The Daily Mail published the fullest account in mainstream news to date on Keith Raniere’s allegations that the FBI tampered with child porn evidence to win the case.
Frank Report broke this story originally.
Josh Boswell wrote the Daily Mail story.
The link to the Daily Mail article.
There are three new video interviews – FBI forensic expert Dr. J. Richard Kiper, Nicki Clyne and Suneel Chakravorty. The latter is Raniere’s power of attorney and coordinates his legal team.
The Raniere team points to a conspiracy of not only the FBI, but also with one of Raniere’s former lovers, Daniela.
This was published in the Daily Mail about Daniela.
The Daily Mail’s summary of main points in the story:
- Forensics experts hired by Keith Raniere shared new photos and files exclusively with DailyMail.com, claiming FBI agents planted child porn used to convict himÂ
- Raniere, the leader of notorious sex cult NXIVM, was already on trial for running a ring of ‘sex slaves’ in March 2019, when he was hit with child porn chargesÂ
- Investigators alleged they found nude images of a 15-year-old with whom the cult leader had a sexual relationship on Raniere’s camera and backup hard drive
- But in their own analysis of the evidence, Raniere’s team point to alleged inconsistencies and say some photos were backdated or altered on Photoshop
- Former FBI cyber forensics expert Richard Kiper told DailyMail.com the camera was made in 2004, but some of the timestamps the photos were from 2003
- Raniere’s team also singled FBI forensic expert Brian Booth falsely claimed to jurors a photo’s ‘EXIF data’ is hard to manipulate  Â
- ‘I taught my grandson how to do this within a minute,’ said Kiper, adding that there’s ‘really no excuse’ for a senior forensic examiner to represent that to a jury
[From the Daily Mail story]
Sex cult leader Keith Raniere’s legal team is accusing FBI forensics experts of not being truthful and have claimed photo evidence of child porn used to convict him was photoshopped….
In an interview with DailyMail.com, a top former FBI cyber forensics expert hired by Raniere’s attorneys believes there were bungled procedures, manipulation of evidence and even an apparent effort to ‘frame’ the cult leader for his child sex conviction.
They found naked images of a 15-year-old with whom the cult leader had a sexual relationship on Raniere’s DSLR camera and backup external hard drive.
[Ed. Note: The FBI did not find Camila’s pictures on the camera or camera card. They said they found them on the hard drive.]
Prosecutors were able to prove the girl was underage by the timestamps on the photos.
Raniere’s three cyber forensic experts say the files on the camera’s memory card and the external hard drive appear to have been deliberately backdated…
Richard Kiper, who used to train the trainers of FBI cyber forensics experts before he retired in 2019, told DailyMail.com that the Canon camera was made in 2004, but the timestamps on some of the photos were from 2003.
Kiper also claimed that metadata on one of the photos shows it was manipulated in Adobe Photoshop.
Other disturbing inconsistencies highlighted in a forensics report he wrote for Raniere’s legal team include:
- The FBI conducted two forensic studies of the Raniere camera card but in the second study…. 37 photos had been added.
- The preview image for one of the photos on the camera card was a blonde woman, but the same file on the hard drive backup was a brunette, suggesting manual manipulation of the material.
- Metadata said, impossibly, some of the photos were edited before they were supposedly taken.
- While in the custody of the FBI, someone accessed the camera card without proper protections leading to dates on files being altered.
- Files on the hard drive were made to look like they were created in an automatic backup in 2009, but were in fact manually arranged and backdated, according to the report.
… Camila, testified that Raniere met her age 13, and photographed her nude and had sex with her at 15, when he was 45….
Their report points to alleged ‘anomalies with the FBI search’… [of] Raniere’s study at a home in Halfmoon, New York in March 2018.
They claim that investigators ‘bypassed’ several areas of the home and went ‘straight to a study area where, under a desk, were the very first two evidentiary items they collected: the Canon digital camera along with its camera card.’
Those two items were, ‘notably,’ the ‘only two pieces of digital evidence the government used to prove the child pornography and child exploitation RICO acts, which would stem from an allegedly accidental discovery of photos eleven months later,’ the report states.
They also singled out one FBI forensic expert, Brian Booth.
Booth told the jury that information in photo files called ‘EXIF data’, which includes creation dates, were hard to change and so the dates of the photos could be relied on.
In fact, according to Kiper: ‘I taught my grandson how to do this within a minute. Not even using a special tool, just using Windows features.’…
Booth, who conducted the prosecution’s second analysis of the camera card and hard drive in June 2019, admitted during the trial that he received the card in an unsealed evidence bag and there was an incomplete chain of custody log.
Kiper said this was a severe violation of FBI evidence handling rules, but Booth told the jury that receiving unsealed evidence was not unusual ….
The first forensic examination in April 2019 was by FBI Senior Forensic Examiner Stephen Flatley, who was then sent overseas to Ghana, preventing him from testifying, the report said….
Chakravorty told DailyMail.com… that Flatley had testified in another case that EXIF data was unreliable, contrary to Booth’s claims in court.
‘During one of the most high-profile trials of his career, the US vs Raniere… he has to go to Ghana,…’ Chakravorty said. ‘It’s very odd to me that it just so happened that the guy they scurried out of the country had a completely opposite view of the [EXIF] metadata.’
Kiper told DailyMail.com that one FBI agent, Michael Lever, allegedly broke protocol by taking the camera and card out of the evidence locker twice for a total 24 days in September 2018, before the Bureau conducted its forensic analysis.
Kiper’s report… claims that while Lever had the card, it was accessed without proper protections and some files were altered as a result….
[Clare Bronfman’s]Â lawyer, Duncan Levin, said the evidence of tampering by the FBI was cause to throw out all the NXIVM convictions.
‘Society cannot live in a world where law enforcement is tampering with evidence,’ he said.
‘If these allegations are true, it means that all of the defendants in the case should have all of the charges thrown out. There should be no opportunity for a do-over for the government.’
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
[…] should be a statement in the Daily Mail story that Nicki Clyne is currently a defendant in an ongoing civil lawsuit connected to both DOS and […]
There should be a statement in the Daily Mail piece that Nicki Clyne is currently a defendant in an ongoing civil lawsuit that is connected to both Dos and Nxivm.
It’s shady not to disclose that information upfront and through out.
The viewer should be fully informed what the true motives and stakes are for the person making a testimonial video
It colors the narrative very differently. And for Nicki and this publication to chose to exclude that very pertinent fact is problematic.
Full disclosure, transparency and all the very relevant facts are vital for a true and reliable narrative in reporting..
Even one-sided opinion pieces skewed like this one toward the cult and Keith’s view benefit from at least the appearance of honesty.
Agreed Lois, under the condition that the publication also mentions that the two lead plaintiffs who are suing her were high ranking officers and center owners in the organization, who held considerable rank and made substantial incomes off the backs of unsuspecting students/clients.
Who actively performed unsanctioned medical and therapeutic acts, such as performing NLP/EMs without a license or any credentials. Things that they’re suing Nicki and Danielle for, things that neither defendant actually did, but that the two lead plaintiffs themselves did.
After all, we want to be transparent.
Pretty much everyone in the Nxivm Cult. Upper ranks performed “unlicensed therapeutic acts.” Whatever the f*** that phrase means.
And the whole ESP coach line etc should all be held accountable for it.
As far as unsanctioned “medical acts” that was just Danielle and Brandon. And they have been held accountable for it. which is excellent
Would also like to see all the people who gave unlicensed extreme nutritional restrictions, sleep deprivation and other things that you should never do without being under a doctor supervision held accountable.
When the people who trusted you with their health are losing their hair, unable to get out if bed in the their early 20’s, not getting their period anymore, contracting HPV because of blackmailed orders you have given them to be sexually assaulted by your shared boyfriend… The they’re definitely needs to be serious consequences.
If you walked into a Jenny Craig and they put you on a 500 calorie diet a day and made you take photographs and ask permission before you ate anything there could be a serious lawsuit.
But those Jenny Craig people don’t have, the deed to your house, the power to blackmail you through pornographic materials and forced fake confessions about your loved ones.
Nor does Jenny Craig have the power to blackmail you into having sex with a disease-ridden man against your will.
But trust and believe if Jenny Craig was even suggesting that people restrict their diets so severely and sleep depriving them without intense doctor’s supervision there would be a class action lawsuit like you’ve never seen.
But agree all the unlicensed therapists who caused psychological damage in Nxivm should be held accountable. Get them all.
Still waiting for a word from Kevin on why Warner Brothers and the producers of Smallville were having a teenager look at dick pics on the job?
Exactly.
It’s amazing how blind people are to this craziness. Their hatred and self righteous vengeance makes them unable to see the facts in this case. They just want someone punished, whether they deserve it or not.
Hopefully the judge can see the facts here and throw out the lawsuit.
I wonder if the judge believes in the superstition of “brainwashing” like Judgy G did…
Alanzo
Frank, I have a question about the photo that was altered by Adobe software.
What was the exact file size before the EXIF data was altered (the camera card should have this data)?
What was the exact file size after the EXIF data was altered?
The FBI said that somebody merely ‘accessed’ the file using Adobe (implying they never re-saved or overwrote the original file).
But, if the file size has changed, then they obviously did more than just access the file.
Why isn’t Suneel making a bigger deal about the file size being changed?
You cannot legally re-save and overwrite an ORIGINAL evidence photo —- that’s the same as destroying the original evidence, if that really happened.
Did that happen? Just curious.
Just to clarify my question for Suneel…
I was asking if the FBI really ‘re-saved” and ‘overwrote’ an ORIGINAL evidence file of a photo?
Does Suneel have proof that the file size was changed?
Even if no modifications were made to the photo, the act of re-saving a JPEG file will compress it slightly differently from the original —- which would render it a non-original file and make it useless for evidence in a trial.
If the FBI really did that, that’s outrageous.
Why didn’t the FBI simply use a copy of the original file, rather than the original file itself?
Jeeze. Even when I’m editing my own photos —- I always choose to open up ‘copies’ of photos, just to ensure that I don’t accidentally destroy/corrupt the original photo.
Has Suneel confirmed that Adobe’s software can never modify the ‘creator’ all by itself, without also modifying the ‘modification’ date within the EXIF data? Is that beyond the realm of possibility?
While I’m starting to believe Suneel’s side of the story —- he’s leaving too many things hidden. I’m just not 100% sure that the government can’t easily explain Kiper’s allegations with rational explanations.
For example… If the government can demonstrate that Adobe’s software will, under certain circumstances, edit the ‘creator’ (EXIF DATA) without also overwriting the ‘modified’ date — then Suneel’s team will be up shit creek if that happens.
Suneel will have to prove that this is impossible. Has he contacted Adobe to verify that this is impossible?
— Even if no modifications were made to the photo, the act of re-saving a JPEG file will compress it slightly differently from the original
No it wouldn’t. Only recompressing it again as a JPEG and then saving the file would. Copied files are exact duplicates of data bit by bit with only OS file created and accessed times different, and all non-buggy, commercially well known software, e.g., Photoshop, won’t save a file again unless it has been modified (and marked dirty) in some way.
Nicki’s comment re the Daily Mail article on her locals account:
Read the rest here: https://nickiclyne.locals.com/post/2736481/daily-mail-interview
Allen we hope you enjoyed this Summer.
https://youtu.be/JsntlJZ9h1U
Fall is at hand.
https://fun.quizs.me/topic/44124?lang=en
Blah, blah, blah…..
You’ll never truly be in with Nicki and the rest of the NX’ers.
The best you can hope for is to be the next Kathy Russell.
The Daily Mail is what the Brits call “gutter press”. Let’s look at what today’s lead story was in this rag:
“EXCLUSIVE: Margot Robbie looks VERY distressed hours after leaving friend Cara Delevingne’s house – just one week after her Suicide Squad co-star’s erratic airport behavior sparked concerns for her health”
The article features 10 embarrassing clandestine telephoto paparazzi shots of the actress sniveling, some printed more that once. It’s highlighted with a series of breathless bullet points:
* The Oscar-nominated star was seen clearly distressed as she left her home bound for LAX…
* It follows a series of erratic appearances that have sparked heath concerns for Delevingne…
* Last week, she appeared disheveled and jittery prior to boarding Jay-Z’s private jet in LA- which never took off…
* On Monday, Delevingne was a no-show at an event celebrating the launch of her own fashion collection…
* The model and actress also did not show at the Emmy Awards alongside her Only Murders in the Building stars
* Days before her airport incident, she was seen sitting alone in a parked car smoking a pipe of some kindÂ
* Sources told DailyMail.com that she spent days partying at Burning Man without eating or bathing…
And on and on.
The upshot of all this is that someone you don’t know is possibly upset about someone else you don’t know possibly having a nervous breakdown. This is posited as international news and the stuff of banner headlines. The Daily Mail is a rag, a scandal sheet, and the fact that they deem a story fit to print is a fairly good indicator that the story is trivial, stupid, and not worth wasting your time over.
The reason I cite all this is because a lot of what the Daily Mail and its ilk prints [posts] is attention-grabbing nonsense designed to enflame rather than enlighten. No wonder this rag ran Chakravorty’s delusional, inflammatory accusations of a government plot. It’s grist to their mill. Clickbait to pad out today’s issue.
The editors of papers like this don’t care a fig whether the trash they print is true or not. They only care that the wording is such that they can’t be sued. That’s why it’s all written as innuendo and supposition or someone else’s opinion.
Other than that, the more lurid and outrageous the story is, the better.
So don’t be fooled into thinking that a mainstream news outlet has endorsed Chakravorty’s loony theories. This isn’t a mainstream news outlet and even they didn’t endorse it. Notice that they’re careful to present it as just the opinion of these dead ender clowns.
And we already knew all that.
Aristotle is correct!👍🏼
Here’s how it goes in Blighty Aristotle:
“The Daily Mail is read by people who think they run the country-
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country-
The Times is read by people who actually do run the country-
The Daily Mirror is read by the wives of the people who run the country-
The Financial Times is read by people who OWN the country-
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country-
The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is-
people who read The Sun don’t care who’s running the country as long as she has big tits !!”
– from ‘Yes, Minister’ clip no doubt available on youtube.
Nigel Hawthorne as Sir Humphrey Appleby was fantastic! Now I’ll have to rewatch the series.
NFW, very funny!
Got that wrong, serves me right for typing in my sleep.
“The Mirror is read by people who think they run the country”
“The Mail is read by the wives of people who run the country”
ie: – much focus on what is worn by people who hire photographers to accidently catch them leaving ‘charitable functions’ /falling out of nightclubs/restaurants/ airports/ limo’s/ also, the illnesses/affairs/divorces…all the dirty linen of the above…all captured in what is known as- The Side-bar of Shame…
Its hilarious, but to be fair, it has done some seriously excellent investigative journalism, as in the Stephen Lawrence case.
Try Private Eye – if you really want to know about the UK’s rattlers in the closet.
Private Eye has always been reassuringly dangerous.
Aristotle we may disagree on many things.
The one thing we both can agree is how F’ckin dumb all the NX’ers and Aloonzo are.
You can sell photos to the Daily Mail and you can pay them to to run stories and photos. They are always looking for content and will take it from just about anywhere.
The irony is that Nicki Clyne will complain about the salacious element to the story but that’s the exact reason this rag would be open to running the dead-ender propaganda. The only reason.
Remember the allegedly candid photos of Allison before she went into prison?
You know the ones where Allison’s also looking right into the camera for most of the shots?
Those weren’t taken in Hollywood or any place where there’s paparazzi.
They were taken in a low-key part of Long Beach. Not a common spot for random photographers to be waiting for the exact moment that Allison Mack appears in a cute sundress with her ankle monitor conveniently covered by boots holding her new boyfriend’s hand right before she’s going to go into prison.
That was one of the least successful attempts at “oh we just happened to have caught this person out and we just happened to be here right at the exact moment they drove up and got out of the car” photo drops ever seen.
But people seemed to totally accept it as a real organic happenstance all natural. D list celebrity caught in the wild photo shoot.
It was also run in “The Daily Mail”
100% – I wouldn’t use the Daily Mail to wipe my arse
This isn’t the big win that it’s being presented as for Keith or his dead end followers. It’s clearly an opinion piece and two of the videos are from Keith’s devoted dancing in front of prison where the cult leader was being held foolish followers.
The other video is from a paid expert. The entire piece was probably paid for by Claire. And even so the publication does not in any way Express agreement with their views. Based on the feedback the article has received most people are buying it for a second and it reflects really poorly on squeaky and the Alien. All it does is lay out a paid for in full opinion of what may have happened if any kind of alleged tampering claim was to be believed. There is no deep dive into any of it there is no interviewing other parties for a rebuttal. Or clarification even.
It’s sketchy at best. And also doesn’t fully disclose the relationships ethically Nicole should have revealed that she is being civilly sued for her part in the criminal Enterprise. That’s a huge omission. They did not explore the validity of Nicole marrying Allison Mack to obtain immigration status while also publicly declaring that Keith was her romantic partner of 10 years and that she had a lifetime vow and commitment to only be with him.
It’s a puff piece from the side of paid parties and dearly devoted followers. Hopefully there will be a companion piece exploring the other side and showing all of the empirical evidence that Keith did commit all of these crimes for which he was convicted and will spend the rest of his life in sex offender prison. They should also reach out to Rihanna and both Gina’s families. And let people fully understand the history of Keith as a pedophile.
There is also absolutely no proof that if any kind of changes were made to any of the speculative tampered with data that they were made while in FBI custody.It is very plausible that Keith himself screwed around with his camera and Equipment prior to being incarcerated or that these two loyalists did before the FBI took possession. The claims about how the search were carried out are so laughable. Besides the fact that it was a tiny space and those are places that the FBI would routinely look first as opposed to say the bathroom or kitchen. The FBI clearly did have Intel.
Multiple women had to explain where Keith did his pornographic photo shoots and how they were opposed and it was all carried out. That is one of the stupidest claims they make. And one of the things that really points out how desperately the dead Enders are trying to pad what little dubious proof they’ve scraped together. If they had a solid claim of tampering they wouldn’t water it down with all of these speculative and ridiculous inconsequential and non-legal griping about irrelevant and unsubstantiated issues.
Why would they be privy to any reason that an FBI employee or agent had traveled to another area? It’s so stupid to speculate about things that you have no information on.
I have an idea.
Let’s play “Spot the Fed”.
Hey Spooty,
The Frank Report took down a cult less anyone forget.
🎀
The Daily Mail publishes many stories on Cults that other papers in the UK do not carry. They have published two articles on the recent Family Survival Trust report titled “Coercive Control In Cultic Groups In The UK”. This report includes proposed legislative changes to extend the UK Coercive-Control laws to groups.
cf: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11042869/Campaigners-issue-warning-demand-change-law-protect-victims-soaring-cults-Britain.html
cf: https://www.thefamilysurvivaltrust.org/_files/ugd/b17260_69b0d1c7ce134d44b7fe2aab640e567d.pdf
The Daily Mail also faces the ire of groups it exposes:
cf: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10795229/Shame-life-coach-named-child-abuse-victim-Man-branded-disgraceful-sharing-womans-past.html
cf: https://medium.com/lighthouseinternationalgroupdailymail
Whilst the Daily Mail’s editorial stance is not to everyone’s taste it does report on Cults and abusive groups more frequently than other news outlets here in the UK.
“Mainstream news” 🤣
The Daily Mail!
I knew you would comment on that. Good sir. I did look up their stats, and I recall the Daily Mail is the 120th largest media site worldwide and 19th in the UK. Something like 414 million views. I think it qualifies as mainstream.
May I know where you looked that up, please?
https://www.similarweb.com/website/dailymail.co.uk/#overview
I made a mistake: Daily Mail is #3 largest publication in UK. 416 million views in a month.
Dropping knowledge on
Aristotle & Frank:
How do the view counts correlate to the veracity of a news story or the credibility of a news organization?
China’s biggest news website is the Xinhua News Agency.
It has 6 billion views a month.
I love you guys, but you’re both wrong on this one……
I expect better from you gentlemen.
Readership. Is that the only thing that defines what is mainstream media? Because at a certain point The National Enquirer claimed a pretty good readership. A lot of the super popular conspiracy theorists and their sites might be considered popular. But does that make them mainstream? Are people hate reading? It’s like the old Howard Stern comment people who hate him listened longer than people who liked him. Viewership in no way implies explicit agreement with the content.
Thank you sincerely.
My question was what it was….
Not mainstay.
I should’ve worded it better!