Suneel Fires Back, Takes on All Commenters, and No Prisoners, Hitting Hard on Booth, EXIF Data, and FBI Tampering

Suneel Chakravorty says he does not have and never has had a copy of the hard drive because he refused to sign the protective order.

Editor’s Note: Suneel Chakravorty, 31, is often mistaken for a gullible follower of Keith Raniere. He maintains Raniere is only his friend.

He agreed that some of the allegations against Raniere may be true and require investigation which he said he would undertake in an honest fashion. He said he would report his findings. He is undertaking an investigation into the quest of his friend Raniere to find a virgin successor.

Meantime, Suneel has also undertaken an investigation into the allegation of his friend that the FBI tampered with the photos of Camila found on his hard drive.

Primer on All Evidence Showing Raniere Took Pics of 15 Year Old Camila — as We Wait for Motion for New Trial Based on FBI Tampering

KR Claviger: I believe that Judge Garaufis will dismiss Keith’s Rule 33 motion for the simple reason that all of the “newly discovered evidence” could have been discovered before – or during – Keith’s trial. That means it does not qualify as “newly discovered evidence” – although, if true (which it’s not), it might be a great argument for another appeal based on “ineffective counsel”.

Suneel: Then the judge is affirming that the FBI has no presumption of honesty or integrity. Due diligence requires at least some basic assumptions. It includes the assumption that the FBI does not tamper with evidence. Otherwise, is it to be expected that normal due diligence covers looking at any evidence that the FBI handles as likely to be tampered with. 

Erased: It doesn’t seem anyone is arguing, if they are pictures of an underage girl, whether Keith took them or owned them, skipping right over that they are real and that they were taken by “someone” for purposes of sexual intent.

Suneel: The real issue is not whether Raniere took the Camila pictures or not, or whether he had prurient interest in doing so. The real question is not even if she was 15 when the photos were taken. She might have been. The question is did he possess them? Were they found where the FBI said they found them on his hard drive? Assuming he took the pictures, for sexually perverted reasons, and that she was 15 when he took them, if someone else handed the photos to the FBI and then they planted them on the hard drive, this is not tolerable. If you want to hold Raniere to a bad standard then you must hold the FBI to a high standard.

Article 2: Raniere Rule 33 Killer? — ‘EXIF Data Hard to Remove!’ — FBI Forensic Examiner Brian Booth – on Cami Photos Dating to 2005

Aristotle’s Sausage: You can’t fake EXIF data in conventional digital photo processing software. Sure, you can buy software online that claims it lets you alter and fake metadata. You’ll likely end up with a virus on your computer and your financial information in the hands of the Ukrainian Mafia, but then that’s what you get for messing with spyware and computer hacking sites. So I’d say no, EXIF files are not easily faked.

Suneel: If you were right, or even half right I would be willing to let you persuade me. Instead, since you are wrong, I offer to show you how to change EXIF data without getting a virus or being hacked by any Mafia anywhere. Many people desire to change or remove EXIF data for simple privacy reasons. It is easy to change. If you doubt it Ari, then post a picture in the comment section. Keep the EXIF data to yourself. I will change it all, videotape and publish the video of the photo with the before and after EXIF data. And do it in under one minute.

Chris: Wouldn’t the reliability of dates in the EXIF data assume the user put the correct date and time in the camera? I have a coffeemaker with a clock on it that allows one to make it start brewing at a certain time. I never set it because I don’t use that feature, and so the time is always incorrect. I could imagine a non-professional photographer wouldn’t care either.

Suneel: Yes, the reliability of the date/time on EXIF data embedded by the camera absolutely depends on the correctness of the camera. Most cameras permit the owner to adjust the date and time.  This is another reason why FBI Examiner Booth was wrong to say EXIF data is reliable.

Anonymous: The dates correspond with the info from the emails between Raniere and Camila, the absence of the operating scar, and various other details, so however ingenious that theory (Keith Raniere might even ‘pinch’ the idea for his defense), it won’t fly. Besides, KR being a control freak, he would have made sure to set the exact date to ‘memorialize’ the event. When was the camera purchased? If no one put the correct date in the camera, it would show ‘factory setting’, not some random date anyway. What clusters of other pictures were taken around those dates? In any case, If Camila decides to testify, it’s (silly) game over.”

The lack of a visible appendectomy scar is only corroborating evidence for dating the photos to pre-2007. So are the emails and texts between Camila and Raniere. These should be given appropriate weight. However, whether Booth told a lie about EXIF data is a separate matter. For my part, I found it peculiar that the prosecution did not ask Daniela to identify the Camila photos, since she was the sole witness who said she knew the scar would be visible in any Camila picture taken after the operation. While an FBI agent testified that the Camila pictures were scar-less, Daniela was not asked to do so. She would have been the best witness for this. 

I also found it odd that though she said she posed for nude photos which were taken in 2005 by a Canon camera, and the prosecution had the camera and her photos, that the prosecution did not show her the camera or her own photos for identification.


EXIF is reliable: As a 20+ year tech thought leader and professional, I agree with Booth’s assessment on EXIF data. Sure, any metadata can be altered including EXIF but in doing so, breadcrumbs of the original metadata would remain as well as new metadata of the hack/edit.

Suneel: That is not what FBI Forensic Examiner Booth said. He did not say that he checked the EXIF data for tiny breadcrumbs left behind if someone removed or changed the EXIF data . He said EXIF data is hard to change or remove. It is not. By the way, I can show you, though you are a 20 year tech thought leader, how to change EXIF data without a single breadcrumb. Have you read Hansel and Gretel? 

Article #3: Someone Is Lying About EXIF Data; Is It Suneel or FBI Forensic Examiner Brian Booth?

Are all women “fish holes” Suneel? Maybe you, Suneel, are the one who is prejudiced against these women and inclined to disbelieve them”

Suneel I am not disinclined to believe Camila if she testifies under oath and is cross-examined without interruption. 

Computer Scientist: 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.

Perhaps the likelihood is as small as the upper end of your scale, and certainly not the lower end. It is certainly not zero – that is it is not impossible for the FBI to tamper. Perhaps in their history they never have. Still the likelihood is not zero. And if FBI Senior Forensic Examiner Brian Booth lied about the reliability of EXIF data, that does not mean the FBI tampered. It only raises the not unreasonable doubt that one lie might be the clue to many others.  In total, that might create reasonable doubt, a wondrous element of due process, that no one should be convicted in criminal court unless the proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. I urge you to study up on this palladium of liberty which protects us from tyranny. 

Erasend: 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.

Suneel: Keith may have done things which I consider to be wrong. Frank Parlato has challenged me to look into these things without confirmation bias, and I am doing that. I will let others judge of whether I’ve shed my confirmation bias or not.  But I have another bias, one which I cannot shed. It is called rejecting everything else for the truth. If I find Raniere is rotten, I will not hide or obscure it. 

Anonymous: 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? 

Suneel: You do not fully understand the elements of the crimes charged. Yes, there was other evidence that tended to corroborate the only true evidence of possession of child porn – the hard drive, the photos themselves and the EXIF data dating of them by forensic examiner Brian Booth. The proof of the sexual exploitation was the Canon camera, the camera card and the hard drive. Not what anyone said about taking pictures or having him having sex, or scars or things filled out on abortion medical papers. The proof of possession is possession. The proof of exploitation is that the photos were from his camera. But the forensic data was not properly evaluated at trial.

So far I can tell, Booth was lying about EXIF data. The pivotal evidence that proved the photos were of Camila at age 15 was that Booth said the EXIF data showing the 2005 dates is very reliable.   

StevenJ: You are 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. What about the scar? Photoshopped by the FBI? What about the pictures? 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 Daniela and Camila? Lies? What about the text messages between Camila and Keith? Also doctored by the FBI? The evidence is overwhelming.”

Suneel: Let me answer your questions.  You say I ignore 90 percent of the evidence that proves Keith had sex with Camilla at age 15. I should hope to ignore all of it as far as the law is concerned. He was not charged with having sex with Camila. He was charged with possession of child porn and sexual exploitation. The sexual exploitation was not that he had sex with her but that he took photos of her. 

What about the scar? Photoshopped by the FBI?  The scar may or may not positively date the photos but it might be possible that the scar is there but not visible in the photos. It was not the scar but the EXIF data that dated the photos.  What about the pictures? Fake? No? I do not know if the photos are fake as in not true pictures of Camila.  I did not see them, of course. They might be real. They might have been taken in 2005. But the question is did Raniere take them and were they in his possession.  Assuming Raniere did and that he benefitted sexually from those pictures and made similar pictures of other women in his “harem,” if the FBI framed him – even if he is guilty –  then we have to reveal that. 

The testimony from Daniela about Camila? The text messages between Camila and Keith? The inappropriate relationship may be 100 percent true; the pictures may have been taken in 2005. And law enforcement may believe in their hearts that someone is guilty, whether it be of child porn or murder, or any other crimes. But they can’t be permitted to plant a gun, even the suspect’s own gun to win the case. 

StevenJ: 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?”

Suneel: The last time I danced. This time, like Frank says, I figure on making other people dance. 

Anonymous: The only valid conclusion that can be made is that what the FBI agent said about EXIF data seems to be incorrect. Why he said what he said is conjecture, without additional evidence to prove intention to deliberately lie.

Agreed. And perhaps you will agree that it is strange that FBI Senior Forensic Examiner Brian Booth happened to be wildly incorrect about such an important piece of evidence.  It might not have been deliberate lying but if not it almost had to be incompetence and lack of knowledge about computer tech.  

Anonymous: 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 cannot produce a shred of evidence the FBI actually changed the file.

You’re right and then again you’re wrong. You need evidence to prove tampering. I have not yet proven the FBI tampered, only that FBI Senior Forensic Examiner Booth lied about EXIF data. But, please be advised, that the proverbial fat lady has not sung yet.

Virgin successor: Would you please address all of Keith’s texts and emails about the ongoing search for a “virgin successor”?

Suneel: Yes. 

Anonymous: 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 blanket statement about EXIF data that it was difficult to alter, period.

Suneel: It’s hard to drink coffee, unless you wind up getting a cup. It’s hard to fly from San Francisco to New York, unless you wind up getting a plane ticket. It’s hard to change EXIF data, unless you wind up downloading any number of freely available, widely used, and easy-to-learn apps that allow you to change EXIF data within a few clicks. But that was not the impression that Booth and the prosecution wanted the jury to infer. They wanted the jury to infer that getting the cup, or the ticket is very, very hard. Read the transcripts.

my2cents:  “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.

Suneel: EXIF data was the critical evidence. As for Raniere’s past, I’m looking into that. Frank is advising me in my investigation so that it is rigorous and devoid of confirmation bias.

Article #4: EXIF Data Written Over, Under, Sideways Down on FBI Forensic Examiner Booth Testimony — But Is It Really Hard to Change?

Anonymous:  “Regarding the experts who never saw the Hard Drives…..  So this entire time Suneel has been claiming he had experts look at the drive he’s been lying or making innuendo?

Suneel: I have retained experts to examine the forensic evidence presented at trial. This included a defense clone as well as the FBI’s own forensic reports of the devices. We will see who is lying and if so, who did so under oath.

Anonymous:  “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?

Suneel: I am reviewing the claims Camila made in her victim impact statement, doing a deep dive of the Camila texts and other relevant texts, emails, etc, and am speaking to those who knew her, and ideally speak with her.

And now to respond to the peanut gallery…

StevenJ: This apparently smart Suneel is one of the dancers that danced for months in front of the prison in which KR was incarcerated… Suneel: a dancing-clown.

Suneel: As former captain of the Harvard ballroom dancing team, I think it’s fair to say I can dance.

benjicarver: I think Suneel has PTSD from having to wipe Clare’s poopy bottom.

Suneel: I’d rather wipe an ass than kiss one. Benji, I wouldn’t dwell too much on this point, just keep your own ass clean.

Never Forget…: ” Suneel was a student of Nxivm. That means Suneel bowed to a photo of Keith Raniere daily in classes of curriculum created by Keith Raniere.

Suneel: I didn’t bow to Keith, not even a photo of him. When I met with him in prison, I shook hands, man-to-man, which I would do with you should I ever meet you, if you should gain the fortitude to identify yourself, which I doubt.

Jim Henson: 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.

Suneel: I’d rather look like a Muppet than be a commenter who can’t muster the courage to be rude in his own name and instead has to use the name of a dead puppeteer. How about using Geppetto the next time?

StevenJ: “[Suneel’s] able to remember 300 digits of Pi. Did Suneel provide any proof of this claim?

Suneel: Steven, I have several classmates who can verify this. By the way, before I forget, I’ll compete against you in a memory contest, live, and broadcast it on YouTube.

Anonymous: Suneel looks like a guy, who found out he is his wife’s 57th lover. 😉

Suneel: I remember the night I told you your wife was a good lay. I was lying. I only said that to make you feel good.

Nice guy: Suneel is a cheapskate!

Suneel: Exactly. I recently drew up my new will and named myself as the sole heir.

Too hygienic for DOS, right here!: Suneel, would you go naked into a cage kept in a basement in Albany indefinitely because you are committed to your growth?

Suneel: No, but I do have a Sub-woofer.

About the author

Suneel Chakravorty


Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional. To leave a name, click on the email icon)

  • “How do you intend to find out the truth, Suneel?”

    “I am reviewing the claims Camila made in her victim impact statement, doing a deep dive of the Camila texts and other relevant texts, emails, etc, and am speaking to those who knew her, and ideally speak with her.”

    You’re not seeking the truth. You’re seeking to discredit.

    • 100% Suneel (the non professional anything relevant) means to seek out traumatized women and… What?

      Interrogate them? Twist their words? Post their private texts with him on Twitter? Get to the bottom of if they were really raped and photographed pornographically as children?

      Lord. Someone should warn Camilla and Rhiannon. Danielle. Nicole. Jay. Really, ALL of the women who were harmed by Keith Raniere and spoke out,.

      Suneel has already publicly called these women liars. Questioned evidence that they stood up in open court and corroborated. Dismissed their experience. Mocked them. Disputed their timelines.

      And the “how” of Suneell “intends to find the truth”…

      Well, if past is prologue; with glow sticks, prancing in front of detention centers at night and fake contests about justice that lead no where.

      That’s how Suneel will operate.

      There is ongoing civil litigation. The only one that these women should be discussing their rapes, blackmailing by DOS, sex trafficking and child pornography created by Keith Raniere with, is licensed therapists for PTSD and their own lawyers.

  • Who gives a rat’s arse what Suneel thinks or believes? Why converse with this culty late-comer, coat-tail rider?

    He was a low-level nobody in the organization who saw an opening to make a name for himself when shit was hitting the fan and all the truth was coming to light. Keith used him like Keith has used so many other gullible people.

    I feel sorry for Suneel. He seems like he’s got some talent that he could put to good use if his own narcissism and need for approval from an authority figure didn’t make him vulnerable to the psudeo-philosophical/psychological nonsense of NXIVM.

    So, yeah, I get it, Frank is trying to dirty up Suneel’s washed mind. Good luck. You have more patience than I.

  • You bowed Suneel. You did the clap. You took off your shoes. Those were the rules.

    What color sash do you have?

    You know those other people around in NxiVm/ESP? They have eyes. Ears. Mouths that speak.

  • To Suneel – Forget what the law says and how Keith can possibly wriggle away.
    Do what’s right. Open both eyes and stop looking at it from only one angle. It’s Keith’s battle. I hope you are truthfully looking to learn the facts.

    • StevenJ and Suneel:

      Repeating 300 digits of Pi is a parlor trick that my physics professor taught to me and I had no interest in learning. At certain intervals, Pi repeats itself in numerical sequences/frequency.
      What would be incredibly cool is if Suneel could remember Pi as a Binary number!

      I challenge Suneel to attempt this!!! 😉


      If I had been blessed with Suneel’s IQ, I would’ve majored in physics. Suneel is blessed and he should be making a difference in the world, for the better. Instead, he defends……We all know the rest.

      StevenJ: “[Suneel’s] able to remember 300 digits of Pi. Did Suneel provide any proof of this claim?

      Suneel: Steven, I have several [former] classmates who can verify this.(Suneel maintains relationships with individuals outside of Nxivm. This is important because my hope is he slowly gains back his footing and tether to the real world.


      Suneel was Suneel before Harvard, he’s always been gifted. It’s not surprising or incredible he memorized Pi. You could do it if you wanted. I’d say Suneel definitely has a tad case of the “Harvard Head”; it’s what Cambridge residents call arrogant Harvard students. Overall he Suneel seems nice, but maybe we are judging the book by its cover.

      I don’t have a point. I am plain old bored! 😂

      • “Suneel won numerous memory contests”

        Good for him. This information is supposed to increase the credibility of Suneel?

        It will not do that. His credibility evaporated the moment he began dancing at the prison.

    • — What about Hitler? He killed way more people than Keith Raniere was ever alleged to kill.

      ….And taxidermist Ed Gein allegedly taxidermied fewer people than Shadowstate.

      What’s your point?

      FYI: If you order now, you can get a life-sized, Shadowstate Crèche, just in time for Christmas🎅🏼
      It’s artfully fabricated from former neighbors and the tool sheds of victims.

      Please Note: A hairless-Chihuahua is used, in lieu of ‘baby’ Jesus. Everyone’s favorite taxidermist has integrity.

  • Given the deep investment of time, energy, resources and reputation that are already expended, Suneel is motivated only to prove his foregone conclusion

    Suneel wants to be vindicated as “right” and elevated as a champion of rights. And to believe Keith Raniere is innocent. And that there was a conspiracy.

    Professionals in most fields and experts at many things all agree that you should not be operating on relatives or defending family in court. AND it is almost impossible to be objective and critical in these kinds of situations.

    Suneel is neither an expert nor a professional in any of the legal areas. He is very biased. His very ego and self-image are attached to the outcome. His previous posts show his blind spots. The results of their Nxivm echo chamber are so evident. And a true inability to think critically on this matter has rendered Suneel useless and untrustworthy.

    The more they dig in and spin their tires in the muck, the less probable they can pull out of the muddy pit. As the years pile up, their time would have been better spent actually going to law school. Not playing contests and dancing games and having embarrassing engagements with social media and the press.

    • Given the deep investment of time, energy, resources and reputation that are already expended, Suneel is motivated only to prove his foregone conclusion.

      Note the word “only” in this impossible bit of simplistic & dismissive mindreading – typical of an empty avatar here on the Frank Report.

      I can’t say that I really know Suneel well, or that we are friends. All I can say is that I have spoken to him for some number of hours, and that I admire and respect him. I have a sense of who he is and what his purpose is in publicly engaging in this withering debate surrounding NXIVM, and subjecting himself to the rotten tomatoes and profane insults tossed by the mostly anonymous, and certainly cowardly, anonymous ‘commenters’ here like this guy.

      There are people here who have absolutely no experience with Suneel. None. They only have hateful pictures in their heads of Keith Raniere and NXIVM as a whole, put there mostly by propaganda, a simplistic and cartoonish ideology of “cults” in general, and some few actual facts of the events presented during a government show trial.

      They have no personal experience whatsoever of Suneel.

      These empty avatars speak as if the pictures in their heads are facts. And not only facts but the entire set of facts about Keith Raniere, the entire subject and activities of NXIVM, anyone who was ever involved, and of Suneel – his whole life and mind. They call him names and insult everything about him they can think of.

      Most of their comments have absolutely nothing to add to the conversation here, serve no constructive purpose, and exist simply to spew their choleric bile onto an internet forum.

      It’s disgusting.

      When Suneel proves he is looking at both sides and reviewing all the facts, repeatedly, these faceless puppy stains can’t see it.

      They’re not here to get and present facts, as Suneel has repeatedly proven he is here for.

      They’re just here to shame and debase people who believe and live differently than they do.

      Did I mention the disgust I have for these useless & cowardly anticultists?




      • “ Most of their comments have absolutely nothing to add to the conversation here, serve no constructive purpose, and exist simply to spew their choleric bile onto an Internet forum..”

        The Greek Philosophical meaning of the word Bile? Oh boy, aren’t you a Rhodes Scholar.

        The word bile being used by a sophist like you is comical.

      • You are at effect of all the blind, retarded, useless, cowardly people in the world.

        Haven’t you learned anything at all from all your years in Scientology?

  • Suneel, let me mention Alvin Lucifer’s “Sitting in a Room” whereby every re-recording sounds further and further away as he repeats his claim to fame. His resonant recording is time passing by in the same room as the universe expands. But just like EXIF data, every time you save it there will be a tangible change. There is a reason every time you re-save both the analog and digital environment, you lose something due to time. Even digital photos can be exposed as redefined and digital editing shown up on free websites now (filters anyone?). The problem is you hang on to the things that are even more changeable as a timestamp, on a camera that you can tell it is years ago if need be.

  • Suneel,

    Because you are an honest, trustworthy person who should be taken seriously – I must ask you –

    How is Kay Rose?

    Have her conditions at the detention center improved? When is her next court date? How did you guys meet Kay Rose and learn about her plight? Does she understand why y’all completely stopped dancing and abandoned her and the other inmates when Keith Raniere was no longer incarcerated there?


    • Kay is taking care of me.

      Suneel and his fellow Dancing DOS Queens continue to ignore me and refuse to change my diaper.

  • Suneel,

    I want to clarify for Frank Report readers that Keith was not charged with the crime of possession of child pornography or with the crime of sexually exploiting a minor. Instead, those were two of the “predicate acts” that were cited as part of the charge that he committed the crime of Racketeering.

    This is a major distinction – especially as it relates to what may happen regarding Keith’s appeal of his conviction. It might also impact his Rule 33 motion but I haven’t researched that issue yet.

    The prosecution alleged a total of 16 predicate acts with regard to the Racketeering charge against Keith – and the jury found that all of those were “Proved” during the course of his trial (The minimum number of such acts that needed to be “Proved” in order to sustain the Racketeering charge was two). Thus, even if the two predicate acts that you believe were based on evidence that had been tampered with by the FBI were thrown out, that may not be enough for Keith to get a new trial or to have his sentence reduced.

    I think the very best that Keith can hope for if his attorneys can prove that the evidence regarding the photos of Cami was tampered with is that his conviction for Racketeering would get thrown out – and he would get a new trial on that one charge. But because I don’t see any connection between the alleged tampered evidence and the six other charges of which Keith was convicted (i.e., Racketeering Conspiracy, Forced Labor Conspiracy, Wire Fraud Conspiracy, Sex Trafficking Conspiracy, Sex Trafficking of Nicole, and Attempted Sex Trafficking of Jay), I think those convictions will likely stand unless his attorneys can convince the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that there are other reasons to overturn those convictions or unless the Court just finds the issue of the tampered evidence to be so abhorrent and egregious that it orders a new trial on all the charges, which is extremely unlikely.

    I don’t mean to be negative about the likely outcome of Keith’s case but I also want Frank Report readers to fully understand what’s going on in it. That’s why I’m taking the time to respond to what you’re writing.

    • Thanks, KR. I appreciate your clarification.

      I don’t know why I was so confused (I’ve heard you mention the predicate acts before), but I thought keith was charged with possession and racketeering, not just racketeering.

      I think I somehow got the impression that there is something about the EXIF data that they would try to use to prove that keith wasn’t in possession of the photos. There is too much other evidence to believe that Camila wasn’t 15 when they were taken so I can’t see how that would be a strong argument? I thought they’d be arguing that keith was never in possession of the photos.

      But this leaves me with another question. If these photos are part of the predicate acts then why can’t all the photos of the adults be used to support the charge as well? Or were they?

      Wouldn’t possession of the adult photos also fall under the category of an extortionary scheme?


        Let me start by reviewing some basic facts regarding Keith’s case – and then move on to some other options that the EDNY prosecutors could have utilized in putting together his indictment:
        – As I previously noted, federal prosecutors included 16 predicate acts to support the charge of Racketeering – and the jury unanimously determined that the prosecutors had “Proved” that Keith committed all 16 of those acts (“Proved” is the box that was actually checked on the “Verdict Sheet” that the jury handed in after its deliberations).

        – Three of those predicate acts – i.e., Racketeering Act 2: Sexual Exploitation of a Child on November 2, 2005; Racketeering Act 3: Sexual Exploitation of A Child on November 24, 2005; and Racketeering Act 4: Possession of Child Pornography – are the ones that Suneel and other NXIVM diehards believe involved evidence that was tampered with.

        – Had those three acts not been included in the second superseding indictment – or had Keith’s attorneys successfully challenged them during the trial – the jury would still have found that prosecutors had “Proved” that Keith committed the other 13 predicate acts – which would have been more than enough for him to have been convicted of Racketeering (The minimum number for such a conviction is two predicate acts).

        – It should also be noted that the elements of Racketeering Act 4: Possession of Child Pornography are very different than the elements of Racketeering Act 2 and Racketeering Act 3. That’s because Racketeering Act 2 and Racketeering Act 3 have to do with Keith’s alleged taking of the pictures of Cami on the indicated dates. Regardless of what Keith did with them afterward – and regardless of whether they were transferred to some other device – merely taking nude pictures of a child in the way that Cami was posed constituted Sexual Exploitation of a Child.

        – The prosecutors could have also omitted the predicate act of “possession” of child pornography – and replaced it with the predicate act of “distributing” child porn – in which case the mere fact that Keith moved around the naked pictures of Cami from one electronic device to another would likely have resulted in the jury finding that the prosecution had also “Proved” that predicate act.

        The bottom line is that regardless of whether the Prosecution “Proved” that Keith committed 16 predicate acts, 14 predicate acts, or even as few as 2 predicate acts, all those outcomes would have been sufficient for the jury to have convicted Keith of the crime of Racketeering.

        That is why I think this whole kerfuffle over the pictures of Cami is a waste of time.

        • Thank you so much, KR! It’s like you read my mind. I’d been thinking so much about why the charge was possession and not production that I didn’t even consider the possibility of distributing.

          Thank you also for your patience in reminding me that juries are selected at random and all involved found by unanimous vote that enough predicate acts were committed to warrant the racketeering charge.

    • Notorious KRC, I am continually amazed by your patience in dealing with fools here at the Frank Report.

  • Suneel,

    I’ve asked about this before – and I don’t think I’ve received a definitive answer (I apologize if you’ve already answered this – and I missed it):

    What hard drive did the experts that you hired examine? More specifically, was it (a) the clone of the original hard drive that the prosecution provided to Keith’s trial counsel as part of the discovery process?; (b) a new clone that was provided to your experts directly by the FBI or the prosecution?; or (c) the original hard drive itself?

    Thanks, in advance, for responding to this inquiry!

  • Suneel,

    I want to respond to your response regarding a comment that I posted earlier (See below for those).

    If Judge Garaufis dismisses Keith’s Rule 33 motion on the basis that its contents do not qualify as “newly discovered evidence”, he will not be saying anything about – or affirming anything about – the FBI.

    Nor would such a ruling have anything to do with “due diligence” or assumptions about how the FBI normally handles evidence.

    One of the fundamental requirements for a Rule 33 motion to be successful is that it be based on “newly discovered evidence” that could not have been discovered before or during the trial. And unless Keith’s attorneys can prove that in addition to the evidence being tampered with by the FBI (which is a difficult standard to meet all by itself), there was no way to detect that tampering until more than two years after the trial ended, the motion will likely fail.

    If, on the other hand, the alleged tampering can only be detected now because some new technology has been invented since the end of the trial, then, provided that the evidence regarding such tampering is persuasive, the Rule 33 motion might be successful.

    I know that the Rule 33 standards may seem terribly unfair but they are what they are – and wishing they were different isn’t going to change anything.

    KR Claviger: I believe that Judge Garaufis will dismiss Keith’s Rule 33 motion for the simple reason that all of the “newly discovered evidence” could have been discovered before – or during – Keith’s trial. That means it does not qualify as “newly discovered evidence” – although, if true (which it’s not), it might be a great argument for another appeal based on “ineffective counsel”.

    Suneel: Then the judge is affirming that the FBI has no presumption of honesty or integrity. Due diligence requires at least some basic assumptions. It includes the assumption that the FBI does not tamper with evidence. Otherwise, is it to be expected that normal due diligence covers looking at any evidence that the FBI handles as likely to be tampered with.

    • Believing that you can change the world through wishing it to change and writing endless BS on the Frank Report is the essence of Suneel’s worldview.

    • Frank Report Editors,

      I don’t think it wise to allow individuals to comment as Suneel Chakravorty. It’s not fair to Suneel.

      Considering Suneel is using his real name, new Frank Report visitors might believe the anonymous commenters are Suneel.

    • Your check is in the mail.

      Along with a roll of toilet paper which you can use for whatever purpose and on whatever person you desire.

  • What every happened to the prize for finding exculpatory evidence for Keith?

    Did Suneel win?

    Will that enable him to pay off his “Harvard” student loans?

  • “[Suneel] agreed that some of the allegations against Raniere may be true and require investigation which he said he would undertake…”

    How generous and open minded of him 😂.

    Some of the allegations may be true? No, the matter has been settled in a court of law. Twelve jurors unanimously agreed that the allegations are true and convicted him on all counts.

    Suneel has no input into this.

    Arguing with flat-earthers and Nxians is a waste of time. They’ll never change their minds and they’ll never shut up. Present them with a mountain of evidence and they’ll simply dismiss it as faked. Testimony is all lies. And the evil government is behind the plot.

    If EXIF data can be faked, they jump to the conclusion that it was faked. If Agent Booth testified that EXIF data is difficult to change, then he swore under oath that it’s impossible to change and that makes him a liar.

    Nobody claims EXIF data is impossible to change. Ballyhooed demonstrations that it can be changed therefore prove nothing.

    They certainly don’t prove Raniere’s innocence.

    This is all just a waste of time.

    The pretense of objectivity, of meticulous searching after truth, is absurd. It sounds good, but it’s standard NXIVM tactics. Standard cult and conspiracy theory stuff.

    It’s just a refusal to recognize reality. If the conclusion is distasteful (Raniere is a sex trafficking racketeer), then let’s not accept the evidence “hastily”. Let’s spend eternity looking down blind alleys and never come to a decision. It’s avoidance, not rigorous inquiry. And there’s nothing reasonable about it.

    As a practical matter, decisions must be made. In criminal matters, the standards are set high, guilt must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt. Nxivm/DOS was shut down years ago, the perpetrators were arrested. All but one admitted their guilt, and Raniere was handily convicted at the end of a lengthy trial. The facts are in. Their crimes are no longer alleged crimes but proven fact. Fortunately, we live in a liberal democracy where even convicted criminals are given ample opportunity to appeal. Raniere is now enjoying that opportunity (This liberty the Nxians refer to as “tyranny”).

    The appeal has no merit, of course, and so will be dismissed by the court. For the simple reason that Raniere is guilty.

    That uncomfortable fact will never be accepted by the Nxivm loyalists.

    So what.

        • Anon @7:56 pm.

          Totally agree and what a tired overused way of trying to express the silliness.

          AS took the time to use their own words. The other comment… Not so much.

        • The entirety of what he wrote is riddled with statements indicating he doesn’t believe in the appellate process.

          “No, the matter has been settled in a court of law.” = Once 12 people vote to convict everything must absolutely be true. If you make that kind of absolutist commentary about one defendant, you believe it for all defendants. There’s no need for an appellate process because after all, the matter has already been settled. It’s not something where you can have it both ways without being a rank hypocrite.

          “This is all just a waste of time.” = Confession though projection.

          “It’s a refusal to recognize reality[…]And there’s nothing reasonable about it.” = Same as the first quote. If you take this stance for one defendant, you believe it for all defendants. The matter is already settled. Any questioning of the result is unreasonable and delusional.

          “The facts are in. Their crimes are no longer alleged crimes but proven fact.” = More absolutist commentary. The same was said about every single person ever wrongfully convicted. Only people who think the appellate process is a colossal waste time speak in such simplistic and absolute terms.

  • But don’t you do the deep digging FIRST?

    Doesn’t a person of strong moral fortitude do all the investigating BEFORE they start writing essays in defense? Before they make claims of witnesses lying? Before they accuse people of colluding with the FBI? Before unfettered devoted loyalty to a “truth” they do not really know is “the truth” first hand?

    It’s been YEARS – Instead of tweeting, dancing, making up contests, websites, podcasts and fake movements that go nowhere – wasn’t that the time to really do the objective deep dive? Before?

    It’s hard to trust or believe a person who came out of the gate vehemently insisting it was all lies BEFORE taking a meaningful look with unbiased eyes.

    It’s too late to pretend you’re in any way impartial or without an agenda

    Which is… Free Keith Raniere.

    No matter what.

    Because the heart wants what the heart wants.

  • “Proof of possession is possession.”
    -Suneel Chakravorty

    Thank you, Suneel, for clearing up this important issue.

  • Spoiler alert: when you are dancing in front of a prison where a cult leader is incarcerated, you stop being “only a friend” and progress into a “gullible follower”.

    • Exactly. Also, if your “friend” waits until making a collect call from prison to ask, “What do you do (for work)”?, are you really friends?

  • This impressive Muppet can dance and studied at Harvard, but did he actually graduate?

    Memorizing so many digits of pi is about the most stupid human pet trick ever.

    Did they teach him how to use SAS or SPSS at Harvard?

    Well, at least Bronfman has healed enough that he doesn’t have to wipe her ass literally any longer. Just figuratively.

  • Oh, Suneel.

    Calling people cowards for not putting their names on a Frank Report comment.

    But you and your little prison dancing cult crew don’t have the strength to put your name & letters of support on public record.

    No upholding that principle. Sure. I’ll defend you. Just as long as I can hide and do it secretly. So brave. So fearless. Ha ha ha. You are too much.

  • Suneel? Thank you for addressing me. I appreciate your comment and your sentiments. Every person ought to be careful of developing a confirmation bias.

    Between you and me, I’ve been giving some extra thought to the possession charge. The more I learn, the more I realize possession as a predicate act may be more significant than I realized. I was honestly thinking it shouldn’t matter much whether Camilla was 15 or 25. But in terms of the specific charge? You’re right. It matters.

    The crux of the problem, at least the way I see it, is keiths predilection for a victimless society in which he was a renunciate. Of course he wasn’t in possession of any contraband. That stuff was the responsibility of somebody else to handle. Go ahead and call me on a confirmation bias because it’s probably true. I don’t just believe good leadership is about sloughing all responsibility to a downline. Real leaders are supposed to answer for the actions of their people.

    It seems to me, this guy has been playing not only with ideas of human slavery and mind control but with power and sex and especially consent.

    This group, whether enforcing an NDA or requiring “collateral” to join is all about the perversion of consent.

    Very dark. Very twisted. A world in which ,of course, the righteous keith couldn’t have possibly been in possession of any child pictures or any collateral!

    Because let’s repeat, there are no ultimate victims!

    • And? Alonzo? What is your point?

      You told me you came here to learn how to take down a bunch of assholes.

      But you’re also calling people names again?

      Come on!

        • Thanks for promoting my response to A.P. Claviger, “Nice Guy”.

          Perhaps more people on the Frank Report will start to see the rhetorical manipulations he/she engages in, and will start questioning him/her for themselves.

          Critical thinking on anticult demagoguery is always good.


      • Calling blind and retarded people blind and retarded is not calling people names. It’s scientific taxonomy, a practice as old as Aristotle.

        A more legitimate question would be, “Alanzo, why are you giving blind people a video to watch which proves EXIF data is easy to change, and asking retarded people to understand what they are being shown?”

        Now that is a legitimate question.


        • Ya, sort of. Except that none of us are blind or retarded that I know of? I actually sense there might be some highly intelligent people here. And look, I’ll even ask!

          Is anyone here legally blind?

          Alonzo, are you sure you’re not just selecting words with double meanings?

          Because the blind might be here. Rare, but totally possible!

          But the retarded? People in this category often are non-verbal and sometimes require assistive devices like soundboards, which are pretty simple, really. I’m not sure they are capable of posting things on the Frank Report?

          • Suneel’s video so clearly proves that it is easy to change exif data, contrary to what examiner Booth said on the stand, that anyone who watched the video and can’t see this would have to be a blind retard.

            It’s a figurative use of the term.

            Tribalism makes a lot of people into blind retards.

      • They’re rare.

        Back in the 1930s, they used to be housed in large homes run by catholic nuns and priests, usually on the road leading out of town.

        But ever since Reagan, those homes have been shut down, and now they seem to largely congregate in online anticult fora such as the Frank Report.

        • “Now they [blind retards] seem to largely congregate in online anticult fora such as the Frank Report.”-Alanzo

          Therefore, Alanzo is a blind-tard.

    • Alanzo-

      Are you a denizen of the subway, bus, or train stations? Usually, you unique type of people reside in such places. Do you poop at public libraries or in the park?

      • According to OSA, Alanzo poops in Walmart and at ‘choice’ Sunoco stations. He abhors 7-Eleven’s because they have pay toilets in Europe.

    • Alanzo-

      Thank you so much for sharing this important video, which we have all/already watched. Don’t forget Sunneel paid this guy big money. The guy didn’t make it for free. Duh!

      Here is a look 👀 into the mind of Alanzo:

      Rather ‘unsurprisingly’ , monkeys are riding goats…..

  • “if someone else handed the photos to the FBI and then they planted them on the hard drive, this is not tolerable…” OR “…that is it is not impossible for the FBI to tamper…”

    If “ifs” and “buts” were candy and nuts, wouldn’t it be a Merry Christmas?

    No one gives a shyte about your ifs.

    Prove that the FBI planted, manipulated, falsified, etc., the evidence, or just STFU.

    This is utterly boring and tiresome.

    If you want to talk about probabilities, what is the chance that a sex-addicted, polyamorous “cult” leader with a dubious history of alleged statutory rape that goes back decades, who was the grand-master of a female-only (except for himself) secret society for which naked vulva pictures just like those of Cami were required to be taken of its members as collateral/blackmail on a periodic basis, actually took those pictures from a camera found in his “sex lair”, compared to the chance that the FBI would risk their integrity and reputation to have them planted?

    • Oh, rapable baby! It’s not just you. And the responses are very unimpressive. So don’t feel left out.

      Suneel does want Daniela to look at spread eagle child porn of her little sister.

      So don’t worry rapable baby. Suneel still upholds the child sexploitation values of Nxium and believes in you!

      When you have that long to work on your “zingers” do better. And try to make them 2021 funny not 1921.

      • Why all the sex toys? For fun! Why not?! They’ll just blame it on whoever ordered them. I mean, that’s what happened, right?

        And at the last minute, too, so it also now looks more like keith and these girls were just kinky bdsm people.

        He just has to make fun of everything.

    • It’s too uncomfortable.

      It is very rare but unfortunately some babies do get raped.

      It’s not something to make light of.

      I’m just as embarrassed as everyone that such words came from the mouth of a human being.

      • There is just no good context in which a person should be talking about “rapeable babies”.

        And if he said he could make one, who even cares about the context? He’s clearly suggesting to the listener that they all have the potential to commit one of the most depraved acts imaginable by a human being.

        To suggest his own followers would be capable of such a thing is beyond insulting. It’s utterly degrading.

        I bet if you checked this guy’s movie collection, he probably watched that horrible one hundreds and hundreds of times.

      • He could have just talked about wanting to fuck every person you meet.

        But he went further. To the place no mind should go.

        It’s very sick.

    • Rapable-

      You gotta be kidding!

      Take another look 👀 at the photo of him up top. Does he look brave to you? 😂

About the Author

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.

His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” Parlato was also credited in the Starz docuseries "Seduced" for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Additionally, Parlato’s coverage of the group OneTaste, starting in 2018, helped spark an FBI investigation, which led to indictments of two of its leaders in 2023.

Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premiered on May 22, 2022. Most recently, he consulted and appeared on Tubi's "Branded and Brainwashed: Inside NXIVM," which aired January, 2023.

IMDb — Frank Parlato

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083