and stayed in JE’s New York mansion for a couple of days no less, in 2010, where the illustrious duo were photographed together.
Perhaps the prince would care to elaborate what exactly is so honorable about sexually abusing an underage trafficked girl.
What an idiot.
“ Will Raniere’s Rule 33 Motion Be Dismissed on Technicality – If so Then Tampering Allegations May Be True”
This sentence is a perfect example of a non-sequitor, a classic error in logic.
Non-sequitor, “it does not follow”. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
In fact, if the motion is dismissed on a technicality (sic), this says nothing about the truth or falsehood of the accusation of tampering.
They are independent.
(Note here that what the Frank Report is pleased to dismissively call “technicality” is in fact a principle of law. Things like statutes of limitations are important legal protections, not to be dismissed on a whim as “mere technicalities”. If proper procedures are not followed consistently and impartially, if they are to be dismissed willy-nilly, then the legal system becomes no better than a kangaroo court.)
That this non-sequitor slipped in (as the title no less!) is no surprise, for the Frank Report has a strong anti-government bias. Which is perfectly fine. This is not a court of law. It is Frank’s blog. He can post whatever her likes. Obviously.
Still, the bias should be pointed out. It is to Frank’s great credit that he posts contrary opinions.
“Only a complete and thorough investigation of the claim of tampering will settle this.”
Seems objective, no? But I ask, when if ever will this investigation be complete and thorough? Months ago the Frank Report published the Dead Enders defense of Raniere and their verbose elucidation of the FBI tampering allegation. The FR was going to ponder the issue and present its conclusions.
That conclusion never came.
This allegation will never be laid to rest in the pages of the FR. it will always remain out there, a dark and mysterious possibility and a reminder of how corrupt and nefarious our government is.
It will never be laid to rest because you can’t prove a negative.
That’s an important point of logic. You can not prove a negative.
Therefore it will never be proven that the FBI didn’t tamper with the evidence. From which it follows that the FR can always claim that maybe the FBI did tamper, that this is of vital concern to the nation, and needs to be looked into again. And again. Ad infinitum.
Which is a good place to assert a reminder that in our legal system innocence is assumed. The prosecution must prove guilt, it is not the job of the defendant to prove his innocence. This is precisely because it is not possible to prove a negative. It is not to be expected that a defendant should prove he didn’t do a thing.
And “mere technicalities” (legal standards) are there to ensure that the process is fair, objective, and consistent.
So no, if Raniere’s Rule 33 motion is improper and dismissed, that says nothing whatsoever about the truth of the tampering allegation.
The tampering allegation may feed an endless conspiracy theory, true. But that’s a whole other tangled ball of twine.
I disagree in a sense.
While procedural bars are mostly independent of the truth, here, this “technicality” speaks to the veracity of the claims.
Had this claim been true, Raniere’s lawyers would have raised, or even investigated it prior to or during trial. The fact that they did not when they had the clear opportunity to do so speaks volumes about the truthfulness of these contentions.
This is the case many times with this particular procedural bar, which presents itself in other statutes, State and Federal. It is not completely divorced from the merit in that it can potentially, but not always, shine light on the merits
I fully agree. Frank is all about due process, or so he says. If so, he should accept the legal rules of the game and not dismiss them as mere technicalities.
Aristotle’s Sausage,
Thank you for writing this comment. Agree on the opening error in logic. The set-up never paying off it’s premise and the rest.
This piece is structured like a long form meme. The use of non sequitur, other faulty logic, non relevant comparison, and it being designed to be provocative and push buttons about government mistrust etc.
The only thing missing is the poor grammar and spelling most memes contain.
It can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that the government tampered with evidence in the Raniere case.
If the government does not allow this to be proven in one of their courts, it can be proven elsewhere.
If the evidence exists that proves the government did this, it can be proven anywhere.
And will be.
Alanzo
Unfuckingbelievable!
What could possibly cause you to write “It can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that the government tampered with evidence in the Raniere case” – and then hit “Post Comment”?
What evidence do you have to back up that statement – especially the part about “beyond a reasonable doubt” which just happens to be the highest possible legal standard in the entire U.S. legal system.
I was wrong to describe you as “stupid” because that’s degrading and insulting to stupid people. You’re way beyond that…
LOL!!
Don’t be such a sashaying little screecher!
Do you understand English?
“it can be proven” here means “it is possible to prove”…
Livin rent free in AP Claviger’s head!
(It kinda stinks in here, btw. The walls are filled with glowing self-portraits and scenes of harsh hair brush spankings by his mother)
Alanzo
Yeah, I understand English, much more than you do, you sorry-assed twit, and I am, once again, asking you to “SHOW THE PROOF”. Either do that, or leave this blog once and for all – which, trust me, since I see ALL the comments (published and unpublished), is what the vast majority of Frank Report readers would prefer. Why not return to your own blog – which even your own family members refuse to read?
AP –
I appreciate you letting my comment through then, given your admission of Editor Status here on the Frank Report.
You showed some slight level of intellectual honesty.
Way to go.
Alanzo
Alonzo
— It kinda stinks in here, btw. The walls are filled with glowing self-portraits…..
It stinks, my silly, cuz your head is up your own asshole.
Alonzo-
Do you feel, like I do, the two are mutually exclusive and a certain individual is conflating the issues?
I see many discrepancies and a dichotomy between the facts and what the government states is the truth.
Not everyone one is like us, most people accept the governments word as fact and there moral compass the is majority’s opinion. I don’t think they’re bad people.
You seem to be an independent thinker like me.
When you say “the two” are mutually exclusive – what two?
It’s ok, Niceguy. Clav has this. But, you have to admit – dropping a “sashaying little screecher” blast, is pretty f-ing funny.
Nut Job 12:02
I will admit, “sashaying little screecher” is a very original insult, and his use of alliteration — ameliorates said insult. I haven’t seen the archaic heard the word sashaying in since I watched the 70s Three Musketeers.
I’m glad you appreciate Alonzo, because everybody else finds him annoying
Ummm….
He said “If the evidence exists that proves the government did this, it can be proven anywhere.”
I don’t have any problem with the sentence you quoted: it is factually and legally true.
But he also wrote this sentence: “It can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that the government tampered with evidence in the Raniere case” – which is neither.
Well said, Claviger!
Alanzo is a psychopath and he wants to get your energy and attention, Claviger. You are playing right into him. Don’t give him your energy. You are worth more than that.
I say he is a psychopath given his before behavior where has practiced projection, shows grandiosity, and has no problem lying.
Mexican Lady-
I agree! Alonzo is either a troll or a self-absorbed beyond human imagination; if such a thing is possible. He might even be a 3-eyed-turkey
He’s a sociopath…
Why does the government hate the criminal psychopath Raniere so much?
Because when it comes to criminal psychopathology, the government hates the competition.
Shadowstate, here is some ammunition for your conspiracy theories:
Daeshon Jones
@jonesdaeshon
WATCH:
@PressSec
says the words “global plandemic”, listen closely. Freudian slip or the honest truth? You decide. #plandemic
https://twitter.com/i/status/1430632214803398670
Anon 8:39
Nice one! Encouraging Shadow’s conspiracy theories is like telling a Mechanophilia it’s okay to wax his car.
I don’t know if Shadowstate suffers from mechanophilia. Surely these people do not suffer, they are enjoying the sexual attraction to machines, cars, motorcycles, etc….
https://www.instagram.com/p/CPtfbqpjXQ2/?hl=en
Sorry, but the 2005 pictures were found prior to the trial and caused a number of the defendants to take a plea. Therefore, there was plenty of time for the defense to call their own so-called expert testimony to question the authenticity and integrity of the photos. The reason they didn’t is because the defense tried to have those pictures dismissed precisely because they were from 2005. You can’t have it both ways and claim two contradictory premises can exist at the same time. You can’t tacitly admit the images were from 2005 and then they were manipulated to make it look like they were from 2005. You can’t just throw whatever you want at the wall, hope it sticks, and pretend that no one can see the bullshyte.
When it comes to stuff like this, it always comes down to a battle of expert witnesses. Both sides get paid to support the side that pays them. Both sides shop for them to until they find one that will support their viewpoints. You can find an expert that will say that smoking cigarettes will help you avoid lung cancer if pay enough and look hard enough and they make it sound like a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw. It’s a common practice, so claiming “We have experts witnesses” isn’t proof on its own because it simply means the check cleared after all.
The key is sussing not so much through what the experts say but what information and verifiable facts they present that support what they say. In this case, I can’t help but wonder if they are actually going with a deep fake defense. If so, that may blow up in their faces as most deep fakes still require working with material that already exists – in this case, pictures of 15-year-old Camilla, even if not nude (so not illegal). Which naturally leads to “why would Raniere have those?” where you can only draw one natural conclusion.
While others point out that Camilla could just testify to the pictures, I am not sure if that would be an immediate option unless we reach the point where we have experts providing testimony. Then she could be called (along with whoever took those pics and sent them to Raniere) to provide verification of their existence and purpose. Now that she has come forward and has skin in the civil suit, she will testify. This would likely kill this Rule 33 motion and significantly damage other appeals since the results of this appeal can be added to the record for the other appeals.
Bonjean avoided this line for a reason since manufactured evidence is normally a top item you would hammer in an appeal. Even if don’t believe it’s true, why not try it if have angle of attack, it just might work. Based on what little information we’ve seen, I think that Raniere’s lawyers have to thread a needle for this Rule 33 motion and they know it. I do not see how they can question the veracity of the underage pictures in the trial with expert witnesses while simultaneously avoid the subject of those pictures from testifying about them. I would love to know how they think can do that (I don’t think they can). I suspect they will be relieved if its tossed as they’re only doing this because Raniere is demanding they do it. I suspect this issue is why Bonjean was fired. She refused to do it because she knew it was an impossible task.
As for it getting tossed on technicalities, yeah, that is pretty standard for and against people in the justice system. Just ask OJ Simpson who benefitted from such technicalities (a decision I agree with even if don’t like it). Raniere’s trial lawyer not making a bigger case about it was a bit bizarre. Normally, the lawyer makes a stink at the time specifically to get it on the record to help with an appeal. It is strange he didn’t do that (and why I keep thinking they will eventually go with inadequate defense as a point of appeal).
Considering Keith’s followers still think he hung the moon and can do no wrong, I would take what they say in regards to the trial with a grain of salt. Also confused how they even know anything. Keith’s lawyers should not be talking to them about their appeal plans. Keith has limited contact with outside world, and if the expert witnesses are communicating with them, I would question that too as they shouldn’t be unless those followers handled the pictures, saw the pictures or know something about the pictures and the experts are following up on that (which also would make them very useful witnesses for the prosecution too). Ultimately, it’s hard to tell how much of what they say is based on meaningful information, how much is based on delusions, and how much is based on their desperate need to try to free their little demi-god.
Thank you for this detailed analysis Erasend.
I didn’t completely understand some of the points you raised:
a) Bonjean avoided pushing for the claim of fabricating evidence because she knows that Cami will testify and the claims will be killed instantly?
b) Why didn’t Keith’s lawyer at trial hammer down these points? They had the benefit of Camila not testifying at the time.
I think also Keith is pushing this story with the experts, etc., not so much because he even believes it will free him, but rather to keep the facade on innocence with his supporters. Several supporters mentioned that they would leave Keith if he was, in fact, a pedo (haha yeah right, there is already a lot of evidence against Keith but ok…) So I think Keith is pushing this story to keep his supporters.
a) Bonjean avoided pushing for the claim of fabricating evidence because she knows that Cami will testify and the claims will be killed instantly?
Yes, that is my theory. She knew doing it was a lost cause and follow through could only damage the chances of other paths of appeal. Keep in mind that by the time she was writing the appeal, Camila had stepped forward and becoming more vocal and participating more in events. It went from “We can use this without her interference” to “Oh shit, she probably would testify”.
b) Why didn’t Keith’s lawyer at trial hammer down these points? They had the benefit of Camila not testifying at the time.
Yeah, he should have done that at the time. No idea why and attorney/client privilege means unlikely to find out unless Keith and co. decide to try an appeal based on defense incompetence.
Much thanks, Erasend!
I agree that we should be skeptical of what Keith’s followers say. They have chosen to oversell previous findings and misrepresent facts in the case which makes them unreliable to a high degree. I look forward to reading both the defense and prosecution filings and having all of this held to a level of serious scrutiny that the followers usually avoid.
Blackstone’s ratio
In criminal law, Blackstone’s ratio (also known as the Blackstone ratio or Blackstone’s formulation) is the idea that:
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
How many of these experts are nxivm members or somehow relayed to nxivm members?
Frank Parlato: Not a tribal ninnie.
Alanzo
This is very simple, Frank.
Raniere knew what pictures he took of Camilla and what age she was because he took those photos at that time. If he never took photos of her in 2005, or if the photos of Cami from the trial were not the same photos that he took, he would have immediately told his lawyers they were fabrications.
And yet, he said nothing. Why? The obvious. He knew he took photos of Cami when she was 15 and that those photos were the ones exhibited at trial.
How ridiculous to say that his lawyers did not have access to the camera card, etc.
They had access to their client.
And, they actually made an argument that conceded the photos were from 2005, when they argued it should not be admissible because it was from 2005.
Lastly, it was Raniere’s lawyers who pushed the trial ahead of schedule. Garaufis stated on the record that the court would have waited until the fall had Agnifilo not demanded that it be in the Spring.
So, stop with this bullshit. It’s nonsense. No judge in their right mind would credit the argument that Raniere did not know that he took photos of Cami at 15 and that they were not the ones shown in court and said nothing at trial. The judge also will not care if his lawyers claim they did not have enough time because they were the ones who rushed the trial. It’s a loser. Procedurally barred and meritless.
Stop with the clickbait. It’s all a distraction. Stop listening to Nicki’s bullshit and posting it as fact on your site when you have not fact-checked any of it. Be a professional, Frank.
The man was fairly convicted and is exactly where he should be – separate from society for the rest of his life.
Good points, Sherizzy. If Raniere really was not a pedo, he would have gone on and beyond with his lawyers about how the pics are NOT real. He didn’t.
I feel the Raniere fans consider tampering with evidence is the same as “Break in Chain of Custody’. The Raniere fans have been saying for over a year that the FBI tampered with the evidence of the Camila photos. If the claims came from a new investigation, we would not have heard about them over a year ago. It would have happened in the last months, right?
i agree with Frank that it is always better to show that corruption did not exist. We do not want to incarcerate innocent men. So even for Raniere, I would also agree to have a deep investigation (if there is merit to it)
Frank,
We have heard that you won’t do any stories on Kris Snyder, that you have put the Snyder’s off, consistently, and that that has caused friction amping their family members.
The Snyders have gone to “news media” of South Carolina, and Iowa, and have gotten another writer to do the story on their “awesome, beautiful” daughter, who went missing in 2003.
It is also known now, that instead of you talking to Kim one on one, you dump her over on people she does NOT even know. This is both rude and unheard of, being an investigative journalist and writer. Usually, the writer is the one that wants to obtain ALL of the facts, not bear it from someone else.
Kim has now made it known, she has been through 4 of your associates, and you continue that behavior, to put the light on yourself. Movies are “NOT” solving crimes, Mr. Parlato. They are only taking time away from the cases, the victims and the families. Is this what you call a good job? I didn’t think so.
You have let the Snyders down, and have NOT kept in touch with them. Nor do you follow through on promises you made back in 2018. But you bend over backwards for what Kim calls “the monster”. Disgusting.”
There are NO “errors” in Keith’s case” for him to have a “do over”- he is a rapist and killer – Evil is evil- deal with it.
Kim is let down by YOUR “unconscionable” way of “It is all about me act”. She made it known that YOU were whispering into the phone the other night, and you rudely hung up on her and never called back. That sir, is NOT the way a professional acts. That is someone who does NOT give a crap.
Hope in time, you, as you told KIM – will realize – the world 🌎 does NOT revolve around YOU either. Kim is doing what she needs done – and NOT worrying about Kris being “dishonored”, or in Kim’s words, “forgotten about”.
Hope you can re-program yourself again to feel, so that others can see it.
Orange blossom.
Kim; I like your new alias, “Orange Blossom.” BTW, I do plan to do a story on you and your desire for the judge to question Nancy Salzman at her sentencing.
Kim, I like your new pseudonym, Alan. I will try to get the story up today.
What? The child porn on the flash card and hard drive was known before the trial and is what caused those indicted like Allison Mack and Lauren Salzman to take a plea. To make it seem like that the defense didn’t have enough time to question their authenticity or integrity of the evidence is hogwash.