Parlato: From Where I Stand, FBI Examiner Booth Testified Falsely — EXIF Data Is Easy to Change

There has been considerable debate in these pages on the topic of EXIF data.

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

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

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

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

Suneel Explains Quest to Investigate FBI Tampering and Defend Raniere – It Was ‘the Lie’

FBI Senior Forensic Examiner Brian Booth Goes Dark on LinkedIn After His Bogus EXIF Data Testimony Scrutinized

Suneel: ‘Did I Lie About FBI Examiner Brian Booth Going Dark? Or Did He Lie About Exif Data?’

In short, the gist of the stories is that FBI Senior Forensic Examiner Brian Booth testified at the trial of Keith Raniere that EXIF data is hard to change.  Suneel Chakravorty, who has Keith Raniere’s power of attorney, said it is easy.

It wasn’t hard to find information online that supported what Chakravorty said: EXIF data is not hard to change.

I could not find anything to support FBI Senior Examiner Booth’s testimony.

For my part, I simply did an online search for how to change EXIF data and found many opportunities to learn how to do it.

One article on LifeHacker.com by Brenden Hesse, What Is EXIF Data, and How to Remove It From Your Photos, shows us how and entirely contradicts what the FBI senior forensic examiner said about how difficult it is to change EXIF data.

Anyone can change EXIF data, according to Hesse. There’s nothing to it.

Hesse wrote, “EXIF data can tell you a lot about a photo, but you can easily remove or modify metadata…  Programs like Adobe’s Photoshop or Lightroom let you edit EXIF data, and social media platforms like Instagram, Imgur, and Twitter strip EXIF data out of an image before it’s uploaded.”

Evidently, if you have a Windows desktop you can do it without downloading software.

Hesse explains;

  1. Right-click an image file you have saved.
  2. Select “Properties.
  3. Select the “Details” tab.
  4. Click “Remove Properties and personal information.”
  5. Select whether you want to create a backup with all possible metadata removed, or simply remove the data you specify without making a copy.
  6. Click each piece of information you want to delete, then click “OK.”

“Mac users will need an extra app to remove EXIF data…Photoshop and Lightroom can help. There are also several free third-party programs you can use instead, such as ImageOptim or EXIF Purge.”

So, Hesse says you can do it easily.

If you can believe a number of YouTube videos, the average consumer can learn to remove EXIF data in minutes.

How To Remove Metadata From Photos” shows how to strip EXIF data on photos in three minutes.

YouTube Tutorial on How to Edit Metadata

Another YouTube video, “How To Edit and Remove MetaData from Images” is less than two minutes long.

It shows how to change and remove EXIF data, including the date and time the photo was created, something that FBI agent Booth said was very hard to do.

It goes on and on.

Here is another by Christopher Blacken, who recommends the free software, ExifTool, to alter EXIF data.

There are other videos on YouTube that show how to change EXIF data without ruining or corrupting the file. It is hard to imagine why Booth would say it is hard to change.

One can understand that the prosecutors, Mark Lesko and Moira Kim Penza, who are not tech experts, could say that EXIF data might be hard to change. They were merely repeating testimony of the FBI senior forensic expert.

Still, it sticks in my craw that Brian Booth said EXIF data is hard to remove or change.

It is not.

Here are additional links to videos that, frankly, make Booth look ether incompetent or a liar. By the way, this is not brand new technology. Some of these videos were published before Booth gave his testimony in 2019.

How To Edit and Remove MetaData from Images | Photos Exif Editor

How to remove or modify EXIF data of photos on Android

How to change photo date on iPhone with Metadata Pro

Does Not Mean FBI Tampered

Let me repeat that:

Just because Booth said EXIF data is hard to remove or change, does not mean the FBI tampered with the Cami photos.

Just because Booth lied about EXIF data does not mean Raniere did not rape and abuse Camila or Rhiannon or a host of other women.
Booth may have been lying to the jury only to help convict Raniere and the photos were authentic and the FBI did not change the EXIF data.

The EXIF data might have been accurate and Booth might have lied about it being hard to change so that the jury would believe the EXIF data dates on the photos.

Still, it was not true that EXIF data is hard to change. Booth must have known it was not true.

When he said “most commercial software will not touch EXIF data,” he was far from telling the whole truth if not outright lying.

Because, yes, there are commercial software applications that can do more than “touch” EXIF data. There are free software applications that can change EXIF data. Software can add, remove, and alter EXIF data.

Here are seven of them.

When Booth said, “They purposely designed it [EXIF data] that way… they don’t want data to be moved around and changed, especially time and date information,” and, But when it comes to photos, they still keep you from changing dates and times. It’s not easy to change those,” he was not telling the truth.

Widely available, free software designed to alter EXIF data makes it easy to change dates and times. 

EXIF Date Changer is software specifically designed for consumers to be able to change EXIF dates and times.

EXIF Date Changer is one such software and has been around since 2010.

Forensic examiner Booth claims to have had 13 years experience in the FBI forensic lab. He must know that EXIF data can be changed simply and easily. And when he said “they purposely designed” it so it was hard to change, he was not telling the truth.

They designed it so it was easy to change, for the convenience of photographers or anyone who wants privacy.

EXIF data is not hard to change. 

At best, Booth told a half-truth  BOOTH: “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.”

Booth is being deliberately misleading here. Sure, technically, it’s hard to modify EXIF data without the free software that anyone can get, but he doesn’t say that. He is not being forthright. EXIF data is easy to change, and I could teach anyone, even someone with the most minimal computer skills, in a matter of 20 minutes without a trace.

So why I am wasting time on this? Because it bothers me that someone from the FBI should get on the stand and testify wrongly about anything.

Booth testified falsely and he knows it.

That’s wrong and I know it.

 

About the author

Frank Parlato

51 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!

  • Now that I’ve calmed down, thanks to a real Ann Wilson surprise, special “Barracuda” appearance at fake Fleetwood concert — “new normal” ain’t touching that Goddess — what I believe has occurred here, Mr. Parlato, is a simple misunderstanding. You see, if you carefully reread FBI examiner Booth’s testimony, it appears to me that there was some confusion between his thoughts about the EXIF data — the data showing when the file was (last) accessed (though unfortunately not by whom) i.e. the date stamp — juxtaposed to the META data — the actual photo of the freshly deflowered, defenseless, penniless, parentless, immigrant 15-year-old groomed for 2 years to become Mr. Raniere’s virgin sex toy, splayed spread eagle sans telltale appendicitis scar she did not then have on her midsection in the photo taken by Mr. Raniere immediately following her deflowering as the victim so stated at Mr. Raniere’s sentencing hearing under oath. But, regardless of how this misunderstanding occurred or to what it may be attributed (Suneel and his expert, unbiased conclusion contributed to it, I presume), nowhere in Mr. Booth’s testimony do I find him claiming, as you and Suneel, etc., presume, that EXIF Data is easy to manipulate. In other words, you appear to be pulling one of “Bangkok’s” favorite tricks by misconstruing or misinterpreting what Mr. Booth actually said and meant.

    I believe you owe Mr. Booth, who was just doing his job after all, an apology and explanation. I do not believe he lied and I believe you may also have some other matters you might want to discuss with him starting with who the fuck continues to stalk me spouting lies, rumors and, whether they can help it or not due to their ‘disabilities’ swear words. Also, the “blind” kid poking me with his cane a few weeks ago was caught on supermarket security cameras. As was the asshole tossing dollar bills at me at (faster than I could catch them, lol). At least get a little more creative if not less obvious.

    • I meant “NOT easy to manipulate.” …What a difference a word makes. But thank you for NOT editing, Frank. Warts and all. lol. Btw, looks like you need more plant based protein (taken with digestive enzymes), collagen, vitamin E and rigorous exercise.

  • Respectfully disagree.

    I’ve always known a pretty good amount about metadata but never heard of EXIF data.

    I think Booth gave a reasonable explanation to the layman. Had there been a defense, the finer points could have been argued and explained further. This would probably happen in a normal case if the issue was an important part of the trial.

    Maybe Booth shouldn’t have said the data wasn’t easy to change, but I also believe he was trying to explain the nature of it. His explanation makes sense to me, the ordinary person.

  • The prosecution might have to look deeper

    I’ve dealt with NXIVM, Salzman, Raniere and the tricks they play in the courtroom.

    Their games are un-frickin-believable

    Consider this:

    Suneel Chakravorty said

    “I don’t have a copy of the hard drive because I did not sign the protective order.”

    Chakravorty went on to say, “I declined to sign because I want to be free to investigate and retain experts without being gagged by the order.”
    I DECLINED TO SIGN…

    Does this mean that he was offered a protective order by one of Raniere’s lawyers?

    If so, which lawyer?

    Did one of Raniere’s lawyers turn over a copy of the hard drive to one of Suneel’s hand-picked experts?

    Did that hand-picked expert then allow Suneel a peek into the hard drive thinking it would be OK because Suneel was working for Raniere’s legal team?

    Raniere and NXIVM have pulled these kinds of tricks in the past with their legal cases.

    Something the prosecution could consider expanding their investigation into.

    “How did Suneel Chakravorty come to his conclusions regarding Raniere’s hard drive?”

    Something to chew on…

      • Good comments, Susan and 2 cents. Hmmm, wonder where Suneel was when the EXIF file was accessed while in FBI custody? Wonder when whoever did access that file will be in FBI custody, as well. Along with whoever prevented Cami from testifying at trial. “Tricksters” are supposed to be Dakini’s, harem females, though.

  • Clav – if the witness was lying, and I’m not saying that he was, is there a distinction here between the culpability in the witness vs. the prosecution? Is it muddled because in this case the witness is a government employee?

    So if Booth lied to the prosecutors and they put him on the stand based on his deposition, isn’t that just on him? He’s the expert, how the hell would the prosecutors know? Like a doctor being brought in to describe a complex medical procedure, who the hell knows but the doctor? Everybody has to take his word for it.

    Isn’t that why you can’t lead the witness? Their testimony is on them.

    So if it can be proven that Booth lied , isn’t he the only one in trouble here? It’s the jury’s responsibility to weigh the testimony and they decided , fuck it, we heard from a shitload of witnesses and this motherfucker is guilty.

    I don’t understand the law here so please explain it to me. Ice-nine thanks you.

  • Second article I’m commenting on today!

    Frank- if there was tampering does that mean the sentence can be thrown out because it would mean he was not tried fairly in court?

    • Vacatur is the remedy for government criminality. I’m not saying there was government criminality. But if there was government tampering a new trial is indicated.

  • Wake me when Keith gets released from prison.

    Until then Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

    On the other hand, I’ve got plenty of popcorn ready to watch what happens with the fed’s investigation of Suneel.

  • Re Suneel’s Tampering Evidence:

    If Suneel is not legally allowed to have a disk image copy, how do we know his copy is an uncorrupted forensic copy?

    The whole EXIF debate rests on the belief Suneel is telling the truth regarding his evidence.

    We’re assuming Suneel actually has a copy of the hard drive and his copy is a forensic quality disk image, which his experts reviewed.

    Suneel is a cult member with a proven propensity for lying. We are all a bunch of schmucks to trust him.

  • Continuing to talk about this is pointless

    We have beat this horse into the ground so that is not only dead, it has no meat left on its bone.

    Frank, you’re not a computer expert so your Google search just adds confusion to the mix.

    I’m more interested in what the DOJ finds out about Suneel Chakravorty’s situation, this Rule 33 motion, and or the FBI so-called tampering or NOT tampering situation.

    There has been a lot of mud thrown at the wall already.

    Unless the NXIVM faithful are willing to answer some of the questions posed to them, why do you continue to give them an open platform?

    Is it because you’re running out of NXIVM stories? You seem to be rising and repeating the same NXIVM laundry, Frank?

    Personally, I’m a bit tired of Suneel’s hard drive, the FBI agent, and Marc Elliott’s Tourette’s story

    Just Sayin’

  • When an expert witness testifies falsely in a criminal case it is an extremely serious matter.

    Years ago in Illinois there was the case of Gary Dotson, a young man falsely accused of rape.
    In that case an expert witness for the state testified falsely about his academic qualifications.

    ” Crowell’s in-court identification of him was the principal evidence at Dotson’s trial, although it was augmented by false forensic testimony that, although transparently wrong, was unchallenged by the defense, ignored by the prosecution, and unquestioned by the judge and jury. Dotson was convicted in July 1979, and sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25-to-50-years in prison.”
    https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3186

    DOTSON’S LAWYER PLANS NEW ATTACK FORENSIC EXPERT’S TESTIMONY IN RAPE TRIAL CALLED MISLEADING
    Chicago Tribune
    ORLANDO SENTINEL
    Enter your email
    Privacy Policy

    The legal battle to free convicted rapist Gary Dotson took another turn Sunday when his attorney announced plans to file a petition to vacate the conviction based on what he said were misstatements by the state’s forensic expert at Dotson’s original trial.

    Warren Lupel, Dotson’s attorney, said he expects to file a post-conviction petition this week to vacate Dotson’s conviction, based on his belief that the forensic expert who testified in the 1979 trial, Timothy Dixon, gave misleading testimony.

    Lupel has already appealed the recent ruling by Cook County Circuit Judge Richard Samuels, who sent Dotson back to prison despite the recanted testimony of a 23-year-old New Hampshire woman, Cathleen Crowell Webb, who originally said that Dotson raped her in 1977.

    Lupel said Dixon, who testified as a forensic expert for the Illinois State Crime Lab at Dotson’s 1979 trial, misstated the evidence of semen type found on her clothing and perjured himself by falsely stating his credentials.

    Dixon’s testimony, Lupel said, led jurors to believe that the semen could only have come from 10 percent of the population, including Dotson.

    The testimony at last week’s hearing by Illinois State Crime Lab forensic expert Mark Stolorow indicated that the semen in fact could have come from 66 percent of the population, “making it much less likely” that it came from Dotson, Lupel said.

    “If you look at the testimony side by side, if Stolorow was telling the truth, then Dixon was lying,” Lupel said.

    None of the testimony, however, rules out Dotson as a possibility.

    He also said that Dixon’s testimony led the jury to believe that three hairs found on Webb’s body were consistent with Gary Dotson’s hair, but Stolorow testified that only one of those hairs was consistent with Dotson’s. Regarding Dixon’s credentials, Edward Blake, a forensic expert from the University of California at Berkeley, said Saturday that Dixon had “misled” the court into thinking that he had received a graduate degree from that university, when he had not.

    Dixon said he had not misstated his credentials and did attend a seminar at the University of California in Berkeley. Dixon said that the seminar was accredited, and that he never told the court that he had received a degree from the university.

    https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1985-04-22-0290220082-story.html

    • —When an expert witness testifies falsely in a criminal case it is an extremely serious matter.

      You don’t say…..

      Thanks for sharing! 😉

  • The NXIVM dead-enders are trying to make their case but the only thing they are succeeding in is proving they’re full-blown liars.

    They like to over-emphasize how words are taken out of context when their master says something reprehensible — “rapeable babies” anyone? — or just completely ignore it when they are called out for them, but when it comes to the testimony of an FBI agent against their beloved VanFraud, they hack their way into some de-contextualized interpretation of what he said stripped of words and replaced with ellipses and a Pinocchio image above it.

    Face the facts. Your beloved VanFraud never thought he would get caught with his hand proverbially in the digital image cookie jar. He took those pictures of an underage 15 year old Cami (who also said he did) because his ego demanded it (just like his ego demanded the binder full of vulva pics in DOS), and forgot about them while he was on the run in Mexico like all sloppy criminals do, believing nothing was actually going to happen to him. All the fine young men and women of the FBI merely had to do was find and seize the self-incriminating evidence.

    • “Face the facts. Your beloved VanFraud never thought he would get caught with his hand proverbially in the digital image cookie jar.

      Cowardly anonymous fucktard claims Frank Parlato loves his “beloved VanFraud”.

      Now I’ve seen everything.

      Alanzo

    • Non Issue-

      You committed a malapropism. Your usage of “verbiage” is incorrect.

      Corrected sentence:
      “Lying” is not the appropriate vocabulary word.

      Don’t worry we all make mistakes! 😉

      • Why would I “worry”? Are you grading my Frank Report comments?

        There is more than one meaning. It’s fine.

        ” …the way in which something is expressed WORDING or diction.”

        But thanks for your close attention.

        • Non-issue,

          You corrected someone. How am I any different than you.

          Websters 2 : manner of expressing oneself in words: DICTION
          Example: Sportswriters guarded their verbiage so jealously

          You are still wrong by the way!

          • Look. You’re making this weird. I don’t give a fuck. You want to be right? Go ahead.

            And I don’t have the time, interest or desire to list all the ways that I am different then you.

            Take your verbiage to another commenter.

            Ha ha ha

            Moving on…

    • Definition of ’verbiage’

      UNCOUNTABLE NOUN
      If you refer to someone’s speech or writing as verbiage, you are critical of them because they use too many words, which makes their speech or writing difficult to understand.
      [formal, disapproval]

      Example sentences:

      He was exceptionally good at `doing” Prof. Williams, a myopic academic whose sermons were couched in florid verbiage.

      ” Saying nothing with a lot of verbiage ,” Angus ground out.

      Perhaps now Hawthorne’s genius will shine through all the verbiage.

      verbiage
      in British English

      NOUN
      1. the excessive and often meaningless use of words; verbosity
      2. rare
      diction; wording

      verbiage
      in American English
      NOUN
      1. an excess of words beyond those needed to express concisely what is meant; wordiness
      2. style of expression; diction

  • This has probably been answered before, but does changing EXIF data leave “fingerprints” that indicate the data was changed?

    In other words, if someone were to change EXIF data on a photo, is there any way to forensically prove that the change was made?

    If so, then it could be argued that Booth wasn’t being entirely untruthful, and that perhaps he was just saying it’s difficult to change EXIF data without those changes being detected.

    If not, then Booth’s testimony is inexplicable.

    • This is certainly possible. While you could tell that the data has been altered, the original data would be unknown. The only way to be sure that any electronic data is unaltered is to digitately sign it, and use a third party as a witness. This is how security certificates work.

      And just because someone could modify the data, does not mean that they did.

    • —EXIF data leave “fingerprints”

      You are right on the money!

      The process of fully changing the data as Suneel describes is not accurate. Booth didn’t lie. I am thinking about writing an article to address Suneel’s twisting of the truth

        • I have a rich vocabulary matched with poor writing skills. You know that.
          I’d love to write articles.

          And I am painfully aware you are being sarcastic. Not too nice, my friend! 😉

        • Frank-

          I am going to take the time to write a lucid cohesive, and coherent article regarding the EXIF – refuting Suneel.

          The article will accomplish two things:
          1. Brian Booth told the truth.
          2.Suneel is a liar. He is to intelligent and tech savvy not to be cognizant of the fact he is lying.

          In the mean time, I will stop posting ad nauseam. 😉 At some point this Saturday I will submit my article.

  • Once again, you’re confusing the process of removing Exif data with altering (faking) Exif data.

    Regular photo editing tools routinely used by amateur photographers (like me) allow you to remove identifying data from photos. For privacy or file space reasons.

    Facebook does this automatically when you post a picture. This specifically came up at trial. Brian Booth never disputed any of this.

    Dates and locations are easily removed from Exif files. Nobody disputed this. Brian Booth did not dispute this.

    What is difficult, from a consumer standpoint, is changing (faking) Exif data.

    This is what Brian Booth testified. He never said it’s impossible. He said it involves downloading special software. He said it would be difficult for the consumer to do.

    Booth testified truthfully.

    The accusation that he lied or is incompetent is arrant nonsense.

  • Sure, you can change meta data. There is another question though; is there something on the pictures that allows the court to determine the age of the picture. Say a calendar in the background or braces or something else like household equipment that can be dated. I am pretty sure the court did not base it’s decision solely on the meta data of a single picture.

    • There is. Cami has a large appendectomy scar.

      There are also texts. Medical records. Supporting testimony. Cami herself

  • The entire issue is a red herring. Camila has now testified to the authenticity of the photograph and much worse besides. Whatever misleading evidence the FBI guy may have given is completely irrelevant. There is absolute certainty of Raniere’s guilt, of child rape and making and possessing child pornography.

    Nothing succeeds like success and nothing fails like failure. With the implosion of Nxivm, people are no longer scared to tell the truth. The intimidation, the collateral, the threats, the litigation and harassment, the lies and buggings, the confinements and tortures and starvations … they’re all over.

    There’s always a golden age of a pyramid scheme, and for the masters at the top, it’s living the dream. When you see what the dream was built upon, you either wake up or go into deep psychic shock and denial. Bur the scam was working so well, people were smiling. Nancy especially…

  • If everything they had on Raniere was true why the need to lie? Given what the NXIVM supporters have been saying on different platforms I believe something is really off on this case. Maybe we are all wrong and NXIVM supporters are right. Raniere might be innocent and we’ve all been convinced of a different story.

    • Anthony,

      You are a Keith Raniere supporter. You always have been. You’re not fooling anyone.

      How are the “two lawyers at work”? Why won’t they speak directly to Claviger?

    • “Maybe”

      Maybe you’ll win the lottery if you but a ticket. Maybe you won’t win the lottery if you but a ticket

      “Might”

      You might be a genius. You might be an idiot.

      This is certain: Raniere will never walk upon the earth as a free man again.

    • I cannot say; did not follow the trial. The supposition here is that if the data is easy to change, the witness lied, and, therefore, “they” changed the data to frame KR, and, therefore, he deserves to be let out of jail. This is simple desperation.

  • Suneel-

    I have taken the time to bone-up on the subject of Computer Forensics. We have no idea if you even followed Computer Forensic protocols/procedures.

    Computer Forensics Issues you have never addressed:
    • A true forensics image/copy takes hours to produce. How did you have the time?
    • Was a Write Block Device used?
    • Were Encase or some other courtroom recognized software tools used in the data analysis?
    • Are the JPEGs exact copies of proprietary digital camera RAW files?
    • Did you use Logical copy/paste or a Forensics image to make the data file ie hard drive copies?
    • Were the image copies of the drives emailed or were physical hard copies shipped to the experts?

    Suneel, you have us all debating one completely ridiculous issue — Brian Booth’s off-the-cuff testimony: i.e., his answer to one question regarding EXIF data and how difficult it is to manipulate.

    The real issues are the quality of your hard drive copies because your expert opinions are worthless if they’re based on BAD DATA! Plus your experts aren’t even experts in Computer Forensics.

    I don’t expect answers to my questions.
    Clearly, you don’t want to incriminate yourself. I know your heart is in the right place, but you are deluding yourself and bullshitting us….

    Take care!

    P.S. I am not K.R. Claviger and I don’t have the patience to debate the supposed crackpot IT Experts who permeate the Frank Report and don’t listen to reality.
    ***
    I have a desktop software background in no particular order skills using MFC, AS 400 DBs, Com, C++, VB, JavaScript, ATL etc….. All old tech, but more than the IT cranks on Frank Report know or understand.

    ***
    Sorry, Frank, I posted my comment in the wrong place!!

    • Frank- From where I stand the EXIF debate is meaningless unless Suneel addresses the issues I brought up!

      We have no idea if Suneel’s data is good or valid in a court of law!

If the whole world stands against you sword in hand, would you still dare to do what you think is right?

Got A Tip?

If you have a tip for Frank Report, send it here.
Email: frankparlato@gmail.com
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083

Archives

Connect