Someone, I think, is lying.
In our last post, Frank Report reviewed the testimony of FBI Senior Forensic Examiner Brian Booth in the trial of Keith Raniere as it related to using EXIF data to reliably date the creation of digital photos.
Booth said EXIF data is hard to remove or change.
Suneel Chakravorty, a supporter of Raniere who is well-known to many Frank Report readers, says that EXIF data is easy to change and that Booth, as a senior forensic examiner, certainly knows this. In short, Suneel says that Brian Booth lied.
Forget, for a moment, whether Raniere took or possessed photos of Camila when she was 15. Raniere was convicted for it. He is appealing his conviction. Camila did not testify at Raniere’s trial but publicly said later that he began sexually abusing her when she was 15, including taking photos of her.
Forget also whether the FBI tampered with the photos to convict Raniere. That is expected to be the “newly discovered evidence” that would be the basis for a federal rule 33 motion Raniere may file
Let us only consider the veracity of statements made by FBI Senior Forensic Examiner Booth about EXIF data, to the effect that EXIF data is hard to remove or change.
It won’t change a thing about the Raniere case even if Booth lied. It does not prove tampering if Booth lied. It does not prove the pictures were not actually of Camila when she was 15.
It is of interest, however, to probe whether an FBI agent lied on the stand – and lied about something that is easily verifiable.
It is easy to understand the motives of Raniere or his supporters. They might lie to help their friend.
It is also easy to understand the motive to lie by the FBI in this high-profile case. The most reliable evidence of the dating of the photos, as the FBI Forensic Examiner Booth said, was EXIF data. The jury was told that the most reliable proof was the EXIF data.
EXIF data was used to prove that 14 photos of Camila were taken on November 2, 2005, during the period from 5:59:16 PM to 6:09:11 PM – and that 8 more photos of Camila were taken on November 24, 2005, starting at 6:07:50 PM and completing the last shot about three minutes later, at 6:10:38 PM.
EXIF data also showed the serial number of the Canon EOS 20D, which was the same as the camera seized from Raniere’s library.
This was the proof of possession of child porn and sexual exploitation of a child: The EXIF data, which Booth testified was hard to change, showed when the photos were taken via Raniere’s camera, in November 2005, when Camila was 15.
Camila Photos’ EXIF Data
The photos were not found on the camera or its camera card, which were also seized.
According to the prosecution, the EXIF data remained embedded in the photos unaltered when the camera transferred the photos of Camila to a camera card, then to a Dell computer, and finally to a backup hard drive.
Prosecutors said:
A Canon Camera EOS 20D was used to take 14 photos of Camila on November 2, 2005 – and 8 more photos of her on November 24, 2005. The photos, however, were not found on the camera.
A Lexar camera card was used to transfer the photos from the camera and store them. However, the photos of camila were also not found on the camera card.
From the camera card, the photos were downloaded to a Dell Dimension 8300 computer. The Dell Dimension computer was never found.
Finally, a Western Digital hard drive was used to back up the Camila photos from the Dell computer. The hard drive, found in Raniere’s library, contained the Camila photos with their EXIF data intact, prosecutors said.
What Is EXIF Data?
EXIF data [exchangeable image file format] is a set of information [data] embedded into a photo by the digital camera that takes the picture. You do not see EXIF data when you look at the photo. EXIF data can be viewed on the photo file’s “properties.”
Professional photographers use EXIF data to see the time and date they took the picture and the camera settings used.
Generally, digital cameras record and save as part of EXIF data:
- Current date and time [to the second.
- Camera model and make
- Image orientation (rotation), Aperture, Shutter speed, Focal length, Metering mode, ISO speed information.
- A thumbnail for previewing the picture
- Descriptions
- Copyright information.
- Version history
- Location [geotagging] on more modern digital cameras.
Booth’s EXIF Data Statements
During the trial of Raniere, FBI Senior Forensic Examiner Booth made numerous statements about EXIF data.
He testified on June 12 and 13, 2019. You can read Booth’s testimony June 12 and June 13.
His testimony included some unambiguous statements about EXIF data:
- “[EXIF data] stays into that photo and it’s very hard to remove.”
- “Most commercial software will not touch EXIF data.”
- “They purposely designed it that way…”
- “They don’t want data to be moved around and changed, especially time and date information.”
- “When it comes to photos, they still keep you from changing dates and times.”
- “It’s not easy to change those.”
What he told the jury was reinforced by prosecutors in their closing statements.
AUSA Moira Kim Penza told the jury:
“Now you also know that the photographs were taken in 2005 because that’s what the data shows. The forensic examiner, Brian Booth testified that the most reliable metadata that the FBI could obtain from the images on the Western digital hard drive, said that they were taken exactly when the folders stated they were taken.”
AUSA Mark Lesko told the jury:
“I’m no expert, don’t get me wrong, but I heard Examiner Boothe, just like you did. EXIF data is extremely reliable. It’s embedded in the jpeg, in the image itself. And the EXIF data shows that the data was created on the camera, in this instance, this particular instance, the 150 jpeg [one of the Camila photos] on November 2, 2005…”
Suneel Has a Different View
Suneel Chakravorty attended the Raniere trial, he says, because he was a student of NXIVM before the classes were suspended in 2018.
He had met Raniere briefly before he was arrested.
After Raniere’s conviction, Suneel visited Raniere at the Metropolitan Detention Center, where Raniere was held for more than a year prior to sentencing. I met Suneel just prior to Raniere’s sentencing in October 2020.
One of the first things Suneel told me was that he believed the FBI tampered with Camila’s photos. He said the thing that first made him suspicious was that Booth testified that EXIF data is hard to change.
I took into consideration that Suneel is a friend of Raniere’s. But he also made his living as a software consultant, a trainer and instructor of computer technologies. He knows about EXIF data. He used to teach people on the topic.
Would he lie about something so easy to check as EXIF data being hard to change?
Here we have FBI Senior Forensic Examiner Brian Booth swearing under oath that EXIF data is hard to change.
Then we have a Raniere supporter, with knowledge of the topic, saying EXIF data is easy to change.
Suneel was born in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. He is 31. His father is a medical doctor who was born in India and practices medicine in the USA. His paternal grandfather was also a physician and practiced medicine in Uttar Pradesh, India.
Suneel is a graduate of Harvard, who majored in mathematics, was captain of the Harvard Ballroom Dance team 2010-2011, won numerous memory contests, being able to remember 300 digits of the number Pi [try it sometime]. He plays the piano and the tabla, [an Indian percussion instrument] speaks fluently the two most spoken languages in the world, English and Mandarin, and was an unpaid NXIVM coach.
And he told me EXIF data is easy to change.
He said, “Brian Booth said EXIF data is ‘hard to remove’. That’s a lie. Booth said ‘most commercial software will not touch EXIF data’ and, ‘when it comes to photos, they still keep you from changing dates and times. It’s not easy to change those.’ These too are lies. To change the EXIF data, including the date and time of when the photo was created, anyone can download free software like ExifEditor. People change the EXIF data all the time for privacy reasons.”
Then he explained how to change EXIF data.
- Get any freely available software like ExifEditor.
- Open the program.
- Open the photo you want to remove data from or change in the program.
- The program will show you the EXIF data.
- Change or remove whatever you want.
- Save the photo.
Somebody is lying here. And I do not know who.
Either Booth or Suneel Chakravorty.
I invite readers to try to find out.
***
Finally, before any reader gets upset, this, again, is not a defense of Raniere. This is a look into the conduct of an FBI agent.
I, for one, want the FBI held to the highest standard. Anyone who thinks differently is welcome to state that Frank Report or anyone else has no right to investigate their integrity.
As for me, I want to know if the FBI is lying, even on a matter that would not have changed the results of the trial. Even if they lied on a trifling matter during the trial of a veritable monster, I want to know whenever they lie.
But I don’t know if this was a lie.
Brian Booth said, and he is persuasive, that “with EXIF data, once it’s embedded in a picture, it doesn’t matter how many times you move it around. It stays into that photo and it’s very hard to remove. In fact, most commercial software will not touch EXIF data. It will allow you maybe to add data to it, but even in that sense, it’s very – it’s very able to be corrupted.”
He was asked, “Is there a particular reason why EXIF data is more difficult to alter?”
He answered, “They purposely designed it that way…It’s mainly to be able to store information. And they don’t want data to be moved around and changed, especially time and date information. Those things are very hard for the consumer to be able to modify, unless you wind up getting software that’s just developed to do that.”
When asked if EXIF data is the best evidence for dating a photo, he answered, “Well, the best reference is the EXIF data because that gets put into the JPEG file and it’s not easily modifiable and it moves with the file the same way from device to device, no matter where you place it. It has nothing to do with the bearing of a file system at all or the dates and times associated with it. So it’s on its own, but are created at the same time that you take the picture.”
And “…when it comes to EXIF data… when it comes to photos, they still keep you from changing dates and times. It’s not easy to change those. You have to go through special processes to change those things…. It’s very rare that I’ve found someone has been changing metadata within a photo and that time and date does not change from place to place. It stays embedded in the photo…
Asked “What’s [the ] most reliable…metadata?”, Booth answered, “the EXIF data…It’s the most reliable.”
Now here comes Suneel who shows us that EXIF data is easy to change and, therefore, not reliable at all.
They both can’t be telling the truth about EXIF data.
We will soon find out who is lying.
Stay tuned…
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
[…] Someone Is Lying About EXIF Data; Is It Suneel or FBI Forensic Examiner Brian Booth? […]
Several commenters in this thread expressed a belief that you can see Exif metadata in a photo with a hex editor. Save for one obvious troll, these commenters seemed sincere. So I decided to take a more careful look to see if maybe I had missed something.
… and…
Indeed! You can see a subset of Exif data with a hex editor. A small subset. Which is why I had never noticed it before. Not that I spend an inordinate amount of time looking at pictures in hex mode.
As an example, I looked at a camera-written JPEG from a FujiFilm camera. FujiFilm cameras write rather sparse Exif information. This particular camera wrote to about 124 Exif fields. Of those, about ten were human-readable in the hex editor. Pedantically speaking, you say that you could SEE all of the fields, but 90+ percent of them are gibberish, indistinguishable from the rest of the file.) I would expect a Nikon or Canon camera to write about twice as many fields as the Fuji did. So then, about 5% of the written fields would be readable in the hex editor.
Would it be correct to say that one “can see” Exif data in a hex editor? Well, yes, you can see SOME Exif data in that software. But if “see the Exif data” means having any confidence that you can see all the values are in the data, then no, it wouldn’t be correct.
I thought the sincere commenters deserved to know that I took their opinions seriously, looked into it, and what I found. I apologize that it took me a while to do so.
I have to revise my opinion that it would be quite difficult to fake Exif information. If we look at the limited case of changing the create date, it turns out that doing so in a hex editor is extraordinarily easy for even an unsophisticated person. Moreover, it’s pretty likely that you could do it without leaving much evidence behind.
If you Google something like “hex editor exif” you will find many pages where various authors express the opinion that they are “seeing” Exif metadata in their hex editors. I saw only one page where an author acknowledged that they weren’t seeing all of it. That leads me to believe there may be something of a misconception floating around.
Does the FBI fellow in this story labor under such a misconception? His answers to questions, quoted in this and other stories on this site, could be consistent with that. When asked what sort of data was carried in the Exif, he responded by mentioning a few fields. The ones he chose were not typical of the several hundred Exif fields. Specifically, he mentioned three fields that are either commonly or always written by photo management software rather than by the camera. Moreover, those fields are pretty far afield form the primary mission of Exif data (which is logging of camera parameters). That’s an odd choice if his point was that it’s difficult to alter Exif data, or that the Exif standard was written to deliberately make it difficult to do so, something he stated flat-out.
What those few fields have in common is that they are among those that are visible (and editable) in a hex editor. If you only know of about a dozen available choices, it seems fairly likely that you might, at random, name three off the top of your head that turn out to be corner cases.
I have no idea whether or not the integrity of this evidence has any real bearing on whether or not this defendant was rightly or wrongly convicted of the crimes with which he was charged. Nor do I know anything of the motivations of the reporter or the people in this thread. Like i said, I have no horse in this race.
That said, if someone were to suggest that incriminating evidence was forged – which seems to be the thrust here – it’s pretty obvious that the defendant wouldn’t do that. Only the prosecution or some unknown third party might have a motive to do so.
At the end of the day, we have only faith in the honesty of the authorities to assure us that THEY didn’t. We have to take their word for the integrity of their chain of custody of the evidence, and thus, the integrity of the evidence itself, including whether or not they forged it. (Lacking, say, a cloud backup from the day before the evidence was seized, or something of that sort, that might exonerate a defendant or corroborate the prosecution.)
An expert prosecution witness who doesn’t seem reliable on the stand doesn’t help build that confidence. THAT is what irks me here.
[…] September 26, 2021: Someone Is Lying About EXIF Data; Is It Suneel or FBI Forensic Examiner Brian Booth? […]
Who all is meeting to dance at MDC tonight? Remember when Suneel and Nicki and Linda, Michelle, and the other dead-enders pretended to care about the conditions there? Has anyone checked if Kay Rose is doing okay lately? What booty shorts is everyone wearing? I think the glow sticks really improved MDC in a tangible way!
I just taught my cat how to edit EXIF data
Before Suneel was an “unbiased and objective fighter for justice” in this one & only particular criminal court case – he was a student of Nxivm.
That means Suneel bowed to a photo of Keith Raniere daily in classes of curriculum created by Keith Raniere.
This “rational” newly minted criminal justice advocate was regularly bowing to this particular criminal defendant’s effigy.
Suneel bowed to Keith Raniere’s photo.
That’s really all you need to know.
And none of the followers will post any of their naked face/crotch shots to their linked in profiles.
They just keep saying collateral was so benign and so safe and no big deal. But not one of them will stand behind their word and demonstrate that it’s really no big deal.
That collateral wasn’t blackmail. That people should have no fear about it.
If there was no fear or negative repercussions to be generated by collateral, then they should post theirs.
That photo of Suneel looks like a muppet. That’s appropriate since Keith’s got his arm up Suneel’s backside and determines what comes out of his mouth.
Never thought I’d see a NXIVM cultard come right out and defend Keith’s comments about raping babies, but if you are late to reading these comments scroll down and watch a supposedly “former Scientologist” turned Raniere groupie do exactly that.
“ Suneel is a graduate of Harvard, who majored in mathematics, was captain of the Harvard Ballroom Dance team 2010-2011, won numerous memory contests, being able to remember 300 digits of the number Pi ”
Frank is treating us with an impressive CV of his newfound friend Suneel. Suneel may not be the smartest man in the world (there can only be one), but he’s able to remember 300 digits of Pi. Did Suneel provide any proof of this claim? Remember NXIVM in general and KR in particular have a poor track record when it comes to these claims.
This apparently smart Suneel is one of the dancers that danced for months in front of the prison in which KR was incarcerated. As a former captain of the Harvard Ballroom Dance team, he sure was qualified. Suneel: a dancing-clown.
A dancing queen, actually.
[…] Frank Parlato 12:29 amAdd Comment FacebookTwitterRedditLinkedInEmailIn our last post Someone Is Lying About EXIF Data; Is It Suneel or FBI Forensic Examiner Brian Booth?, we examined two men’s differing opinions on the difficulty of changing EXIF data on […]
The photo up top of Suneel — is the face
he’ll make, when he finds out, Raniere has chosen his daughter as the
Virgin Successor! 😉
Hahahahahah, mate!
No worry about Suneel ever having a kid. Procreation would mean putting his semen inside a uterus.
Not his thing. As is his right.
Anonymous 12:52am
Suneel looks like a guy, who found out he is his wife’s 57th lover. 😉
Suneel spent 2 years on this subject and he still doesn’t know what he’s talking about!!!!
These technology-illiterate morons are driving me crazier than the “our data” morons from 5 months ago.
I think that the two sides of this discussion might be talking about slightly different things. I’m not an expert in photo files but I do know a little bit about digital signatures and other techniques to detect whether documents have been altered from a known version.
Suneel says it’s easy to change EXIF data. I would suspect that it’s probably not something you can do in the camera, but you would have to have the right software to do it on a desktop machine, plus a certain amount of knowledge. Not a PhD in computer science level of knowledge, but a little bit more knowledge than the average consumer. Probably 90%-plus of the people who own digital cameras don’t know what EXIF data is or have any idea how to change it. But lots of people who are skilled digital photographers probably can do it and have the needed tools.
It may be that the FBI guy is saying that it would be hard to change EXIF data in a file that has been subject to positive archivin as part of obtaining and analyzing a body of evidence in a forensic situation. I would presume that any confiscated hard drives are imaged immediately upon receipt and a mathematical “signature” is calculated for all the data on the drive, in a raw disk image. That signature, typically a 32-byte or larger number, would be wildly different from the signature of the same disk if even one bit value is changed out of the hundreds of gigs or many terabytes on the disk. Thus, it can easily be determined whether any changes have been made to anything on the hard disk.
The same process of calculating a “signature” is done on each file. If any files are changed, the signatures will be different. So once the directory information for a hard disk is written to the immutable archive on creation, the fact that any file was changed will be easily detectable.
Thus, if the evidence chain of custody is working properly, it may be easy to actually change the EXIF data but very hard to do it in a way that nobody notices that the file has changed. If I’m trying to establish that a file was not altered without being detected, like the FBI guy was, I’d answer that it was very hard to change EXIF data. If I were simply trying to establish that someone, somehow, could alter EXIF data, even if they were later caught, as a way to try to create a tiny little bubble of doubt about whether the FBI was credible, I’d take the position that it was easy. I would either know but ignore the bit about reliable detection of tampering, or I wouldn’t understand the technology well enough to address that.
I know that articles raised here do claim that the file was tampered with, but I haven’t followed that issue closely to have an opinion on that issue. I’m simply suggesting the possibility that both sides in this discussion are answering two different questions. Thus, the question of whether Suneel is right or the FBI guy is right may not come down to the certainty that one is lying. They may be speaking truthfully from within the limitations of their points of view, with different perspective on the same thing that are truthful to the best of their abilities.
Mr. Capitalist,
Strongly agree. The verbiage “lying” is not accurate here.
— The verbiage “lying” is not accurate here.
Yes, I concur, there is a fine line between outright lying and willful ignorance; Suneel being the case in point. Suneel is engaged in full-fledged self-deception. I had hoped by his silence, he had moved onto more worthy endeavors. He is a good person and a victim of virtue.
OMG.
What a blowhard.
Suneel-
Please read the following:
https://dfir.science/2020/10/Hex-editors-and-data-structures.html
It was written by an actual computer forensics professor.
I I hope this three minute read – aids you in your efforts.
Take care!
I think there is no question Keith will eventually get a new trial. The photos were planted. That’s all there is to it.
The Government almost got away with this, but now they’re caught. This whole case is going to blow up and it’s going to be a shit show for years to come. Judge Garaufis will deny all the motions but the Second Circuit will not. This will be a bigger story than Keith’s trial and DOS. God knows the can of worms this will open up for the EDNY.
For victims of NXIVM reading this, prepare for the worst. The government blew this. It was a stupid, stupid move but not hard to imagine their rationale. Reckless Cowboy Justice. Prior to the “discovery” of the Cami pictures in March 2019, the prosecution was facing five co-defendants along with Keith, each with 2-3 top level attorneys on their teams. All saying “not guilty”.
Imagine a trial without Lauren’s testimony?
Or worse, Lauren saying DOS was voluntary adult consensual relationships and Daniela’s confinement was voluntary and supervised by her parents?
A trial with no tapes produced by Allison and Allison also saying DOS was voluntary, personal growth?
Nancy saying she had no idea editing discovery in a civil case (Ross) was illegal?
Plus the Government facing five teams of attorneys backing Keith? Each with a chance to cross examine each witness and each putting on a defense?
They all would have been acquitted.
All the evidence of Keith’s sexual relationship with Cami was Daniela saying “Keith told me he had sex with Cami when she was underage” (total hearsay) and a text message from Keith to Cami saying “we’ve been ‘married’ for 8.75 years” dating their relationship to fall 2005. But explainable in terms of reasonable doubt. I can think of a dozen stories Keith could have made up to explain away that text which without the pictures would have been hard to dispute. Cami having an abortion at 20 means nothing. Her telling a nurse she had “been with” her partner for 5 years is tenuous at best. None of this means Keith didn’t abuse Cami at 15. THEY JUST COULDN’T PROVE IT.
That’s where the prosecution’s case was at in March 2019. Shockingly weak. Then the pictures of Cami were “found” and all the co-defendants plead guilty, one by one. Game over for Keith and the Government has an enormous victory broadcast internationally. One big illusion shattered then another. The illusion that NXIVM was about personal growth, to the illusion that the Department of Justice acts within the constraints of the law.
So be it.
As I pointed out in a prior comment, Nancy Salzman pled guilty BEFORE the second superseding indictment was issued. So, at the very least, that part of your narrative is factually incorrect.
On February 28th, 2019 Moira Penza said in open Court the Government would be superseding based on discovery of additional evidence which had been seized and was in the defendants’ possession having been produced to them in discovery. I think it’s pretty obvious that is when plea negotiations began with Nancy Salzman who would have been facing decades in prison as Cami’s legal guardian at the time of her abuse.
https://frankreport.com/2019/02/28/prosecution-confirms-there-will-be-superseding-indictment-at-court-hearing-today/
Two weeks later Nancy plead guilty and the new indictment was issued by the grand jury the same day, with Nancy’s name removed. If you look at Nancy’s case docket she was aggressively defending herself till that February 28th date and it’s my understanding that’s when all the defendants’ were informed of the new evidence regarding Cami.
“So be it”
You are such a drama queen, Alonso!
Attention Bing-Bongs and Doofuses:
Re Hacking a Digital Image:
EXIF & Hex editor data manipulation:
https://psychocod3r.wordpress.com/2019/04/15/hacking-image-files-with-a-hex-editor/amp/
I hope the link helps Suneel and his never ending parade of tech charlatans.
Attention:
Suneel and all other pseudo Tech experts!
In addition to an EXIF, a HEX editor would still be needed to change all of the data and metadata files. There are files that need to be changed and can only be viewed with a HEX Editor!!!
I haven’t been in the business in 15 years and I know this information.
These “experts” are as tech-savvy as grandpa.
****
Suneel you’ve been trying to disprove the legitimacy of the Cami photo for 2 years — and you and your experts still have no idea what software you need to alter digital images without a trace.
I’m not telling you anything a 13-year-old geeky kid doesn’t know.
/////
If people want to talk about how a digital pic is altered, at least get up to speed with the jargon and the software tools that are necessary.
////
Frank, this whole comment section of experts is like the blind leading the blind.
Raniere caused dozens of forced abortions, caused massive pain amongst so many women yet some can’t stop tearing their underwear off their bodies in public about EXIF data.
WTF????
EXIF data is easily modifiable and thus not at all reliable as a source of truthful information about a picture. This is not a matter of debate or opinion, it’s straightforwardly a fact of the data format. You don’t even need special software; Windows 10 can do it out of the box. Personally I don’t doubt Raniere is guilty as sin, but the point about the unreliability of EXIF data as evidence in criminal proceedings is very valid.
Great job, Suneel. I hope you can use peaches in your next demonstration.
Hi 🍑,
Nice of you to show up to the party. Hope everything is well!
“Lying”?
What we have here is a difference of opinion. Agent Booth didn’t testify that EXIF data is impossible to change, he said it’s difficult to change.
Even according to Suneel, changing the data involves downloading specialized software. I looked into this, and the downloading sites look pretty sketchy to me. This is in the realm of spyware stuff. I can’t think of a legitimate reason to fake EXIF data.
Don’t confuse deleting EXIF data with altering it. Standard (legitimate) photo processing software lets the user delete it. It’s done for privacy reasons when putting images online, or to reduce the size of the file. It’s relatively easy to do. For people who are comfortable with manipulating the more advanced features of complex photo editing programs like Adobe Photoshop, that is.
That Suneel, whom you describe as a Harvard trained professional computer expert, can change EXIF data on a photo doesn’t prove it’s easy to change. It merely shows it’s possible for an expert.
Agent Booth never said it’s not possible. He said it’s not easy.
I don’t see where anyone’s lying here.
This is very weird. If you lie under oath, you can go to jail – and the FBI had loads of evidence against KR anyway. So, is it not more likely the FBI got it wrong or were careless (If they got it wrong) than that they chose to lie under oath?
Is it that it is easy for these tech experts like Suneel but not normal people? I don’t even know what the phrases and words mean used in the article about the tech, never mind how to buy a programme to change this kind of data and I am a normal person not a tech expert.
Nothing to see here. Move along now.
I’m sort of thinking that Booth was just trying to explain EXIF data to a layperson. If you consider his statements from a non-expert point of view, he does in a way explain that EXIF data is not intended to be changed, that photo editing programs usually only add to it not delete it, and that you’d have to be pretty deliberate in changing that data. It’s not the same kind of metadata that is saved when you copy a file and it gets a new create date, you know? I think he was just describing EXIF data in a normal use case. I’m not sure he’s lying, exactly.
And I don’t think Suneel is lying either.
But I did some reading and learned that during criminal investigations that involve photographs, the investigators are usually looking at a lot more than just EXIF data.
And in the case of the Camila photos, it seems the prosecution pretty much got it in the bag. They have the medical records of Camila, the testimony of her sister, a binder of vulvas, sworn testimonies, etc.
Slam dunk and good thing! Camila being only 15 is definitely a big deal but not so different from if the girl was 20. If you’re a gross old pervert manipulating significantly younger women into sex, that’s just wrong! That’s the behavior of a predator!
So? I’d really like to know what’s the big deal about this EXIF data, anyway? I think it’s supposed to prove Camila was not 15. So?
Don’t prove to me EXIF data can be altered.
Prove to me Camila was not 15.
Nailed it, my2cents
Always what Raniere is trying to do
Muddy the waters, use smoke & mirrors, and be the man behind the curtain like OZ
Let’s face it, Raniere has a history of liking underage girls
The Times Unions already exposed that in 2012 when four women came forward with their stories about Raniere in his CBI days
Here we have texts, testimony, and emails. Oh my. The pictures are just icing on the cake that prove Raniere had sex with Camila before she was of legal age in the United States.
This whole FBI done bad is because Raniere has too much of other people’s money on hand. It’s been the entire problem all along.
This is what happens when you give a psychopath too much money and attention.
Those that are funding this guy are just at much fault for wasting the public tax money we pay into our court system as Raniere is simply using litigation games he has been playing for decades.
Does he have a right? Well at what point is enough enough?
In the US you can sue whoever you want for whatever you want and Raniere is one of the best for BS legal waste of time.
This Rule 33 motion is just another example.
Thanks, just sayin.
I don’t understand how the followers can just turn a blind eye to the reports from those other (once under-aged) girls/women?
Do they really believe keith is incapable of lying?
And if keith wasn’t lying and the women were the liars why would they do that? What’s the motive?
If it is true that the followers believe he was somehow being targeted by a bunch of liars, I’m curious about why they think and feel this way.
For what reason would people lie about this man? What kind of threat did he pose that was worth orchestrating all these people to act against him?
Was it Clare’s money? Because that money was hers, not his.
Was it because he was helping people afflicted with Tourettes and by doing so he would challenge all world super powers and disrupt the entire world order?
Was it really because he had so many women who made themselves exclusively available for sex with him? Among consenting adults (and no blackmail involved) this is totally permissible.
I just don’t see a rational motive for anyone wanting to take him down unless he hurt them. That’s usually why people speak up. They’ve been hurt and don’t want to have that happen to anyone else.
I also can’t help but see the heart of the investigators seeing the “virgin Camilla’s” nude photographs dated in every way back to age of 15 and having that exact same feeling. That this was wrong and shouldn’t happen to even one more girl. So they followed what I now understand to be protocol and investigated beyond the exif data to prove the case in a more substantial way.
I’m beginning to feel less sympathic by the day towards these followers. Keith himself
wrote letters that shamed these brave women who actually relinquished their freedom and went to jail rather than allow for this to continue to happen.
JMO
KRC –
More than once I have seen Raniere defenders mention “11th hour ” regarding the Cami child pornography evidence
Was this a complaint that Raniere’s attorneys actually made back then?
I recall they conceded the Cami child porn photos were legit.
It seems overstated to now say they were brought in too late to dispute – but then there is no record of this being a defense complaint issue.
How much notice did they actually have? Weeks right? It wasn’t like the night before., was it? Lol.
I know it’s tiresome to go over the same points again and again! It is appreciated.
Thanks!
The second superseding indictment was issued on March 13, 2019 – approximately seven weeks before the scheduled start of the trial in the matter of the United States v. Keith Raniere. Among other things, the second superseding indictment contained allegations regarding four additional predicate acts: two of those acts concerned the alleged sexual exploitation of a child, one concerned the alleged possession of child pornography, and one concerned visa fraud.
Five days after the second superseding indictment was issued, Clare Bronfman filed a motion to have her trial severed from that of Keith Raniere. Similar motions followed soon thereafter by Lauren Salzman, Allison Mack, and Kathy Russell.
No such motion was filed by Nancy Salzman. That’s because she had already pled guilty to one count of Racketeering before the second superseding indictment was issued.
On March 22, 2019, the attorneys representing Keith Raniere filed a lengthy Memorandum of Law in which they requested, among other things, that the trial start, as previously scheduled, on April 29, 2019 (Jury selection for the trial was scheduled to begin on April 8,2019).
In their March 22, 2019 filing, Keith’s attorneys made several references to the “two sets of photographs that the government contends were taken by Raniere on November 5, 2005 and November 24, 2005”. Thus, it appears that Keith’s attorneys had been given copies of the photos on or before March 22, 2019 – which was approximately five weeks before the start of the trial.
What is particularly striking about the March 22, 2019 filing of Keith’s attorneys is their insistence that the trial not be postponed because of the new charges that were set forth in the second superseding indictment. Here is an excerpt from that document:
“Raniere reiterates his statutory and constitutional right to a prompt trial, a right that the government has steadfastly denied him for almost a year. At the last court conference, the government searched for ways to yet again adjourn the Court’s firm trial date. It gratuitously stated, for example, that it was in active plea negotiations with three defendants, (3/18/19 Tr. at 18), and suggested that may delay the trial. The government also expressed concern that its last-minute superseding indictment might spawn motion practice, stating “the government has an additional concern given the current trial date if the defendants have additional motions to raise”. But none of these things should stand in the way of the Court’s firm trial date, especially when the government has already caused extensive pretrial delay of an incarcerated defendant who has been demanding a trial for almost a year. That the government is “in active plea negotiations with three additional defendants” is not a basis to continue to infringe on Raniere’s right to trial. Whether or not a co-defendant pleads guilty can have no impact on a firm trial date. Raniere is not pleading guilty. He wants a trial. He wants a trial immediately. Moreover, he has been demanding a prompt trial for a year. Moreover, the government’s eleventh-hour indictment should not serve to keep a defendant in jail longer. It should serve rather as a wake-up call to the prosecution that it will have to work harder and devote additional resources to ensure that the defendants have a fair trial given the last minute charges and the large amount of discovery that has yet to be turned over. The answer is never delay. The answer is always to work hard and get the job done.”
As was noted long ago in Aesop’s Fables, Be careful what you ask for…
Thank you so much, KRC. Very comprehensive reply.
And much different than it has been portrayed recently!
Wow!
Your bias is very very clear in this case.
—Your bias is very very clear in this case.
Says the guy who, still, doesn’t know why Cami didn’t testify. 😉
My chubby, little troll, my how you love trolling Claviger.
If we’re all cult-haters, you’re a cult-lover. I’ll venture to guess you’ve been writing letters to eith swearing fealty. You don’t have anything to offer, but don’t worry Keith will respond.
Alanzo, from what I understand you’ve been posting cult-crap since the dial-up days.
21 years after you left Scientology and you haven’t accomplished any …..So sad 😢
Nice Guy,
As I mentioned some while ago, I no longer respond to any of Alanzo’s comments – including the ones about me. But, had I responded to this latest one, I would have simply asked him to identify exactly what was biased about this comment:
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
K.R. Claviger
September 27, 2021 at 7:35 amEDIT
The second superseding indictment was issued on March 13, 2019 – approximately seven weeks before the scheduled start of the trial in the matter of the United States v. Keith Raniere. Among other things, the second superseding indictment contained allegations regarding four additional predicate acts: two of those acts concerned the alleged sexual exploitation of a child, one concerned the alleged possession of child pornography, and one concerned visa fraud.
Five days after the second superseding indictment was issued, Clare Bronfman filed a motion to have her trial severed from that of Keith Raniere. Similar motions followed soon thereafter by Lauren Salzman, Allison Mack, and Kathy Russell.
No such motion was filed by Nancy Salzman. That’s because she had already pled guilty to one count of Racketeering before the second superseding indictment was issued.
On March 22, 2019, the attorneys representing Keith Raniere filed a lengthy Memorandum of Law in which they requested, among other things, that the trial start, as previously scheduled, on April 29, 2019 (Jury selection for the trial was scheduled to begin on April 8,2019).
In their March 22, 2019 filing, Keith’s attorneys made several references to the “two sets of photographs that the government contends were taken by Raniere on November 5, 2005 and November 24, 2005”. Thus, it appears that Keith’s attorneys had been given copies of the photos on or before March 22, 2019 – which was approximately five weeks before the start of the trial.
What is particularly striking about the March 22, 2019 filing of Keith’s attorneys is their insistence that the trial not be postponed because of the new charges that were set forth in the second superseding indictment. Here is an excerpt from that document:
“Raniere reiterates his statutory and constitutional right to a prompt trial, a right that the government has steadfastly denied him for almost a year. At the last court conference, the government searched for ways to yet again adjourn the Court’s firm trial date. It gratuitously stated, for example, that it was in active plea negotiations with three defendants, (3/18/19 Tr. at 18), and suggested that may delay the trial. The government also expressed concern that its last-minute superseding indictment might spawn motion practice, stating “the government has an additional concern given the current trial date if the defendants have additional motions to raise”. But none of these things should stand in the way of the Court’s firm trial date, especially when the government has already caused extensive pretrial delay of an incarcerated defendant who has been demanding a trial for almost a year. That the government is “in active plea negotiations with three additional defendants” is not a basis to continue to infringe on Raniere’s right to trial. Whether or not a co-defendant pleads guilty can have no impact on a firm trial date. Raniere is not pleading guilty. He wants a trial. He wants a trial immediately. Moreover, he has been demanding a prompt trial for a year. Moreover, the government’s eleventh-hour indictment should not serve to keep a defendant in jail longer. It should serve rather as a wake-up call to the prosecution that it will have to work harder and devote additional resources to ensure that the defendants have a fair trial given the last minute charges and the large amount of discovery that has yet to be turned over. The answer is never delay. The answer is always to work hard and get the job done.”
As was noted long ago in Aesop’s Fables, Be careful what you ask for…
K.R. Claviger-
I understand.
Of all the scenarios that could come up to discuss in Nxivm – why lower the age of consent in very young girls?
Why talk about mothers in (some unspecified) other cultures giving their infants blow jobs?
Why talk about young children “enjoying molestation ” until they were taught by society it was “bad”?
And btw, if you work with children who are being sexually abused, they pretty much universally are aware that it is, “wrong, shameful, not how daddies act” etc. Usually, their abnormal behavior (mood issues, hygiene problems, self-harm and more) tip-off teachers that there is a real crisis happening to the child.
Why did the Nxivm curriculum teach that some women only orgasmed thru rape?
And that a man raping a woman who wanted to leave him was “natural. Marking his territory”
Why teach that women’s sexual satisfaction was unimportant and that men “owned” a woman if they ejaculated on their face?
Why teach that men should have multiple sex partners but women must commit to one man?
Why the “rapable babies”? Keith Raniere, “I could make a very rapable baby”?
Suneel – do you believe that women are inherently flaky? That they are master excuse-makers? That they cannot be trusted or depended upon? That women gossip and cannot keep a confidence? That they must be blackmailed into keeping their word? That all women lie and play the victim?
Is it possible that you, Suneel, have embraced the misogynistic teachings of Keith Raniere?
Perhaps this deeply chauvinistic view of females has made you complicit in the abusing and dismissing of the women who have bravely come forward.
Maybe you, Suneel, are the one who is prejudiced against these women and inclined to disbelieve them.
Instead of people being biased against your friend, Keith Raniere, as you have accused the public of being in the past?
Maybe?
I wonder when Frank will have the balls to take a strong stand on this, “I don’t know who is lying”, it is obviously the FBI. They do this all the time. I don’t care about Raniere he’s probably going to stay there anyways or his supporter Suneel and his intent to free the guy, but good to expose the corrupt. Now take a strong stand, Frank, keep exposing the corrupt system we are living with in America. No other media will do this unless more independent journalists do…
Yes, lots of programs leave EXIF data alone as images are moved or edited. But the EXIF data format is public domain, and there are dozens of programs that can edir it. For instance, it’s very common for the calendar and clock in a camera to be set wrong, so the EXIF data gives time precise to the second, but wrong by hours, days, months, or years. There are programs that will add or subtract the same amount of time to all the EXIF data in all images in a folder to compensate for the clock error.
So if someone had access to the disk containing the images (and the chain of custody is admitted by the prosecution to be flawed), it’s easily possible for the EXIF dates to have been altered.
The defense could have asked Booth, “Are you aware of Program A, which can edit EXIF data?” Then “Are you aware of program B, which can edit EXIF data?” Etc, etc. Then “Can you explain how you are an expert witness when you are unaware of these programs?”
The defense could have brought in any high school student as an “expert” witness on how to alter EXIF data, just to rub it in.
Booth should be ashamed of himself
But I very much doubt that an appeals judge will grant Raniere a new trial on this. The defense did not object to the introduction of the photos. The defense did not assert, let alone present evidence, that the EXIF dates were actually manipulated. And the defense did not argue that the entire prosecution case hinged on the EXIF dates being accurate and unchanged. There were many other prosecution arguments about things other than possession of child pornography (which wasn’t even a charge in the case). And there was other evidence presented about Camila’s appendectomy scar that is consistent with her being underage when the photos were taken.
Raniere will file his appeal, his lawyers will collect some more of Clare Bronfman’s money, and the appeals judge will let the conviction and sentence stand. Then Raniere will spend more of Clare’s money appealing the appeal, again to no avail.
Unless he gets slocked first …. (look it up)
Really? Did you people not read the previous article? Raniere’s attorney’s already attempted to introduce reasonable doubt into the notion of EXIF data not being entirely reliable. The questioning is repeated here:
“Q You agree that any metadata, whether it’s EXIF data or other data can be changed and altered, correct?
A Yes, EXIF data can be altered.
Q And there’s a variety of different ways that that can happen, correct?
A Yes, it can.
Q Companies can remove — if you send a photo to Facebook, do they take off that data?
A Yes, they actually strip off the data.
Q So Facebook, Twitter that’s what they do?
A Yes, they do.
Q And then they use that information for their commercial purposes?
A I wouldn’t know.
Q That’s another way. There’s commercial processes that do that?
A I would gather.”
What they didn’t suggest is that the FBI altered the photos because — as I said in my previous comment — that would be really dumb. They also brought up the chain of custody issue. These things were brought up to introduce reasonable doubt, which is what any effective counsel would do. Unfortunately for the defense, the jury didn’t buy that someone other than Raniere took the pictures because of all of the other corroborating evidence introduced at trial that reinforced the notion that it was something he would do. A man’s past and current behavior is his own worst enemy. It wouldn’t matter if they continued to press the issue with how easy it is to change EXIF data because it is a minor point. No jury is going to buy the notion that law enforcement authorities like the FBI manipulated and/or planted evidence based on nothing but the fact that digital files are alterable and a speculative suggestion that it happened here. This entire idea that the FBI is corrupt is likely just projection coming from people themselves who are corrupt. The FBI requires its agents and employees to submit to a more rigorous code of ethics than Raniere ever did or had.
So I don’t see any way that “ineffective counsel” will fly on an appeal either.
What about if you don’t have the time and date set to reflect correctly? Will it reflect the wrong information? I’ve had digital cameras in the past that I never bothered to set… not saying that this has anything to do with this case, just curious.
I read about that lianon! I don’t know for sure, but seems that, yes! That info would be wrong yet it would still become part of your camera’s fingerprint.
Yes, that’s exactly why so much software to change the date exists. Again, anybody can change an Exif date for their own, presumably legitimate, purposes. Forging a new one in such a way that no evidence of the change is left behind is much harder.
Technically, any digital file that isn’t digitally signed or encrypted is capable of being modified without a trace (if you know what you’re doing) because digital content is just bits (zeros and ones). If you know the file structure and the position of human-readable digital content, e.g., text, dates, and times, all you need is a hex editor to get in there and change it. However, it is extremely difficult to alter actual image data, e.g., RGB pixels, which aren’t really human-readable because they’re shades of colors (although they are technically just numbers), without it being noticed because an experienced digital photographer or someone who is an expert at digital image editing can detect that such changes have occurred. So wiping away a scar – although undetectable to a normal person – would likely be easily noticeable by the aforementioned types of people.
But to me, this is all completely irrelevant because the likelihood of such tampering occurring is infinitesimal to zero. If the defense were to contest the date of the images, they could only do so to the extent of instilling reasonable doubt in the jury. They could only say that EXIF data is not entirely reliable in terms of dates and times because it can be changed, the time set on the camera, or various other such reasons, but that is it. And if I’m not mistaken, the defense team tried to do exactly that (which would mean they weren’t “ineffective counsel”). Any legal team that attempted to even suggest, let alone argue, that the FBI tampered with the evidence to falsely imprison someone without beyond reasonable doubt of proof would be looked upon with utter contempt. It’s a very risky move career-wise and I would suspect that filing a Rule 33 motion with such a claim would be done with the greatest of caution and hesitation for the same reason. Especially if there was so much other corroborating evidence that reinforced such incriminating evidence as authentic which there was.
IMO, this is just a ridiculous attempt at a Hail Mary from the opposite end zone. Raniere will more than likely be spending the rest of his life in prison. The dead-enders should move on and get on with their lives.
I don’t know much about this case but anyone with even the slightest knowledge of EXIF data can tell you that it’s easier to change than a pair of your girlfriend’s panties.
You don’t have to be a Gen Z coder nor is it necessary for you to have taken a class on photo storage to know that EXIF data is as easy to change as it is to photoshop a picture. The fact that an FBI “expert” said it’s easy and that Penza stated this over and over is crazy .. just for the sheer fact that it’s so probably false (just google it) and shows just how much Government prosecutors know they can get away with ANYTHING
The word coder is an insult to any programmer!
Coder- refers to the activity of translating one program’s computer language code to another computer language code.
Get with the program – pardon the pun!
Why don’t you file a formal complaint accusing Booth of lying? And Penza too? This is America. You don’t have to just comment on a blog with a clever ( to you) nom de plume.
You seem passionate about it.
Write up your allegations and formally submit them. Contact a not for profit if you need help. Let us know what happens?
One thing I will concede is FBI is wrong about EXIF data. It is easy to replace/remove. Internet is littered with software and most pictures don’t have this information. Whether that is lying or simple ignorance would be the question.
We have to assume a lot of things for Keith theory to fly.
0) The FBI determined there was not enough evidence to convict Keith and determined underage photos were key.
1) The FBI magicked underage photos
2) The FBI decided the underage photos were not nude enough and edited them
3) The FBI then decided to edit the photos data so would appear to be owned by Keith
Going backwards, yes #3 is relatively easy to accomplish if only reliant on exif data. Things start to get sticky with #3, editing the photos would leave artifacts experts can point to.
Things start to fall apart with #1. The subject of the photos is still alive and can testify to them being taken. That means we can safely assume these photos were actually taken by someone for some purpose. I assume the photos are sexualized in some manner. Which means they were taken for a specific reason. At the time, there was only one real reason to do it – for Keith. Can’t get around this, its one aspect of Suneel’s theory he avoids. Why/how do these photos exist at all?
Then we get to #0. The other evidence. The FBI didn’t need to “frame” Keith. All the other evidence, especially DOS, guaranteed his conviction. If the jury didn’t hate him for the underage behavior, the prosecutor just had to go to town on DOS to accomplish the exact same goal. One just provided an easier shortcut.
This all gets to the core of Suneel’s ongoing issue. You can believe someone did wrong things, support them anyway, and in a personal belief of justice also believe how they were convicted was wrong and should be addressed regardless of what they did. There are plenty that do this and is a core part of the justice system. For example, a lawyer choosing to defend a client they know for a fact is guilty is a necessary and important part of the justice system (something people forget when they condemn lawyers for this).
Suneel (and others like Clyne) are incapable of doing this. He still has Keith on that pedestal and refuses to believe Keith did anything legally and/or morally wrong. Their core defense of him is literally to ignore anything immoral about him and just lean on “well he was the victim of a conspiracy to convict him, he didn’t do anything wrong.” Even children understand you can do immoral things that are not necessarily illegal. He consistently defends Keith as innocent of all charges and immoral behavior. That makes him highly unreliable and morally unstable. I wouldn’t trust him to tell me the time.
Ultimately, all we have is “proof” that the FBI exaggerated the reliability of EXIf data. That is it. Nothing else has been proven and none of it does anything to address the very existence of these underage photos. Unless Camilla is secretly still loyal to Keith (weirdly a very real possibility), than her testimony would trash anything Suneel thinks he has come up with. Wow wouldn’t that be dramatic, if Cami took the stand….and supported Keith? If he pulled that off, I might even have to concede he might be a potential genius.
Suneel said,
“Two things can be true: Cami may be telling the truth and the FBI cheated. Both merit investigation and I intend to find out the truth. If Keith Raniere is guilty, I won’t ignore that, and if the FBI cheated to gain a conviction, I won’t ignore that either.”
In his comment, Erasend mischaracterizes Suneel in order to insult him.
I will be more direct – I think Suneel would excuse Keith being a serial killer even as the man sliced and diced everyone in front of him. That makes him an immoral person and untrustworthy on anything he offers. And all he offers is theories, no proof. That is all he has ever offered.
Yet Suneel created a video as evidence of his claim that it was easy to edit EXIF data.
Then he proved it in the video.
Suneel,
Has the contest to prove Keith’s innocence found a winner? Or is it on going? Was the cash prize collected? Are you still collecting submissions? What’s the deadline?
Thank you for your response.
Suneel is a cheapskate!
Suneel,
Would you please address all of Keith’s texts and emails about the ongoing search for a “virgin successor”?
Procuring this virgin successor seemed very important and urgent to Keith Raniere.
Please include the email discussion regarding Laura Risa Junco’s young teen daughter being promised to Keith Raniere.
And also Keith directing Cami to find him young girls on dating aps willing to have sex with a “much older man” (him).
Also, Keith consistently referred to Cami as “the virgin Camilla”.
Virgins were really important to Keith.
Why?
Thank you!
Yes – I’ll review them in detail and publish my analysis of them in a separate post.
This list of things Suneel promises to research and write about, but never does, grows with every day.
How about prioritizing Keith’s “rapable babies” comments, Suneel?
Or is that too much cognitive dissonance to harmonize with your cult-infested love for your master? Better to deflect that away by ignoring it, eh?
For hundreds of years, antisemites have accused Jews of drinking the blood of Christian babies.
It’s a good exercise to step back and consider the possibility that “Seduced” and “The Vow” are mostly propaganda, with clips of Raniere lectures taken completely out of context and edited in a way to demonize Raniere and NXIVM.
In Seduced, images of the dead bodies at Jonestown were flashed on the screen when calling NXIVM a ‘cult’.
Did you fall for that one, too?
What is the entire context of the speech Raniere made from which the term “rapable babies” comes?
I have read that the government owns the copyrights and trademarks on all NXIVM content now. And none of it is available online or in libraries. So nobody can even study the context of “rapable babies” or anything else regarding the “tech” and lectures of NXIVM.
It is legitimate, even vital for the sake of our liberty, to question these things like Raniere’s use of the term “rapable babies”.
Did Raniere really teach Nxians to go out and find babies to rape?
Alanzo
It clearly said, “Suneel”.
Please don’t put your comments near my comments. The crazy desperation dripping off them splatters nearby.
Like most people I don’t read them either.
No. Keith liked having sex with 12-15yo girls and he used his teachings to normalize this. He’d use examples of acceptable behaviors from other countries as a way to get others to open up to the 12-15yo sex idea. Any mentions of babies and sex/rape was a way for him to break patterns of thinking, and make it easier to reach his desired outcome. Not to advocate raping babies.
The more outlandish or shocking a statement is, the easier it is to break a pattern of thinking. I’m sure this is why he’d use examples with babies.
NutJob:
Yes. Hubbard had a similar technique in Scientology that he called “flattening peoples’ buttons”.
I was given a rather extreme example of Raniere’s use of the term “fuck toys” on Lauren Salzman. It was an obvious & outrageous use of the technique to ‘flatten her buttons’ on his sex addiction.
The thing is, “flattening your buttons” can be helpful in making it easier for you to hold your own in upsetting situations. Or, it can be used to convince you that you are insane for feeling the feelings you have about something that is totally wrong.
These techniques can be used for good, or for evil, depending on how corrupt the group or practitioner is.
Thanks for your insight, NutJob.
Alanzo
—For hundreds of years, antisemites have accused Jews of drinking the blood of Christian babies.
You are such a melodramatic blowhard. No wonder you drove your father crazy.
Alanzo, how do you know something was taken out of context, when you were not even present at the time the thing was said? You have done 0 NXIVM courses. You have gone to 0 V-weeks. Your only understanding of NXIVM is limited to the few people who have talked with you and who like you for your anti-anti-cult narrative.
My point was that the full videos and transcripts are not available anywhere, so researchers can not see the full ‘lecture’ Raniere made where he said “rapable babies”, and so can not check the context of what the government, The Vow, and Seduced have presented to us.
This is a problem.
Don’t you think?
Raniere didn’t teach Nxians to go out and find babies to rape. It was all about him. The extreme example made the idea of him having sex with underage women normalized. He had sex with 12yr olds and 15yr olds.
Alanzo, You are not thankful to Nutjob for any insight. You just like that he validated something you already believed in. You wouldn’t need his insight had you done your homework. You don’t care two bits about the broken apart community and all the difficulties people in it are in. You are more interested in proving yourself right than creating any mind of understanding or healing in all this mess. This will be difficult for you to take in, as you like to sob for yourself, and claim that you are not getting anything out of any of this when, in truth, you are. Everyone does something because they psychologically get something out of doing that thing. You know this very well, but you use this only as a way to try to prove others wrong, or how you have a superior understanding of human psychology, while being oblivious of your own blind spots.
If you have some level of real honesty in you, you will take this in, and really do your homework and work to make things better for all those who have been impacted, rather than dividing the world in your anti-anti-cult vs the anti-anti-antu-anti cult narrative. Get over your anti-narrative and learn to see everyone as humans and do something to help them.
Alanzo, not everything needs to be reviewed with full context. Strictly speaking you can never review anything with 100% context, as they would include their whole life, the culture they grew up in, the people around them and the whole world. We always takes things out of context. Always always always. So saying that something has been taken out of context, is itself meaningless, unless one can in some meaningful way refer to the greater part what needs to be looked into, along with good reasons as to why it’s relevant, which too would ultimately not be the full context.
Hey Alonzo, the government doesn’t own all of the nxivm IP. Keith’s patent applications are totally available to the public via Google and at patents.justia.com.
I’ve sometimes wondered if I should write an article for the Frank Report about them.
The best one to start with is titled “Can a Luciferian be rehabilitated”. It is super creepy almost the entire way through. Definitely explains a bit about the terror experiments that were conducted by Brandon Porter but also describes other methods that I can only define as similar to gangstalking. I know that’s a word generally only used by the “insane” but I hope you’ll go ahead and give it a read! I’d be really interested to hear your thoughts on it.
Oops. Frank? My comment to Alonzo about the patent applications being available to the public was supposed to go here. Is it possible to make it a reply to this one if I made a mistake?
“I was given a rather extreme example of Raniere’s use of the term “fuck toys” on Lauren Salzman.”
The “fuck toys” line was to Cami. Alanzo, please don’t post here when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
If that’s going to be the standard, then Alanzo won’t be able to post anymore on the Frank Report.
Cami is not the only person who Keith Raniere used this term on, and she’s not the only person he’s used this technique on.
He also used it on Lauren Salzman and that is from a phone conversation with a person who has first hand knowledge of this.
That you have this narrow understanding shows it’s actually you who does not know what you’re talking about, “Someone”.
Also, Alonzo, I do agree that the documentaries are biased but what else would they be? This is documentary, not journalism. I thought the one with Sarah and Mark and Bonnie did an excellent job of showing both the light and the darkness. Sure, they definitely went to town on the misogyny angle but if that’s why these people chose to leave, then it’s a very important part of the story. Their story.
And why a “dungeon” Suneel? And all the many, many sex toys Dani Padilla ordered for the “fuck toy slaves” if DOS wasn’t a “sex cult”?
Lots of porn too. For not being about sex. And “seduction assignments”. Cause, you know, not a sex cult.
Suneel, would you go naked into a cage kept in a basement in Albany indefinitely because you are committed to your growth”?
Side note: where would you go to the bathroom?
Suneel-
In order to be friends with Alanzo, you must:
1. Have a pullout couch.
2. Be willing to pay restaurant and bar tabs.
3. Have a well-stocked refrigerator.
4. Have tons and tons of patience.
RE Device Stamp:
My favorite part of this debate is the fact, no one knows, if the camera and computer had the CORRECT TIME SET!
I worked in IT and at one time, I personally kept the calendar day and hour, rolled back, on my home PC incase of any malware attacks which were time sensitive.
You are all debating a hypothetical….
I don’t know any of these people. Nor do I care about whatever case you are writing about. I saw this post through a Google Alert.
If that FBI agent really said the things you have quoted him as saying he is either shamefully ignorant or lying.
Exif (note the proper use of case) was certainly not designed to be hard to alter. Your source is correct. Many programs advertised to consumers can edit it, especially the date fields, which many people want to change.
That said, it could be quite difficult to alter such dates undectably using consumer software. It’s easy to use a pen. It’s harder to forge a signature.
If someone was not too bright and they forged Exif data, I’d spot it. If they did a good job. I couldn’t.
Of course, simply deleting the Exif data from a photo is extremely easy.
I hope this helps.
Cheers.
Carl Seibert metadatamatters.blog
—I saw this post through a Google Alert.
Wow! What kind of Google Alert did you receive?
Carl,
—I don’t know any of these people. Nor do I care about whatever case you are writing about.
“So now I’m going to chime in anyway, even though, I said I don’t give a phooey.”
Carl who are you and why should we care?
BTW: I agree the files can be changed
carefully changed. All anyone has to do is download a free Hex editor, which are readily available on the web from reputable sources. I’m surprised Suneel the boy-genius has not brought up this fact.
I believe the Google Alert that triggered here was for “photo metadata”.
I’m just a helpful guy who writes about metadata. You’ve got Google. Well, since you don’t know what a Google Alert is… maybe not.
I kind of thought it might be helpful if somebody who was NOT a party to the case you are all so obviously emotionally involved with chimed in to say that the guy whose opinion was perhaps not objective because he WAS a party to the case was in fact essentially correct. I’m sorry if I intruded.
Exif data is binary. Good luck with that hex editor.
……And to the commenter who suggested that the FBI man was oversimplifying or not communicating clearly rather than prevaricating, speaking outside his expertise, or just plain testilying –
Yes, It’s indeed a fair point that you need software that’s capable of changing Exif data. But I get at least two Google Alerts a week from software developers who are marketing new consumer-level software – often for phones – that alters Exif data. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume an expert would be aware of that. True, a successful forger would probably use more professional software.
If that FBI person really did suggest in court that there was some designed-in feature in the Exif standard that is meant to protect Exif data from alteration, that’s at best a distortion of the truth, and frankly, quite troubling. I realize everybody has an opinion but in mine, expert witnesses are bound to a higher standard than that. Too much partisanship undermines credibility.
To everyone and Seibert,
A few years ago, I went down this same rabbit hole, with you tech frauds and luddites, I’m not doing it again!
Below are links to web pages which will verify everything that I’m saying:
Exiftool – this is a simple but very powerful tool for extracting metadata from many different file types, not just images. It runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux. There’s a simple setup guide here and this is a useful video tutorial for Windows. It isn’t as immediately easy to use as Forensically, but it is more effective for viewing recovered metadata.
A hex editor that allows you to see the structure of a file in its rawest possible form. It’s not quite down to the ones and zeroes, but almost. HxD is also a good basic hex viewer for Windows, but any hex editor will do for this purpose. Using a hex reader is the most comprehensive way to inspect the structure of a file and it will allow us to inspect the metadata very precisely.
https://dfir.science/2020/10/Hex-editors-and-data-structures.html
https://www.forensicfocus.com/forums/education-and-training/hex-editor-and-hiding-data/
https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/54151/why-i-can-see-extra-info-with-the-hex-editor-and-not-with-an-exif-tool
https://nixintel.info/osint/the-secret-life-of-jpegs/
********
Siebert-
If you truly receive a Google alert every-time the words “photo metadata” are mentioned, then you’re receiving thousands of alerts all day, every day.
So I say to you, “blah, blah, blah” my old blowhard. 😉
Have a great day and take some ex-Lax, you’re backed up to your brain. 😉
This is what Booth said:
Q Is there a particular reason why EXIF data is more difficult to alter?
A They purposely designed it that way.
Q Do you know —
A It’s mainly to be able to store information. And they don’t want data to be moved around and changed, especially time and date information. Those things are very hard for the consumer to be able to modify, unless you wind up getting software that’s just developed to do that.
Note the very last statement: “FOR THE CONSUMER…UNLESS YOU WIND UP GETTING SOFTWARE THAT’S JUST DEVELOPED TO DO THAT.”
I don’t think Booth made a blanked statement that it was difficult to alter, period.
Nevertheless, what Raniere et al claims is the FBI altered the photos to falsely imprison him. That is a positive claim that implies FBI corruption which requires extraordinary proof on his part. Also, if the FBI can alter data, so can his so-called experts, and there is no chain of custody requirement for them. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Yes! Agent Booth testified that EXIF data is hard to change for a consumer. He didn’t say it’s impossible to change.
Consumer photo editing software like the kind available from Canon or Nikon doesn’t let the consumer alter EXIF data. Not even complex software meant for professionals, like Adobe Photoshop let you ALTER the data. Altering EXIF files can make hash of your photo files, and there’s no legitimate reason for doing it.
Bottom line: it’s not easy for the consumer to change the dates on EXIF files
People are forgetting the bigger picture here. I must ask where is the aging process in Suneel’s photos? The girl in question has scars made in the analogue domain which changes the dimension. EXIF data means SFA if she has before and after pics when you know the following… https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1897169/
“Easy” is relative. Lying isn’t the only possibility. Suneel is a computer expert. The hired guns are computer experts. They’ve had years to work this defense out. “Lying” is a jump. And it misses several steps. Motive is one. There was/is no reason to lie. They didn’t need the dates to prove the photos were of underage Camilla. There was enough other evidence to support it. Texts, abortion records (with a testifying witness) Daniela (under oath), appendectomy scar, and more.
Motive? EXIF data was the critical evidence. Booth said it was hard to change, yet if you have enough computer skills to post on FrankReport, I can teach you to change EXIF data, so why did Booth say it is hard to change?
Suneel-
Alanzo is attempting to work his way into your circle of friends. He is a professional manipulator and love-bomber. He did the same thing with my life partner’s One Taste chapter. Alanzo is a professional grifter and pervert; I’m sure Scientology was glad to get rid of him!
I respectively disagree.
There was PLENTY of other evidence.
If it were that easy and everyone knows it’s oh so easy and THAT one piece of evidence was “critical” and so important to the case – how come no one on the jury was like, “it’s really easy you guys. I do it all the time. And this is the only evidence that matters”?
And if you could teach me that easily you would have succeeded where many have failed, hahaha.
Why is it easier for you to firmly believe that an FBI agent lied than to accept THAT Cami is telling the truth?
Cami was a part of your “community” and Keith, whom you respect so much, also said Cami was truthful (texts). Those two would know what happened between them when they were alone better than you would, right? You weren’t even around back then.
Maybe your barometer on truth and lies is off? Maybe?
One more thing I would add to Anonymous’ point: If, in fact, it’s so easy to prove that the FBI agent was lying, why didn’t Keith’s attorneys do that on cross-examination?
It still looks to me like Keith and his attorneys are trying to lay the groundwork for a new appeal based on “ineffective counsel” because there is absolutely nothing in what Suneel is claiming that constitutes “newly discovered evidence” as that term is defined in terms of Rule 33.
Thank you, Notorious KRC. Excellent point.
I am told that one of the prosecution’s counterarguments may be regarding due diligence:
“[I]n order to constitute newly discovered evidence, not only must the defendant show that the evidence was discovered after trial, but he must also demonstrate that the evidence ‘could not with due diligence have been discovered before or during trial.’” United States v. Forbes, 790 F. 3d 403, 408-09 (2d Cir. 2015)
Perhaps the defense could have done more to investigate or delay to allow for sufficient analysis.
That said, if the prosecution is successful in their argument that FBI tampering should, as a procedural matter, be expected to be uncovered by routine due diligence by the defense, the prosecution and the judge would be saying that the FBI has no presumption of regularity.
Because the prosecution didn’t release the proper copy of the “evidence” to the defense. What they provided (after the defense asked multiple times) was basically a word document without any of the details necessary to determine the validity of it. Not to mention that they only provided it to the defense at the 11th hour so that the defense couldn’t properly investigate this. This alone is a five alarm indication that they were hiding something serious. If you were truly familiar with how evidence was handled in this case vs how it is, by law, supposed to be handled you would know this regardless of how you feel about Raniere. I dare you to properly look into this .
Claviger,
Once again, Claviger, you play the role of party pooper and ruin everyone’s fun. Please don’t bring logic, common sense, and the law, into the conversation — it’s a buzzkill!
Side Note: Shadow and Suneel should team up because they both believe the FBI is out to get their masters. Their masters being Raniere and Trump respectively.
Two things can be true: Cami may be telling the truth and the FBI cheated. Both merit investigation and I intend to find out the truth. If Keith Raniere is guilty, I won’t ignore that, and if the FBI cheated to gain a conviction, I won’t ignore that either.
Thanks for your response Suneel.
I do not find the FBI photo data testimony the most compelling evidence on the child pornography charge. There is plenty of other corroborating evidence.
There is other sworn testimony. There are the damning words of Keith himself texting “virgin Camilla”. Do you think Keith was lying back then? Or is Keith lying now?
Who has the proven track record of lying often over many years? That would be Keith Raniere.
You do not really seem to be looking at things objectively. And I understand it. This a person who is very dear to you.
But Camilla is also a person. And dear to many others. As are Keith Raniere’s other victims.
Like Rhiannon.
In my opinion if evidence tampering is expected to be discovered as part of the due diligence by the defense, and if it’s also proven that the change in dates was done by FBI, then while the appeal ought to be rejected on that basis, it should also require investigation into the FBI agents who dealt with the evidence, along with accountability for those found guilty of it.
I hope my previous comment made sense, as I am not interested in jumping to conclusions.
“If Keith Reinier is guilty, I won’t ignore that”
Excuse me? You are already ignoring 90% of the evidence that proves Keith had sex with Camilla at age 15. You question a small piece of evidence and ignore the rest of the evidence. What about the scar? Photoshopped by the FBI? What about the pictures themselves? Fake? No? Then who took them? Who would benefit sexually from those explicit pictures? Who made similar pictures of other women in his harem? What about the testimony from Daniella and Camilla? Lies?
What about the text messages between Camilla and Keith? Also doctored by the FBI?
The evidence is overwhelming. Your goal is to free Keith, not to seek justice. “Make justice blind” my ass. Manson-follower type prison-dancer Suneel: how can anybody take you serious after that stunt?
You’ve been at it for two years. Maybe you should speed things up!
“Two things can be true: Cami may be telling the truth and the FBI cheated. Both merit investigation and I intend to find out the truth.”
How do you intend to find out the truth, Suneel?
The only valid conclusion that can be made is that, what the FBI agent said, seems to be incorrect. Why he said what he said, is conjecture, without additional evidence to prove intention to deliberately lie.
Suneel –
/////
You still HAVE TO PROOF the FBI changed the files!!!! The possibility the FBI could have changed the file is a POSSIBILITY and not actual proof the FBI altered the files. I thought you were smart?
////////////////
You have solid proof of a possibility. Nothing more. It’s worthless and has no legal merit.
Suneel, you can not produce a shred of evidence the FBI actually changed the file.
Suneel, so what if anyone can change the file using a Hex Editor. You are talking about hypotheticals…
Suneel? Please! Snap out of it!
The EXIF data was only one piece of the information that supports the charge. They have texts, medical records, etc. Similar pictures with other people and their testimony.
And what about the other reports from years gone by? The missing Kristen Snyder. The dead Gina Hutchinson, the 12-year-old sex slave Rihannon, and the 15-year-old raped Gina.
How can you really keep believing that this guy is being persecuted? He wreaks destruction on others. He made a patent application that actually recommends exposing humans to scenes of murder, the anticipation of murder, touching a dead body, etc. It’s really sick.
Just like this asshole made a mockery of human slavery by intending to brand and catalog women like animals, he makes a mockery now of EXIF data and its supreme importance.
If EXIF data were the gold standard, should an investigator for these kids just walk in and say, “Sorry guys, this EXIF data is not reliable enough. Can’t help you. Sorry about everything else.”
Hard-core nxians are the biggest bunch of assholes I’ve come across in my entire life.
Suneel, it would behoove you to read this article from the American prosecutors research institute. Sure, it’s a little off topic. But not too far off. This one is titled “methods of proof: the “real child” issue in child pornography cases”
I reccomend you don’t just skim it either.
In fact, I dare you to read the notes regarding the criminal cases and then look me in the eye and repeat that EXIF data is the most critical evidence.
https://ndaa.org › uploadsPDF
Methods of Proof: The ‘Real Child’ Issue in Child Pornography Cases
Well done, my2cents!
Brilliant post, Suneel. So clear.
Suneel’s video presentation where he changes the date and time using a freely available EXIF editor says it all for me.
What I see here is that it is very possible, even easy, to modify photos that were taken when Camila was, say, 25 years old, and change the EXIF data to make it look like they were taken when she was only 15.
That’s what I see.
Alanzo
Alanzo, why do you automatically assume Camila is lying?
Alanzo, you are claiming that 25yr olds and 15yr olds look the same in their photos.
Once again, Alanzo, you are so transparent! Currently, you, are kissing the asses of Suneel and Nicki Clyne, all in a vain attempt, to entrée, into their social circle. Nicki is a celebrity and Suneel is a wealthy graduate of Harvard University; what could they want to do with the likes of you? A lowly chubby serf…
God, you love self-aggrandizing your meager position within the Church. You do not exist on ASO radar and never did.
How many times have you tried to contact Suneel and Nicki?
“Nicki is a celebrity and Suneel is a wealthy graduate of Harvard University”
Interesting choice of phrasing. Admirer much? Or is this Suneel?
Alanzo desperately wants to be Suneel’s new BFF.
Would the US government lie to us about technical issues?
You bet your ass it would!
Have you ever heard of the Magic Bullet Theory where the government said that a bullet traveled through the bodies of President Kennedy and Texas Governor Connally with almost no damage?
That government lie was in 1963.
Picture of the Magic Bullet
The US government is filled with pathological liars.
The government’s top “scientist is lying to you right now about Covid-19 threatening a dark winter even though 183 million Americans have been vaccinated with his vaccine.
Fauci Says Americans Must Get Vaccinated to a ‘Very High Degree’ To Avoid ‘Dark Winter’
But China Virus cases skyrocketed this year despite over 183 million Americans receiving the injection.
Dr. Anthony Fauci warned that Americans will soon face a “dark winter” unless the vast majority of them take the COVID injection.
“You know, if we don’t get people vaccinated who need to be vaccinated, and we get that conflating with an influenza season, we could have a dark, bad winter,” Fauci said during a Thursday interview on “The Takeout” podcast with Major Garrett.
“We could also avoid a dark, bad winter if we get people vaccinated to a very high degree over the next several weeks to a month or two,” he added.
Remember, Joe Biden said America was heading for a “dark winter” almost a year ago when nobody in the U.S. was vaccinated.
But according to Fauci, we’re still heading for a “dark winter” despite the fact 183 million Americans received the COVID injection.
COVID cases are exponentially higher now compared to this time last year, when not nearly as many Americans received the jab, suggesting the injection is not effective at preventing COVID infection.
Fauci recently stumbled on CNN when trying to answer why people should still take the shot when natural immunity was found to provide 27 times more protection than the jab.
https://www.infowars.com/posts/fauci-says-americans-must-get-vaccinated-to-a-very-high-degree-to-avoid-dark-winter/
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Covid-19 is the world’s largest psychological operation ever perpetrated by the US government.
Yes you figured it out. Keith is the center of a conspiracy equal to the moon landing, round earth theory, JFK, UFOs, and more. He was that important apparently? I am sure he appreciates you elevating his historic importance to such epic levels.
Right wingers and their desperate need for conspiracies. The frequency of it has long passed pathetic levels.
EraSend-
Shadow strings together Fauci, Raniere, UFOs and the Kennedy Assassination…..
WTF?!?!?!? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
How long until Shadow, totally naked and unannounced, shows up to Frank’s home, to protect Frank from the Gay Mafia or aliens?
Anonymous:
Tell us about all your experiences in the “Gay Mafia”.
You know so much about the “Gay Mafia”.
Are you still a member?
By the way keep your name “Anonymous”.