I ask for evidence, hard evidence, and Suneel provides rank conjecture: “How do we know the photos shown in court were of Cami?”
It’s incredible to assert the photos were not Cami, or that the prosecution would knowingly present photos of someone else thinking they could get away with it.
As one of our Frank Report commenters wrote to Suneel:
“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.”
I admit, the child porn pics of Camila might have been identified by her sister Daniela. But, as Pyriel wrote, “Has it never occurred to Suneel that the photos of Cami were probably identified by Daniela during talks with the FBI?”
Or Clifton Parker: “That was exactly my (commonsense) thought as well. Witness interviews with Daniela, Lauren, Nicole…. maybe even Sarah Edmonson.”
Yes, it would have been better if Daniela identified them in court rather than an FBI agent who never met Camila. But they were identified. And the Cami photos proved two predicate acts in his racketeering charges: possession of child porn and exploitation of a child.
Still, these photos are either Cami or not. They are either dated correctly or not. All of this could be proven, but absent a Rule 33 motion for a new trial, showing new evidence that the dates were tampered with, or the nude pics were someone else, or they were not found by the FBI or planted by them later, outside a legally authorized search warrant, it has been proven – at trial.
I admit, in his latest screed, Suneel makes a few good points. His point about EXIF data being easy to change is reasonable but proves nothing. EXIF data can be changed, but there is no proof it was changed.
Suneel provides as proof nothing more than the FBI Examiner Brian Booth testified at trial that EXIF data is hard to change when it is actually easy to change.
But a commenter, IT Man, clarifies: “EXIF data is easy to change, BUT is very difficult to change without leaving behind ‘data artifacts’ a fingerprint of binary 1s and 0. The EXIF file manager program will change the bit sectors differently than from the original program that saved the pic.”
Abelard added, “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 it’s 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.”
In answer to that, I might ask, what if the guy who robs the bank is also the guy charged with investigating the robbery?
Who would be responsible for detecting data artifacts [fingerprints]? If Cami’s photo’s EXIF data were changed by the FBI, as Suneel asserts without evidence, and there were fingerprints, who, other than the FBI, would have access to determine this? The photos are child porn. Were they shared in advance of trial with the defense to have them analyzed? Or was the FBI solely able to check for ‘fingerprints’ of changed EXIF data?
To use an example other than the bank robber: if a fox ate a chicken in the henhouse, chances are there’d be feathers left behind. But if the fox was also in charge of henhouse investigation, would he testify that feathers are hard to hide?
Yet Suneel, in his desperation, goes beyond the FBI and suggests Daniela might have provided the photos to the FBI and they planted them on the hard drive, which he says might explain why they ‘found’ the photos 11 months after they seized the hard drive.
Well, suppose somebody changed the EXIF data before the FBI seized the photos. As Erma Gerrd wrote, “We know full well that the Raniere gang was quite capable of… infiltrating spyware onto people’s computers (Edgar Bronfman’s, for one) …”
From the trial, we know Daniela was the one who did most of it. Someone who wanted to get even with Raniere – and Daniela was certainly one – might have been able to do so. The pictures of Cami were in Raniere’s library from the time he took them in 2005, until the FBI took the hard drive on March 27, 2018.
Between those times, Daniela had almost unfettered access to 8 Hale Drive and access to that hard drive between 2005 and 2010.
If Suneel’s conjecture is right, that Dani monkeyed with the hard drive or the photos, is it possible she could have changed the EXIF data and left fingerprints? Would the FBI not be able to determine data artifacts?
As I recall, the FBI examiner, Brian Booth, was never questioned about this: i.e., did the FBI check to see if the EXIF data had been altered?
Maybe the defense took his word that it is hard to change. But I think there is a far more likely reason:
It did not happen.
The defense knew the pictures were taken in 2005, when Camila was 15, and they were on the hard drive because Raniere knew it to be true and the lawyers were not willing to put up a false defense.
Yes, I agree with Suneel, it is puzzling that Camila’s photographs were identified by someone who never met her, when they had her sister on the witness stand, who laid the foundation for the pictures being pre-2007, because Daniela knew about an appendectomy scar not found on the pictures.
Yet this failure to insist on best identification was more likely not a defense failure but simple pragmatics. The attorneys for the defense knew that those were Cami’s pictures and did not dispute it because to do so would simply put more focus on it.
Suneel, keep in mind, the man accused of taking the pictures of the child, your glorious Vanguard, was sitting in the courtroom. You know this; you attended every day of the trial. He knew if he took pictures of the child or not.
This comment by Sherizzy says it well: “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 topnotch lawyers would not confirm that it 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.”
Raniere could have handed his attorney a post-it note saying “Those could not be the pictures of this little child. Lord knows I never defiled her.” Or if it was planted evidence, he might have written during the trial, “I took the pics of the little girl, after I raped her, true, but these were planted because I did not leave them at my apartment. After all, I knew I was under investigation.”
As for the notion that FBI Special Agent Mike Weniger, who identified the Cami photos, was unable to properly identify her because he never met Cami, keep in mind he saw plenty of Cami’s photos.
He testified at trial that he saw lots of naked pictures; he also testified he looked at numerous naked pictures of Cami that were taken over the years, up to 2017.
This was not one photoshoot. Raniere was a regular photographer of naked women. He liked to pose them in a certain way, making sure two parts of the anatomy were always visible: the face and vagina.
I’m not so sure he did this for prurient reasons. I think he did it to have blackmail on every woman and child he bedded. [It was the blackmail of the child that ruined him.]
These are not flattering shots, by the way, as I heard them described by Lauren Salzman during the trial –“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,”
A former girlfriend of Raniere, who broke up with him in the 1980s long before he became the Vanguard, before he fudged an IQ test, conned Guinness into his inclusion so he could brag he was the world’s smartest man, and before he imploded Consumers’ Buyline, a woman who calls herself “L”, tells this story about the origin of this photo perversity:
It is my suspicion that the reason the FBI uncovered the Cami photos 11 months after they seized the hard drive is that agents had seen so many photos; they did not know all the players. They saw the photos in the studies folder – and recognized that these were not DOS collateral photos from 2015 and later, but photos of the old harem and – it’s just a guess – they thought they were legal and not coerced.
They did not study the “studies” folder carefully until later, when they learned more about the case and about Cami. Then they took another look and realized that though Cami was a longtime harem member, she was the youngest of the old group and, possibly from interviews with Daniela or Kristin Keeffe, the light bulb went off – at the time of these pictures, Cami was underage.
Let me prove it.
Even if you had never met him, would you be able to identify him in the following picture?
How about this one when he was perhaps about age 15?
To further prove my point, pick out which of the four people pictured below is Suneel.
Let’s do it again – which of these five is Suneel?
Again:
Even reasonable artistic likenesses are easily spotted. Which one is Suneel?
MK10Art’s painting of Suneel
s
In Conclusion
Finally, I think somewhere deep inside, Suneel, you know the rascal raped Cami when she was 15.
L wrote something you might pay attention to: “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 naïve virgins are so much easier to bamboozle.
“I was one of those naïve 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 timeframe with her discovery of his physical relationship with her underage sister.
“What an icon of humanity and nobility you follow, Suneel.”
So, Suneel, aspersions aside, what you have to do now is prove the photos were planted on the hard drive, or the hard drive wasn’t at 8 Hale Drive, or the photos of Cami were taken when she was 18 or older.
If not, your blessed Vanguard is lost. Long after you’re no longer a boy, and you come of age, in a decade or so, your Vanguard will still be in prison, for his family has longevity, and there he will live the rest of his life.
[…] in your recent post, once again it’s ad hominem ad infinitum. What I am concerned in this debate with you is not […]
[…] in your recent post, once again it’s ad hominem ad infinitum. What I am concerned in this debate with you is not […]
[…] in your recent post, once again it’s ad hominem ad […]
Suneel-
You’re so ugly — you make vomit want to puke.
RE Suneel’s Photo Tampering Claim:
Anyone, who pities Suneel, and his latest BS claim, should remember one thing.
Once Suneel exhausted all his arguments defending Raniere, Suneel lashed out at Cami by attempting to humiliate and embarrass her. Suneel referred to Cami by the sick nickname Raniere (her rapist) called her by,
“Camel Toe”.
********************************************************
To Suneel:
Suneel you’re a women-hating sack of shit. Why else would you go out of your way to publicly humiliate a woman?
Even if you believe she is lying, why would you go down to the other side’s level?
No one else from the DOSsier Project or Make Justice Blind has publicly said anything so crass as you’ve done.
You showed your true colors….
Yuh, green freakish alien — Sunalien 👽
NiceGuy, that was perfect!
And OMG, I can’t believe they finally made a Suneel emoji! 👽
Also, did anyone else notice that both Suneel and Nicki seem to be spending a lot of time in Florida. Are they shacking up with Linda Chung?
Suneel is in Florida?
Suneel is a native of Florida. He was born and raised in Florida. It is his home state.
Ohhh. Okay. Suneel is a Florida man. Got it
RE SUNEEL & NICKI:
And here I thought Suneel and Nicki broke up……
I’m ecstatic for Nicki’s! She is still milking him and can live a better lifestyle. It’s not every gal that can bang an ugly dude for a roof overhead and a modest allowance.
It works out for Suneel too! It’d be far more expensive to pay hookers for sex.
***
God bless, Sunneelien! 👽🛸
Thank you!
Sarasota, FL is the new Abany
Frank, maybe this is a petty point but I think it would be better if when you have a headline about someone raping someone if you put a picture of the person who committed the rape instead of the poor victim. The person who committed that ugly act deserves to have their image associated with that ugly word more than the victim.
Game, set and match – great read, and loved the analogies!
Frank Parlato: Gets a lot of ass.
Suneel Chakravorty: Wipes a lot of Bronfman ass.
Winner: Frank
🤣
Frank, if this were in court, you would be granted summary judgment. No reasonable fact finder would agree with Suneel.
The only thing Suneel could beat you at is wiping Clare’s dirty behind. I heard he was good at that.
Frank, good response and article. You answered his queries from a logical viewpoint. FR needs to stay away from emotion, speculation and conjecture, as you have mostly done here. Focusing on facts, logical deduction and unemotional response to others is a good wheelhouse to live in.
In all his posts so far, Suneel has never advanced any credible ‘evidence’ (or even theory) about WHY the prosecution and the FBI supposedly colluded to bring down KR (Could be I missed it; my eyes are usually glazed by a quarter of the way through every Suneel post).
KR was just a regular Joe teaching self-help and just happened to be the world’s smartest man, law abiding and with high ethics and morals, was he not? There has been talk from other quarters that ‘unknowns’ and ‘haters’ were at work, notably Mr. Bronfman senior.
Mr. B I can believe: any father would try and intervene when he sees his daughters squandering his money on some ‘guru’. But he’s gone – he died long before KR was even arrested so unless he had the gift of foresight and his influence reaches from beyond the grave, we’ll have to rule him out. So, who had enough clout to influence both the prosecution and the FBI?
And why? Over to you, Suneel.
We’re all settling in for a good bedtime story. Make it exciting. Make it credible. Keep us on the edge of our seat (as opposed to sending us to sleep.) Name names; after all, you’ve all been willing and eager to name the Jane & Joe Does, in the spirit of justice and ethics and teaching them ‘responsibility’, of course.
Here are some headings to get you started: WHO, WHAT, WHY, WHEN and HOW, the cornerstones of investigation and (good) journalism and even believable creative writing.
Just imagine you’re talking to Judge Judy; if it will pass muster with her, you have something, but don’t piss on our shoes and tell us it’s raining (and KR doesn’t get wet in the shower).
Crap Miss posted
Re Suneel:
After this latest series of articles written by Frank to Suneel — if Suneel doesn’t get by now, he never will.
I feel Suneel must not have had a very high opinion of women to begin with, because how else can he disbelieve the words of so many women.
At one time, I felt bad for Suneel, and I actually didn’t ridicule him as I do now. Over time I’ve come to realize Suneel is not a good person whatever.
Your hope for Suneel is that he will realize what Keith is, and move on. It does not look like that will happen anytime soon.
You know? I kinda feel a little bit bad for Suneel. I don’t blame him for questioning what’s happened but to go so far as suggesting that the pictures of Cami might have been pictures of someone else suggests to me that he might be losing touch with reality.
Frank makes a interesting point about the robber investigating the robbery. It’s possible. Things like this have happened but that’s also why society has evolved concepts like segregation of duties, internal controls, dual role, multiple relationships, etc. I’m sure an organization like the FBI is subject to such governance policies and corresponding audits. The amount of collusion that would be required for the FBI to execute such a plot just doesn’t make sense. It also doesn’t make sense that they could completely misidentify Camila.
What does make sense is that keith was actually found in possession of naked pictures that he took of Cami when she was only 15 years old. A girl very well known to him since she was 13.
Furthermore, Keith was in a teacher/student relationship with Camila, since she was 13 years old. His actions represent sexual misconduct, whether she was of legal age or not.
I cannot say that I feel bad for Suneel, but I do hope his head clears. He has given Keith so much power that Suneel’s will is not his own. Of course, Suneel can take that power back whenever he wishes. This is how Keith manipulated people; convinced them to surrender their own power.
There is nothing wrong with Suneel questioning, but that is not what he is doing. He is repeating lies, in an attempt to convince himself. Suneel may have realized the truth, but it is obvious that he has not accepted it. The lies he repeats are becoming more outrageous, so Suneel may be waking up. At some point, he is going to run out of lies, and that day is not going to be pretty for Suneel.
Suneel’s posts here seem like a demand to believe him, especially that Frank believe him.
But Suneel is mostly trying to convince himself, not the audience.
Suneel is an extremely strong person, just like his supporters Nicki Clyne and Alanzo.
They are able to stand up for their unpopular views under the avalanche of tribal hatred they face every day.
Those who condemn them should remember that Galileo was similarly condemned, but now we know just how right he was.
Truth is not a popularity contest, but, ultimately, the truth is always fair even when most people are not.
Meh. Not logical at all.
An unpopular view doesn’t equal a groundbreaking or even an important view.
No one claimed that an unpopular view equals something groundbreaking.
Your claim is a logical fallacy called a straw man.
So are you claiming that only popular views are important or true? Because that would be another logical fallacy.
Do you even know which one?
Alanzo
Hey Ex,
Where you’ve been?
It might be a coincidence, but every time Alonzo takes his meds, you disappear.
On Feb. 26 at 2:23 AM, Frank posted his acceptance of Chakravorty’s challenge, with this stipulation:
“It is time now, Suneel, to put up or shut up. If you cannot deliver some evidence within the next 48 hours of tampering, I am shutting down this challenge for all it is doing is hurting victims.”
Chakravorty responded just under the wire late on the 27th. He presented no evidence of tampering, just another one of his ridiculous unfounded allegations. More unhinged speculation. No evidence.
So why isn’t this challenge shut down?
Why allow him to continue hurting victims?
Chakravorty is never going to produce any evidence. Everyone knows that by now. He has no evidence to produce. There is no evidence, because all his claims are unhinged, have no basis in reality, and are nothing more than the fantasies of a cult loyalist.
His crazed ramblings grow wearisome.
Aristotle’s Overly Emotional Turd wrote:
This is such crap, even for you, AT.
Arguing a point, and providing evidence that supports it is not, and never will be, ‘hurting victims’.
Once again, you prove yourself unfit to wear Aristotle’s soiled underpants.
Alanzo
You’re unfit to even wear Karen De La Carriere’s pants. Why are you so mad at her success that you feel the need to support the DOS dead-enders?
Alanzo-
Do you regret selling your Scientology book collection for a paltry $400 and change?
Currently a modest collection of Scientology modules and books can sell for over $6,000. You could still make money. Do you have any proprietary training materials or tech left that you’d like to sell? Thanks!
Check it out!!!!!!!
https://www.ebay.com/itm/294833643506
Wow.
If a person knows that Scientology is responsible for murder (as he has opined), why would you then sell the books and materials to further participate in perpetrating a criminal scam?!
And for just a few hundred bucks? Whoa.
Disgusting.
Burn them. End the cycle of fraud.
Alonzo needs cash!
How do we know we’re dealing with the real Suneel? He looks like a more humanized form of one of those aliens from Area 51. Perhaps the smartest and most ethical man in the world has made contact with aliens and replaced the real Suneel — who is now dead — with this imposter from Planet NXI4M in the Vangwardian Galaxy?
Uhh, Suneel, it IS okay to cry uncle. If you walk away without flailing at strike three, you may get to salvage a small dash of your squandered dignity.
Yes! I think it should be considered an honor to get a duel with Frank. He’s quite the guy!
Hi Frank –
I’m asking what I hope you’ll receive as a fair question – since the truth is always fair, right?
It’s been reported that you are presently negotiating a plea deal over your federal indictments.
How much value do your prosecutors assign to blog posts like this on the Frank Report in your plea negotiations?
Alanzo
That requires a full post and time to write it. If I find the time I will answer it.
More questions for other people.
But still won’t answer just one himself.
Why did you have, “personal interactions” with Neil Glazer?
Thank you.
The theory of the FBI or anyone manufacturing false child porn of Cami falls apart because of all the supporting evidence. Including Keith Raniere’s own words.
This ridiculous evidence tampering garbage only highlights ALL of the existing supporting evidence. Which even schmiel has not contested.
In order for the FBI to decide to plant a photo of an underage Camila, they would first have to have knowledge of all the surrounding evidence that exists to support their claim of Raniere sexually exploiting an underage Camila. Evidence that abounds abundantly to support Camila’s statements.
In other words, the FBI would need to know the truth.
Keith began abusing Camila sexually when she was a minor child.
Or why not plant someone else’s photo? Or lots of other photos?
Even if a cult dead-ender wants to play pretend about the child porn photos being planted or allegedly accessed in custody – that does not dismiss the reality of so much other evidence of minor Camila and 45-year-old child predator Keith Raniere having criminal sexual contact.
The cult loyalists would have to believe that Keith Raniere himself lied about having sex with Camila at 15.
It is not that Suneel and the cult loyalists do not believe Camila was sexually exploited as a child. They know that she was abused.
They. Do. Not. Care.
And they lack the cajones to say it publicly