Suneel Fires Back: How Do We Know the Photos Are of Cami?

FBI Special Agent Rees presented the photos of Camila in a red binder, one-by-one to each juror.

By Suneel Chakravorty

Frank, you gave me 48 hours to put up or shut up.  I am within the deadline.

First, I do not condone sexual assault, whether it is against women, men, transgender, and certainly not against minors. If Keith Raniere is guilty of such a crime, I support his prosecution.

Also, as opposed to your snide inferences, I do not worship Raniere. Painting me as someone who “worships” Raniere is ad hominem and misdirection. I wonder if you are afraid of going toe-to-toe with me on facts?

As I have stated, I am not questioning Raniere’s guilt or innocence on the allegation of sexual abuse of Camila. I am questioning the guilt or innocence of FBI agents and prosecutors. I am questioning whether they used competent evidence in getting a conviction on the child pornography and sexual exploitation predicate acts for racketeering charges.

FBI expert witness Brian Booth’s so-called ‘best evidence’ was unreliable. Booth misrepresented its reliability, which even you, with your confirmation-bias-tinted designer sunglasses, were able to see.

Second, and I don’t know if you noticed this, it’s probably something you were willfully blind to considering, which is, WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PHOTOS WERE OF CAMI.

Before you and your readers go apoplectic, let us veer to other evidence first. We will get back to Cami after you had a chance to calm down.

EXIF Data Is ‘Poor’ Evidence

Even if it were true that Raniere and Camila began a relationship when she was 15, and he took photos of her, that does not mean the government had the evidence to prove it.

Camila did not testify and the best evidence for proving naked photos were taken in 2005, when she would have been underage, was EXIF data. We’ve already proven EXIF data is easy to change. We can do it.

Frank, you can do it, and I have seen you fumble to even to turn on your computer. If a man with your IT skills can change EXIF data, why would anyone consider EXIF data is reliable evidence? There is much better evidence that the government had at its disposal but chose, for reasons that are suspicious, not to use.

Here are prior articles on EXIF Data:

September 23, 2021: 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

September 25, 2021: Raniere Rule 33 Killer? — ‘EXIF Data Hard to Remove!’ — FBI Forensic Examiner Brian Booth – on Cami Photos Dating to 2005

September 26, 2021: Someone Is Lying About EXIF Data; Is It Suneel or FBI Forensic Examiner Brian Booth?

September 28, 2021: EXIF Data Written Over, Under, Sideways Down on FBI Forensic Examiner Booth Testimony — But Is It Really Hard to Change?

September 30, 2021: Suneel Fires Back, Takes on All Commenters, and No Prisoners, Hitting Hard on Booth, EXIF Data, and FBI Tampering

October 18, 2021: Parlato: From Where I Stand, FBI Examiner Booth Testified Falsely — EXIF Data Is Easy to Change

For some bizarre reason, no one asked Booth the question:

Q: Mr. Booth, you say EXIF data is hard to change or alter, but do you have anybody working at the FBI, or can you, yourself, change or alter EXIF data?

2005 Was The Year – Or Was It?

Right from the start, in her opening statement, AUSA Hajjar mentioned the naked photos of Camila.

May 7, 2019:

Tanya Hajjar

MS. HAJJAR: The defendant started having sex with Camila when she was just 15, the age she is in this photograph. At that time, the defendant was 45.

The defendant took graphic, naked photographs of Camila, close-up photographs of her private parts. These images are child pornography and possessing them and producing them is a crime. During the course of this trial, you will learn that these photographs of Camila were only part of the defendant’s collection. He took dozens of explicit photographs of women’s private parts that he kept in a folder on its computer which he labeled his “studies,” his souvenirs. And over the years, the defendant collected hundreds more of the same kind of photographs, graphic naked photographs, posed the same way that Camila’s were….

What About Lauren Salzman?

Laruen Salzman, a cooperating witness.

Hajjar points out that naked photos were taken of adult women,- as well as Cami in 2005 and then over the years.

Naked photos were mentioned in Lauren Salzman’s testimony. Not naked pictures of Cami but naked pictures of Lauren herself, taken from the same camera, according to EXIF data, during the same year, 2005, according to EXIF data.

This testimony was elicited to tie in Lauren’s naked pictures in which she posed the same way as Camila allegedly did to show that the Cami photos are properly dated to 2005.

The best evidence to establish Lauren’s photos were authentic would have been to show Lauren her photos, and ask, “Are those your photos? Were they taken in 2005? Were they taken by Raniere with his camera? Was it on these dates as shown in the EXIF data?”

They could have blurred out private parts, if decency was a concern (although they had no concerns showing Lauren’s pictures to the defense, the judge and the jury). All saw her naked photos, yet somehow they didn’t show Lauren her pictures and ask her to identify them. Why?

Was it because the pictures were taken later?

They asked her to describe the pictures, which the jury would later see, but did not show them to her for identification. If they had this would have permitted the defense to cross examine her on the authenticity of the dates.

Here’s her testimony:


Direct examination by Tanya Hajjar, May 17, 2019

HAJJAR: Did there come a time when the defendant took intimate photographs of you? 

Lauren Salzman

L. SALZMAN: Yes… Somewhere before 2006. Like around 2005…  I remember that we had been intimate and… there was like a shelf above the bed, and there was a camera. And he took the camera and said that he wanted to take a picture of me. And I was very shy about that and didn’t want to have a picture taken of me. And he was like, no, let me. It’s going to be nice. 

And so he took, I think, two pictures. But they were like — they were looking up at me from like the angle of — it’s like an up-close crotch shot, like — like vagina looking up where you could see my whole upper body and face.

HAJJAR: Did you see the photographs at the time the defendant took them?

L. SALZMAN: I saw one briefly. Quickly.

HAJJAR: And did that photograph show what you just described to the jury?



They had Lauren’s photos. If they wanted to establish the photos were of the date 2005, why didn’t they show the pictures to her? Hajjar said he took photos over the years. Lauren may have posed for more nude photos. The pictures could have been taken later, but it was important to date them to 2005 to tie into Cami photos. If they were taken in 2008, there wouldn’t have been a case of child pornography and exploitation of a child.

Yet, neither the prosecution nor the defense required Lauren to identify her photos. Why?

Never Showed Dani Her Pictures

Daniela is the older sister of Camila. She posed for nude photos. She too was questioned about her photos.

Artist sketch of a woman who looks not unlike Daniela

Direct Examination of Daniela by Moira Kim Penza, May 23, 2019

Moira Penza

PENZA: Did the defendant ever take naked pictures of you?


PENZA: Do you remember when that was?

DANIELA: I remember the period of time. I think it was around — after I crossed, before the fight — it would have been, like, around 2005, somewhere around 2005.

PENZA: What do you remember about that?

DANIELA: I remember he got a camera. I remember he was looking for a camera and he got a camera .. I think it was, like, a Cannon camera. It was a big one. Not a small one.  It was a big, professional camera….

PENZA: Do you remember all of the pictures?

DANIELA: No. I — no. I remember we were by the couch, and he asked me to remove my pants and my panties and he was — you know, covered — I remember covering myself with my hands and I remember him telling me to move them and telling me to spread my legs and I remember wanting it to stop. I remember asking what do you want my picture for. And I don’t remember what else….


Dani testified she posed for photos in 2005. The government had in evidence photos they said were taken of her in 2005. Why didn’t they show her the photos and ask her to identify that they were the photos taken in 2005?

They might have been taken later. Ask yourself, why was the jury shown naked pictures of Daniela and Lauren but the two witnesses who testified that they posed for naked pictures in 2005, were not asked to identify their pictures.

To my mind, there had to be a reason: The pictures weren’t taken in 2005 and they didn’t want to risk Daniela or Lauren committing perjury.

Appendectomy Scar

Daniela was asked about her sister’s appendectomy scar to help establish that the Cami photos were taken when she was underage.

May 28, 2019, Direct Examination of Daniela by Penza

PENZA: While your sister Camila was under 18, did she ever have any medical issues?


PENZA: Can you explain?

DANIELA: She had — she had appendicitis. She was, she had appendicitis and she had to have a surgical, severe surgical procedure when she was — it was around 2007, early 2007.

PENZA: What do you remember about the surgery?

DANIELA: I remember, I remember, it was very expensive. She didn’t have health insurance. I remember it was long. We were worried and there was — I remember her wound. I remember after the surgery, there was a big, like, a big hole in, in the, and it needed to be, like, drained every certain period of time like throughout the day.

Q Can you explain where on her body the wound was?

DANIELA: Yes. It was in her, you know, in the lower — I don’t know what that part is called.

Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis

THE COURT: Abdomen.

DANIELA: In her lower abdomen. In the —

THE COURT: You can stand up and show on your body where it was?

DANIELA: Okay. So in her lower abdomen. (Indicating.)

THE COURT: On the right side, correct?

DANIELA: Yes, as I remember, on the right side. And like a big slit. It was, like, a slit that was wide open. It was wide open. I remember my mom used to take — may I sit down now?

THE COURT: Yes, you may sit.


Daniela appeared to not know the word ‘abdomen’ and had to stand up to show the body part she meant.

This is not a woman who speaks in broken English. During her testimony we hear Daniela say sentences like this:

  • My childhood was idyllic
  • We grew up in a relatively-abundant, financially, setting.
  • We went to private school, we had English lessons, tennis lessons.
  • I learned to program in a pretty archaic languaging program
  • How many distinct spaces can be created by three cubes that are intersected
  • What’s the most 3-D spaces that can be created by three cubes intersecting each other.
  • It’s a spatial type of — yes, it has a basis in geometry and math…. There were others that were more like brainteasers?
Much was made of the fact that there’s no appendectomy scar on the lower abdomen in the photos of Camila. It was Daniela who said Camila had an appendectomy when she was 16 meaning she must have been 16 or younger in the photographs, for there was no appendectomy scar visible.
Yet, they never showed Daniela the pictures of Cami without the scar for her to identify. They never asked, “Is this your sister? Does this indicate to you that she was under the age off 16 because there is no scar?”

Why did they not show Dani the photos of Camila for identification?  You could argue, it would be too graphic, but they could have blurred out the genitals and still shown the … what do you call it – the “abdomen” of Camila, and her face — to get best evidence that the photos were Camila.

There must have been a reason for not showing Daniela the pictures of her sister.  Maybe they weren’t Camila or were not taken on the date the EXIF data purports to show. Perhaps the government knew the pictures weren’t real, and that Dani knew. She might have been cross-examined about whether she had seen those pictures before or if they were ever in her possession.  she might have been asked if she was the one who provided the government with them.

Red Binder

How were Cami’s pictures identified? Answer: They were not identified by anyone who knew Cami.

The so-called photos of Camila were brought in by FBI agent Maeghan Rees, who carried them in a red binder. First, she brought them to the judge, and, as I recall, the judge looked at them and, with dramatic flourish, put his hands to his eyes then turned away.

Raniere was not shown the photos so he had no opportunity to advise his attorneys whether they were photos of Camila or not. Rees showed the jurors the photos in the binder, one by one, and the jury barely glanced at them and turned away.

Glimpse or gander, stare, ogle or study, it wouldn’t have made a difference, because there’s not a person on the jury who met Cami. They couldn’t have identified her at 15, or 18 or even if it was her or her lookalike sister, Daniela.

What proof was there that it was Cami?

Testimony of FBI SA Michael Weniger

FBI Special Agent Michael Weniger

Marc Agnifilo stipulated for the defense that the naked photos of adults were Lauren Salzman, Angel Smith, Barbara Jeske, Dawn Morrison, Daniela, Barbara Bouchey, Loreta Garza, Pamela Cafritz and Marianna together, Monica Duran and Kathy Russell.

This stipulation, marked as Government Exhibit 252, is admissible in evidence.

Yet, I see no place where Agnifilo stipulated that the photos allegedly of Camila were Camila.

We don’t have the defense saying these were Cami’s photos. but, if they knew they were photos of Cami, why didn’t they stipulate?

Camila did not testify. But someone who knew her could have identified her in the photos. That would be best evidence.  Yet not Daniela, not Lauren who knew Camila, or any number of people could have been called, like Adrianna her mother, or Adrian, the brother, were called to testify “Yes, that’s Cami. That’s her face. I know it’s different than Daniela’s. That’s Cami when she was fifteen.”

None who knew here were called to identify the Cami photos. Who identified the photos as being Cami?

FBI Special Agent Michael Weniger.

Here’s the testimony:


June 14, 2019, Direct Examination of Weniger by Penza

PENZA: Special Agent Weniger, you said you also reviewed the photographs that were in the folder marked V?


PENZA: And those were photographs that you identified as being of Camila?


PENZA: Did you take any addition — in addition to the steps that we talked about yesterday in terms of the forensics, were there any other steps taken to identify her age in those photos?


PENZA: Can you explain?

WENIGER: Yes. Late in the investigation but before trial began, we had a conversation with a witness who indicated that Camila had surgery when she was a teenager on her appendix….  we verified that information…. We re-reviewed the medical records…  obtained from McGinnis Medical Clinic… which did, in fact, reflect an appendectomy when Camila was at the age of 16….

PENZA: showed Weniger the medical reports.

PENZA: … Camila had appendix surgery on January 9, 2007?

WENIGER: That’s correct.

PENZA: And have you reviewed photographs of Camila from after January 2007?

WENIGER: I have.

PENZA: And you’ve reviewed photographs up until how recently?

WENIGER: … Yes, as recently as…  2017, 2018.

PENZA: And in those photographs is there any scar visible from this appendix surgery?

WENIGER: In those photographs, there are. The scars are reflected in those photographs.

PENZA: After January 9, 2007, the scars were reflected?


PENZA: And did you review those photographs and compare them with the photographs that were within the Studies folder under V? [the ones with the EXIF data of 2005]

WENIGER: Yes, I did.

PENZA: And what did you determine?

WENIGER: I determined that in the Studies folder those images do not reflect a scar where the appendectomy occurred.

PENZA: And so what did that tell you?

WENIGER: That told me that… those photographs were taken before the appendectomy surgery in 2007. I should add that the appendectomy surgery occurred when Camila was 16 years old.


Weniger testified there are no scars in the photos, so the inference is Camila is underage. Still, Weniger doesn’t know Cami. Cami allegedly wasn’t available to be interviewed until after the trial.

How could he know it was Cami in the scarless photos?

There was no testimony elicited that he was a facial recognition expert. Our only evidence that these were Cami’s photos was a man who never met Cami. He was never cross-examined about how he knew they were Cami’s photos – in my opinion, a lapse on the part of the defense.

This trial was conducted without anybody proving those are Cami’s photos, and there were plenty of opportunities to get witness validation of the identity of the person photographed.

The only person who identified the pictures was an FBI agent who never met her and the only thing that dated the pictures was an FBI employee who spoke of EXIF data as if it was inviolable.

How do we even know the photos are of Cami?


About the author

Frank Parlato


Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional)

  • I just read the complete trial transcripts for the R Kelly EDNY trial. As many folks here know, it was also a RICO case. Evidence in that case included numerous sexual videos of R Kelly’s partners. As I recall, the evidence was brought in via testimony by a DHS agent. At no point did they show the videos to the individuals in the videos and say ‘is that you?” And yet, the defense in that case somehow are not claiming you can’t prove that R Kelly’s partners aren’t in the videos. Perhaps it is because they know how absurd that sounds.

  • I’ve been down this NXIVM rabbit hole for a few days now. I have no skin in this game. But this guy is *clearly* grasping at straws, and I felt embarrassment for him while reading this.

  • I love the empty “red looseleaf notebook” reference; it’s symbolic of Suneel’s arguments.

  • How do we know this is Suneel Chakravorty writing this article? For all I know he might have been kidnapped and replaced with someone else who had surgery performed on him to look just like him and sound just like him and is now posing as him after taking over his identity.

    Does anyone have a sample of the real Suneel’s DNA and other biomarkers which could be used to verify whether the author is an impostor or is the real person?

  • Mr Chakravorty’s obsession with this single photograph and its provenance proves at least one thing: This is all he’s got. If he had anything else up his sleeve, he would play it. Instead, he carries on flogging a very dead horse.

    Why are the Remainders so obsessed with this one piece of evidence? Why are they so certain there was tampering?

    We know full well that the Raniere gang was quite capable of lying, infiltrating spyware onto people’s computers (Edgar Bronfman’s, for one), launching fake lawsuits with fake evidence, etc.

    When this picture emerged, it was the one major piece of physical evidence that could put Raniere away. There’s no doubt that its existence affected the trial.

    So did Raniere, or one of his minions, say: let’s just get into the system somehow, and corrupt this one piece of evidence, and do it so clumsily that anyone would notice? Because this is what seems to have happened. If the FBI were “fudging” the data to ensure a conviction, I’m damn sure they would have done a better job.

    The FBI should turn over every single person who ever had any access to this evidence while in FBI’s chain of custody, and see if there’s any possible connection with any of them to the Raniere gang.

    Mr Chakravorty, your obsessiveness may be revealing far too much. Can we ask: who actually told you to focus on this one fact, out of the whole trial? Was it Raniere himself, or one of the others? Have you directly asked these people: how did you know there were anomalies in this evidence?

    If you’ve pulled off the very clever trick of evidence tampering, the temptation is to dwell on it, even if it’s just to prove your cleverness. I said it a while back: if there was tampering by the FBI, they would have done a much better job. Maybe evidence tampering is another charge that Keith Raniere should face, along with all the others he managed to dodge.

    And maybe this thought will shut Mr Chakravorty up, if nothing else does.

    • “erma gerrd” wrote:

      “So did Raniere, or one of his minions, say: let’s just get into the system somehow, and corrupt this one piece of evidence, and do it so clumsily that anyone would notice?”

      The FBI’s chief forensic examiner, Brian Booth, who was in charge of this evidence, testifies, under oath, that someone accessed this evidence and we don’t know who they were or what they did.

      So now it’s the Nxians who broke into the FBI’s property and evidence room and planted pictures on the hard drives that would be used to convict Raniere of possession and production of child pornography.

      Disinformation is a real thing, y’all.

      All you have to do is see it once.


      • — So now it’s the Nxians who broke into the FBI’s property and evidence room and planted pictures on the hard drives that would be used to convict Raniere of possession and production of child pornography.

        No one made that allusion: it’s your own delusional perception of reality. You create fictional stories

          • “The commenter was using sarcasm…..

            ….Ever hear of it ?

            Says the loopy dipshit who litters the Frank Report comment section every day with multiple anonymous and fake accounts, egged on by a ‘moderator’ who pretends to be a ‘legal expert’ while being incapable of writing anything that may question anything the government says or does.

            Yes. Disinformation is real.


          • Aloonzo-

            — Yes. Disinformation is real.

            Do you mean like when you claimed OSA was watching you, so you could get attention for yourself?

            I’m curious to learn what happened to the OSA agents commenting on the
            Frank Report. Any ideas Alanzo?

            “I have a huge amount of respect for him[Mike Rinder] and the work he is doing.”

            I wonder how Mike Rinder ran afoul of the great Alonzo….

            I wonder how long it’ll take for Frank to run afoul of Alonzo.

          • “I wonder how Mike Rinder ran afoul of the great Alonzo….

            I see that you continue to study my body of work, and yet you continue to misrepresent and mischaracterize it. And you are also now writing in complete sentences with proper punctuation, “Nice Guy”.

            The answer to your question has been answered many times here on the Frank Report, but I’ll answer it again because disinformation campaigns like the one you’re running never stop:

            In the 15 years since claiming to be out of the Church of Scientology, Mike Rinder has never once exposed any act that would put David Miscavige or any officer of the Church of Scientology into criminal jeopardy. This is despite writing a blogpost every day, 3 seasons of a TV show, and running a podcast that claimed he wants a federal investigation and a review of Scientology’s tax exempt status.
            Yet Rinder ran all fair game for David Miscavige as the Commanding Officer of the Office of Special Affairs, the most criminal and insane part of Scientology, for 22 years.

            Rinder has also lied and distracted about his career in Scientology. But in court filings, where he can’t lie, and it was to his advantage at the time, this is what he said he did in Scientology:

            “Miscavige received a daily report concerning every legal case, every media action and every investigation ongoing in the world. I prepared this briefing each day, entitled the “OSA DR” (Office of Special Affairs Daily Report) and it was sent to Marty Rathbun and David Miscavige via an encrypted email program. The report had no indication on it who it was written by or who it was addressed to.

            “There was a separate “Investigations Report” that I compiled with very limited distribution including David Miscavige and Marty Rathbun. The “Invest Report” contained specifics of all ongoing activities of Private Investigators and intelligence operations working for the church against “attackers”. This was delivered in an unmarked, sealed envelope with no indication who it was from or who it was to and is labeled “Secret — Eyes Only.” On hundreds of occasions David Miscavige specifically commented upon, issued orders concerning, and even micro-managed the format of the OSA Daily Reports.

            “When I was in a different location from Miscavige, he would call me on the phone every single day first thing to direct what was to be done about matters raised in the OSA Daily Report (it was the first thing he looked at before even getting dressed when he woke up in the morning) and he would call me again at the end of the day to ask if there was any other “significant news”. Some days, if there was an investigation or legal case or media matter that he was especially interested in, he would call me several times during the day. All staff in OSA knew that phone calls “from COB” were highest priority and any meetings or other matters were to be interrupted to take a “call from COB.” Staff in OSA Int saw me receive literally thousands of phone calls from “COB.” When we were in the same location, I would be summoned to his office several times each day.

            “Each and every OSA Daily Report and Intel or Invest Daily Report that was produced daily from 1981 to the present is filed both in electronic and hard copy form at OSA. It is long-standing, firm, unalterable Scientology policy that every report generated by OSA is faithfully and securely kept on file for eternity. The files are considered to be the mind of the organization..“

            – Mike Rinder Texas Declaration

            In short, Mike Rinder knows where all the bodies are buried. But in 15 years of being out, he’s never led anyone to where those bodies are. He goes on about morally outrageous, but entirely LEGAL things that law enforcement can do nothing about.

            It takes a while to see this pattern of behavior. I gave him around 7 years to ‘decompress’ and start spilling like so many others did who came out from Int Base. After 7 years though, the patterns became clear that he was never going to reveal any criminal activity or do anything that would get justice for Scientology’s victims, such as their murders made to look like suicides. Or even a federal investigation or a review of their tax exemption.

            He just uses that to string you along.

            Rinder has been conning people his whole career. After a while, you wake up to these cons.

            Many here are still being conned by Mike Rinder.

            Like you, “Nice Guy”.


        • Suneel may love science fiction. It’s also much more entertaining and interesting than dealing with sober reality.

        • It is disinformation when Alanzo claims to have had “personal interactions” with Neil Glazer.

  • That would explain why Alanzo’s mouth waters every time he and Suneel have a Zoom call while they try to figure out the identify of “Nice Guy”…

    • Ever wonder why Alanzo is so jealous of Karen De La Carriere? Could it be she was more successful than him and he’s so desperate to be heard, he’s moved on to being a DOS dead-ender supporter?

      • Anon-

        Red Alert! Allen hates Karen, Mike Rinder, Tony Ortega, Lisa Remi, Jeffery Augustine, and all other ex-Scientologist, who’re doing well. Envy is one of Alonzo’s issues.

        Guess how Alanzo purchased his domicile or financed it.

        Hint: It ain’t a good paying job.

    • Nice Guy, you are always hiding behind different names to insult Alanzo over and over again.

      You don’t have anything better to do with your time than spew your tribe’s hatred at “cults.”

      All you and your fellow haters are capable of is name calling.

      Get a life!

      And learn to spell… it is “identity” not “identify”.

  • “First, I do not condone sexual assault, whether it is against women, men, transgender, and certainly not against minors. If Keith Raniere is guilty of such a crime, I support his prosecution.

    Also, as opposed to your snide inferences, I do not worship Raniere. Painting me as someone who “worships” Raniere is ad hominem and misdirection. I wonder if you are afraid of going toe-to-toe with me on facts?”

    Wow.. really… you’re just some guy off the street who spends his time chasing down cases that stink of prosecutorial misconduct? You are just a concerned, neutral citizen? You don’t have a vested interest in this case? You maybe haven’t talked with the accussed (I mean criminal) Raniere…. and he hasn’t convinced you of… well, anything? You really think those questions don’t matter?

  • When the true believer, the cult loyalist, is presented with facts that disprove his beliefs, he simply denies the facts. That’s all we’re seeing here.

    Quoting Leon Festinger, the sociologist who gave us the term cognitive dissonance:

    “A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.

    “We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief…

    Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.”

    Festinger, When Prophecy Fails, ch.1

    That was written in 1957, about a suburban Chicago UFO cult, the Seekers. It may as well have been written about Chakravorty and Nxivm.

    Festinger’s analysis fits to a T. Just look at Chakravorty’s current mania to proselytize.

    He’s a hamster on a wheel.

  • Suneel… since you seem desperate to talk about how smart you are with everyone who will listen – even the ones that don’t want to listen frankly.. but you might want to take a quick peak in a dictionary about what qualifies as evidence.

    What doesn’t qualify? So glad you asked… beating the same poor, tired and dead horse is not evidence. Tossing out what ifs.. is not evidence.

    The only evidence you have presented… and proven beyond any reasonable doubt… is that you are a lying, sniveling, delusional little creep.

    As much as I am sure you would like to keep pouring over all these naked photos to live out whatever sort of kink you and your precious Vanguard have, the photos have been identified by not only your morally and ethically bankrupt “leader” but also by the owner of the body that was photographed.

    I really don’t think you understand the level of perv and creep you (and him for that matter) give off in the things you say and the way you behave. Clearly, Harvard doesn’t teach everything.

    Excuse me… I need to go shower now after reading! *twitch*

  • Some behaviors are essentially comparable to Obsessive Compulsive Disorders, like “I know that I can’t change their mind but I can push them to give up. If I manage to make them give up, then ***something magical will happen***…” You can’t talk normally with people when they are around, because they will take the “debate” as an opportunity to materialize their magical thoughts… etc.

  • Dear, dear Suneel. I keep on getting confused as to what you are trying to prove. Are you trying to prove that there was a lack of due process? That the pics aren’t of Cami? Some half-breed of both? Words matter. Use them appropriately.

    If you are just arguing due process violations, that’s great. I can appreciate that. What is the saying, “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”.
    If I ever get caught, I would exhaust every possible option I could. I would hire great lawyers and let them do their job – no matter how big of a long shot it was. No matter how many books and law journals I read, no matter how much Law and Order I watch, or how many lessons I’ve learned from my Dad, I am not a lawyer (neither are you, neither is Nicki/Michele, and for sure neither is Linda Chung). Keith did that; he hired all the lawyers he wanted, he hired whoever he wanted. No one was going to turn down a case that was guaranteed to be paid.

    Suneel, many of your arguments actually seem to be rooted in inadequate counsel. Have you ever actually asked the lawyers why they did not present a defense? Lawyers get full access to each and every piece of discovery and evidence. If the photos were not of Camila, if there was even a doubt of their authenticity, those rainmakers would have had a thunderstorm. But they didn’t. Because they could not suborn perjury. They could not come up with any possible way to get around the fact that they were violating pictures of a 15-year-old girl. So, they didn’t stipulate to that because by nature of a stipulation, that is an acknowledgement of some culpability. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN STUPID. They were not stupid.

    If these are your arguments, argue ineffectiveness of counsel. The judge did not commit a violation simply because he didn’t have the pictures passed around the courtroom. So, start there. The rainmakers had a draught. Or, MY OPINION is that Raniere thought he knew more than his lawyers and was not listening to their years of education and experience.

    So that gets rid of some of your arguments. Let’s move on, shall we?

    As for due process, all of this conjecture is nothing. Why don’t you use a more legal way of approaching this? Tell me the rule, how it was violated, what was violated, and then have evidence that is actually legal evidence. Think about how your arguments must have legal merit. For the sake of our proceedings here, you could submit an appeal with something like this:
    Rule 69.2868; don’t be a douche bag.
    It was broken when Person A was generally an obnoxious, offensive, or disgusting person.
    Proof: a used douche was found in the trash and the accused had Water, Sodium Benzoate, Acetic Acid, Sodium Chloride over their pants and underwear. Those are the ingredients of Massingill douche.
    Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the accused, is in fact, a douche bag.

    Some of your points of due process may actually be valid, no one knows or cares because there is not even a tiny bit of responsibility by anyone still associated with Raniere. No one is 100% good or 100% evil. Even I, the girl with almost no conscience or empathy, am not 100% evil. And when I fuck up, or hurt someone or commit a crime, I’m more than willing to own my part. I might not care about it, but I try not to gaslight people. That’s not fair. Really, all any of you would have to do is admit that at least Cami got hurt. Stop trying to gaslight her experience and just admit that you are the kind of person who is OK with that because the good outweighs the bad. If anyone of you even said, “I am sorry people were hurt,” you would garner much good will.

    So how about this Suneel? You stop confusing the violations of due process with the veracity of photos and the people in them simply because you don’t think enough people looked at them. Raniere even looked at them and didn’t object.

    Due process is totally different than actual guilt. I just don’t understand how you continue to confuse the two? Go ahead and keep on nit picking ACTUAL violations, we are behind you as much as we can stomach. But you just cannot continue to abuse and violate sufferers. People with good intentions and kindness in their hearts do not continue with this public outcry and maltreatment of anyone, much less those who suffered.

    Suneel, I understand that you and the rest of the Pussy Posse are hurt by what people say about you and your experiences. But that doesn’t give you the right to hurt others. When someone says something bad about you, or Keith, or Nicki or whoever, instead of saying, “Well, this other person was said bad things and got a documentary so I am justified in my bad behavior.”

    Something you might consider are some things I’ve learned as I’ve gotten wiser.

    Before I speak, I WAIT “Why Am I Talking” and “Does it need to be said? Does it need to be said by me? Does it need to be said right now?” Maybe if you were more thoughtful with your communications instead of just taking pot shots and attacking others, people would understand your position better and not attack first. Instead of having resentments, send all of your good vibes to them. They need it.

    If you had a soul, you would not continue this behavior. You are not helping yourself and certainly not your cause. People with a soul have compassion and a genuine want to uplift the world, by uplifting people.

    The trial is over, the sensationalism only persists because you guys can’t keep your mouths shut. Instead of trying to continue this loosing PR battle, shut the fuck up, keep your heads down and surprise everyone by writing a compelling LEGAL argument, filing it with the court and have it actually work. If you don’t want things tried in the court of public option, THEN STOP IT. Seriously, if you bitches were not so fucking stupid, and if you want your names out of the news, and you want people to stop talking shit about you, stop making sure your names are everywhere. Don’t you know that success is the best revenge?

    Suneel, Nicki, Mitchell, Danielle, Brandon, Linda Chung and anyone else who stands with Vanguard, I would just like to remind yo, that the person writing this is 45 y/o socialite/mom/diagnosed psychopath and even I think this is fucked up. Also, as a psychopath, I am willing to give Raniere props for actually starting a verifiable cult. It is every psychopath’s dream, but not all of us can succeed. I tried and failed. Game recognizes game.

      • Despite what popular culture tells us, psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder are mental illness and widely misunderstood by the mainstream culture. We are not all Hannibal Lector.

        There are many reasons that people become anti-social or psychopathic. It is not thought that there is only one reason that people are antisocial or psychopathic; Some are hereditary, genetic, physical head trauma, trauma at birth, childhood trauma etc.

        If you combine any of them in the right situation, the results can be catastrophic. But, we don’t all start out bad. Antisocial personality disorder, psychopathy, sociopathy, narcissism are often the results of other things. And then there is Keith Raniere. I don’t usually diagnose other people, but I believe Keith has Antisocial Personality Disorder and/or Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

        As much as we are feared, hated and misunderstood, the world needs people like me. I am able to make quick life threatening decisions without making them emotional. I get shit done. I get my needs met. I pay attention to language. I am charismatic, fearless, and ruthless.

        I observe more of situations than most people, picking up on micro-expressions with ease. I have been studying the world for as long as I can remember to try and figure out why I was different. I had a classmate die in elementary school and the entire school sobbed. She was never nice to me. I didn’t like her one bit, and I didn’t care.

        I thought all of the people making a fuss were pathetic for caring about such a bitch. The school called my parents because they were worried that I was stuffing down my emotions. I told my Mother that I just didn’t care and wasn’t going to pretend. I learned after that how to “read the room”. I had to figure out how to survive in a world that I just didn’t understand with people I didn’t understand.

        If you met me, you would think that I was charming and you would want me to be your friend. I am an overly educated, white, middle aged female who grew up with “old money” going to the kind of country clubs that only recently started allowing blacks and women. I have two kids, drive carpool and volunteer at my kid’s school and in the community.

        I pull it off. But you would want to be my friend, because I allow my friends to show their “bad” side without judgement. All of those horrible things you have done or thought of doing, you can tell me because I don’t judge and I keep a good secret (unless it somehow benefits me spill).

        If I had $1 for every friend who has confessed to cheating on their partner I would be even richer than I am.

        I don’t usually post random shit from the internet, but I found this a while ago and while I don’t agree 100% with what it says, it is mostly true.

        • Yeah, I know you’re all not Hannibal Lecter types. I also know from reading this grandiose comment THAT you’re telling the truth – you’re a sociopath/psychopath.

          I understand you perfectly and I can spot people like you a mile away. I come from a family of sociopaths. Not all sociopaths are the same. All sociopaths are different, just like normal people.

          The real problem is your lack of empathy and differing degrees of empathy.

          —I can make quick life-threatening decisions without making them emotional

          Guess what, Marry Poppins, anyone who wants to survive can make quick life and death decisions. You’re not so special, it’s your egocentric narcissism telling you that you’re special.

          Put it this way: if you were a man and I had to decide between me and you – you died a minute ago….

        • As the famous reggae tune ‘Hey Fatty Bum-bum’ states:

          “Self praise is no recommendation”

          Wishing you the best of health till the day you pass — if only out of sympathy for those that would have to tend you when your all too human flesh gives over to the forces of entropy — Sliante!

    • OhMy! wrote:

      “If you had a soul, you would not continue this behavior. You are not helping yourself and certainly not your cause. People with a soul have compassion and a genuine want to uplift the world, by uplifting people.”

      OMG. What a manipulative POS you are.

      If you had a soul, which you have said multiple times here that you do not, you would be able to see that there are 5, 8, 15 sides to this whole NXIVM thing. There are multiple victims of multiple perps here. And not all the perps were part of NXIVM. Some of the perps work for the government.

      Keith Raniere is not the only perp, and Camilla is not the only victim. But you continually try to reduce all other victims and all other perps to just those two – ignoring all the rest and then associating them all together using bullshit rhetoric like “If you had a soul, you’d…”.

      Ha! This is coming from a self-confessed soulless psychopath!

      If you had a soul you’d realize there are many sides, many victims, and many perps here.

      But you don’t have a soul.

      So fuck off.


      • WTF Dummy Alonzo?!?!?

        —There are 5, 8, 15 sides to this whole NXIVM thing.

        Hey ToolBag! Are those your Pick 4 numbers for tonight’s lottery numbers?

      • “ Camilla is not the only victim” … so what you’re saying is you acknowledge Camilla is a victim?

  • Suneel, good questions and speculations which should be directed at KR’s solicitors (who HE chose to represent him and paid handsomely with Bronfman money). Do you have recorded court evidence that the solicitors and/or the world’s smartest man, well versed in court cases so no shrinking violet, KR himself, asked that the photos be shown to them/Daniela/whoever to identify, and that the request was denied? It is up to the Defendant to dispute the Prosecution findings. Is KR on record as disputing the photos were of Daniela? What makes you so much more knowledgeable than people who were actually shown the images (including the solicitors/KR/the jury)?

    Also, why have we moved from photo was ‘tampered’ with to ‘it may not have been Camila? Is your next speculation someone could have photoshopped Camila’s head onto a pic of a naked woman? and demand someone identifies the body as being Camilla’s? You are inching closer and closer to the dangerous territory of ‘if nobody witnessed it, the rape didn’t happen’ and blame the woman.

    As stated before by any number of people, if you have EVIDENCE, turn it over to the lawyers and let them take it from there. Why bother trying to convince anyone on the Frank Report? What do you expect to achieve exactly? Just be honest with yourself (nobody else really cares).

    • That was exactly my (common sense) thought as well. Witness interviews with Daniela, Lauren, Nicole…. maybe even Sarah Edmonson.

    • More than identified by Daniela. She probably gave them to the FBI to plant on the hard drive.

      • Danielle is not a hacker – she is what we in the IT world call a “script kiddy”. She’s not a programmer.
        The young woman is good at downloading hacker toolkits, from the internet.
        I could show anyone where to download and how to use hacker toolkits.

        Think of a hacker toolkit as a gun and a getaway car to be used in bank robbery.
        True hackers write their own exploits and code.

      • Danielle is not a highly IT competent individual who could pull it off. She’s a “script kiddy.”

        You’d need to have a deep understanding of how the OS and hardware affect the writing of bit sectors. It’s complicated.

      • Why would Daniela have nude pictures of her sister, Camila, at 15 years old photographed in the exact spread eagle pose and location as all the other women in Keith Raniere’s binder of vulvas?

  • Keith Raniere took naked crotch shots of his victims posed so that you could see their faces looking down towards the camera. Face and crotch in one shot – his own need to gloat over his conquests served the FBI well. Easy to identify the victims of pornographic shots when the faces are included in the images.

    Here’s the origin of that charming quirk of Raniere’s. 1980: an “ex”-girlfriend came to visit us. Her current boyfriend had taken such a photo of her – naked crotch shot with her face visible. Raniere was very interested in this. Raniere doesn’t like it when someone has/does something he doesn’t have/do. You know, that old need to compete, “I’m the best” at everything attitude? Made some noises at me about it. I don’t do naked photos. Guess I’m lucky that way or my picture might have been in one of his treasure albums along with his other virgin conquests.

    Here’s the possible origin of his getting into statutory rape of underage girls. 1982/83: a graduate student friend of ours was dating a local teen. Thought she was of age, until her birthday came along and he discovered she was just then turning 16. He ended the relationship at once. Raniere was again very interested. That whole “jealousy of anyone having something he didn’t” syndrome. Plus young naive virgins are so much easier to bamboozle.

    I was one of those naive virgins when I met him – just barely legal though so nothing illegal about his initiating sex with me, just really shitty behavior since all of it was predicated with an ocean of lies aimed at my naivete. I walked away summer of 1984. He started raping underage girls. Heidi Hutchison can corroborate that time frame with her discovery of his physical relationship with her underage sister.

    What an icon of humanity and nobility you follow, Suneel.

      • That jackass stole many of his ideas and habits from others. And he’s still got jackasses braying their praise and support of their emperor jackass even after he’s been exposed and convicted. Some people are just never gonna recognize the emperor is just a naked ass claiming he’s clothed in designer duds. Man, wish I had that tailoring job – whole lotta pay for a whole lotta nothing.

  • Suneel, maybe none of this is real. Not Cami’s face. Not Cami’s vag. Not the scar. Not the date on the file. Not the date on the folder. Not Cami’s relationship with her sister. KAR’s defense attorneys are fakes. The pattern of abuse by naked photos across a group of females that included a minor. Maybe KAR did not know or believe she was a minor. The sexual activity between KAR and Cami was not real. Maybe the FBI agents were just actors.

    Maybe the Judge doesn’t exist; he is just a figment of your imagination. Just like Frank, and his readers.

    Maybe you don’t exist,, Suneel. You’re just in another dimension of the space time continuum.

    But that may prove that KAR does not exist. He is in prison for life.

    He is gone, Suneel. And no more little girls will have their lives destroyed.

  • Won’t read Suneel Chakravorty posts.

    But to answer the header question:

    Camilla said that they are photos of her.

    So did Keith Raniere.

    Keith Raniere said the photos ARE Camilla

    Maybe Suneel believes (mistakenly) that Camilla is lying.

    But Suneel’s Lord and savior, Keith Raniere, also wrote texts stating that the photos were of Camilla. At 15. And that he “still had them”.

    No one argued in court for Keith’s defense about the photos not being Camilla. Because they indisputably ARE Camilla.

    It is unlikely that any of the dead-end loyalists really do not believe that the pornographic photos are of teenage Camilla.

    It is more likely that they simply do not care and believe it was an “ethical relationship”

  • You need a therapist, dude. You have seriously lost it. You have 0 evidence and 100% speculation. In ESP speak, your life issues are strongly showing up. You need help. I am stunned that someone who had spent so little time in ESP could have adopted the garbage so strongly. Get help now! It doesn’t need to be from an exit counselor or a therapist specializing in cults, but really any good professional therapist certified by APA would do.

  • Wow. It didn’t take long to go from speculation (maybe the pictures were tampered with) to desperation.

    If anyone doubts that cults can twist minds around, let’s look at Suneel. Apparently, a smart guy. Ready for an intellectual battle. Armed with a toothpick of evidence and facing a Sherman tank. Yet, he’s convinced that the toothpick will prevail. And is willing to spend months, if not years, swinging that toothpick around.

    This is fun now. But in a couple of years, when we’ve all moved on and he’s still swinging the toothpick, it’s going to be sad.

  • As hard as it is, I will not rage against you regarding the rape of a child, even though you seem to think it is the least of his crimes. Let’s just start with the fact that you don’t seem to grasp what a “fact” is. You still have not produced any evidence or “facts”. Saying something is suspect is not evidence and is not a fact. All you have is conjecture and wishful thinking. You have presented NOTHING that could be considered as a fact that anything was changed. This latest suggestion that we don’t know if the pictures are Cami is ludicrous and insulting. You have no proof, and you have no facts.

  • Suneel, you are delusional.

    There is no way in hell that Raniere’s lawyers did not see an exhibit at trial. Defendants get to see all the evidence that will be used against them. Period.

    And do you honestly believe that Raniere’s top-notch lawyers would not confirm that was Cami? That they did not confirm with Raniere that he had taken pictures of her at 15 years old?

    And that, if Raniere did not take those pictures, had no idea what they were talking about in court the entire time they were discussing the pictures and folder, that he would not, at the very least, write Agnifilo a sticky note about it?

    And do you really think Raniere’s lawyers would then fail to object to this evidence coming in? Oh wait, they did – because it was so old!

    And do you really believe that had Raniere not known anything about this picture because he never took pictures of 15-year-old Cami, he would not have ranted about it in his post-conviction diatribe?

    Please listen to how ridiculous and desperate you sound.

    I refused to read any of your other posts since it’s the same old same old. I thought this might contain some new evidence. But it’s clear you have no evidence, only rank speculation.

    It’s clear why you are afraid to file your Rule 33 motion.

    • –And do you really think Raniere’s lawyers would then fail to object to this evidence coming in? Oh wait, they did – because it was so old!

      Notice how Suneel “Vanguard’s Bitch” Chakravorty doesn’t mention this fact — that Raniere’s defense team tried to get the pictures thrown out as evidence because they were too old and well past the statute of limitations. That was the first thing they tried to do — not deny that they were pictures of Cami, that they were taken before she was of age, or that they were tampered with (this “genius” defense came from the dead-ender armchair legal beagles).

      Raniere’s own narcissistic ego trapped him. A person’s character and behavior are his/her own best testimony for/against them. All of the similar pictures of other women who slept with Raniere and the subsequent collateral DOS pictures are actually hard-core (pun intended) evidence that only solidified the notion that these pictures are indeed of Cami. That is what is called an established pattern.

      A leopard doesn’t change its spots.

      I have a question for Suneel: If Cami’s underage abortion records exist and were made public record, would you then say “How do we know that Raniere fucked her? How do we know that Cami didn’t take Raniere’s ‘seed’ in his condom and self-impregnate and then choose to abort later?”

      You’re a fucking embarrassment to Harvard education.

    • Sherrizy-

      I wonder when Alanzo will comment on your comment…The clock is ticking. I think he’s sweet on you. Maybe you should ask Frank for a “comment restraining order”.

  • I have a question for Suneel. What is his endgame for all of this? What does he wish to happen if hypothetically his stance is factual? He says he doesn’t worship Raniere and acknowledges his sentencing but he’s really digging his heels in on this Cami thing. Please explain why you are so adamant about this and what you want to see happen to KR.

  • “The only person who identified the pictures was an FBI agent who never met her and the only thing that dated the pictures was an FBI employee who spoke of EXIF data as if it was inviolable.”

    So now there are two FBI agents that have conspired against Vangone….

    Raising doubt about the authenticity of Camila in the photo’s is one step beyond “merely” claiming that the metadata is changed (by the FBI). By introducing an even more grandiose conspiracy variable, your claim is getting weaker instead of stonger.

    I got another one for you: Are you sure agent Weniger is not visually impaired? Because if he is, he was not capable of identifying any person in any photo …..

    Your claim that you do not condone sexual assault, especially against minors, does not sound genuine in the light of your actions.

    You say: “If Keith Raniere is guilty of such a crime, I support his prosecution”. But do you? Honestly? I doubt it.

  • What puzzles so many od us Suneel Chakravorty is you have gone on for months now, maybe even over a year, about your so-called three highly qualified forensic
    experts regarding these photos.

    What has been filed in a court of law? Jack shit.

    Has this FBI agent you claim tampered with evidence been arrested?

    No, nor has Raniere gotten a new trial.

    Has anyone of Keith Raniere’s numerous attorneys he has hired since you and the rest of NXIVM dead-heads came up with you windmill fighting filed this crazy Rule 33 based on FBI tampering?

    No, not one of the many.

    So, Chakravorty, you are a broken record. Now it’s how do we know the pictures were of Cami?

    How do were know it’s really Raniere in prison?

    Maybe he was cloned while in Mexico and he is really on Clare Bronfman’s Island in Fiji.

    You are a silly boy.

    • A silly poem for silly Suneel:

      “Suneel Chackroffmey”
      There once was a heel named Suneel
      He had a two inch, odd looking, eel
      Our lad fed it to Nicki
      The lass hated small winkies
      Our cuckold heel lost all his appeal

  • Yawn. Bored. Same arguments, slightly rephrased, that we have been hearing for a while. The debating is no longer of value as it’s just repetition. If wishful thinking accomplishes anything, then Suneel would still get nothing done.

  • RE Suneel’s Two Most Ridiculous Points:

    —We’ve already proven EXIF data is easy to change.

    EXIF data is easy to change, BUT is very difficult to change without leaving behind “data artifacts” a finger print of binary 1s and 0. The EXIF file manager program will change the bit sectors differently than from the the original program that saved the pic.

    —Yet, I see no place where Agnifilo stipulated that the photos allegedly of Camila were Camila.

    This is the most ridiculous argument Suneel has made thus far.

    • This is a very good point indeed. And it makes me wonder if Frank should retract his previous statement about the FBI examiner misleading the jury about changing the data. Is it easy to rob a bank? Yes, its very easy to get a gun and go into a bank, which is the crime. But its really hard to get away with it, and basically every bank robber in history gets caught. So most people would say yes, bank robbery is hard. I don’t think that is misleading.

      • Abelard-

        Exactly! That’s the best analogy. I’m using it sometime. Thanks!
        I’ve attempted to explain the technology at play, a few 1/2 a dozen times and your the only one who understands my point.

      • Furthermore – I believe the FBI agent simply gave a curt response

        And Marc Agnifilo didn’t explore the matter further because he knew it was a losing endeavor.

        I’m so glad someone actually understands the read/write, IO bit-sectors evidence issues. I was losing my mind! 😉

      • The FBI agent gave a simple curt reply — the same way anyone on the stand in court should answer a question.

        I’d be surprised if Claviger didn’t agree.

        • Basic instruction to any witness: Only answer the questions you are asked — and do so in as few words as possible.

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.” In addition, he was credited in the Starz docuseries 'Seduced' for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

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 premieres on May 22, 2022.

IMDb — Frank Parlato,_Jr.

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