Bangkok wrote an impressive story. Raniere’s Rule 33 Motion Has Decent Chance; If It Succeeds, Raniere Goes Free
The story discusses how FBI Forensic Examiner Brian Booth seems to have falsely testified about the reliability of EXIF data, the sole evidence used to date Camila photos, and convict Raniere of predicate RICO acts of possession of child porn and sexual exploitation of a minor.
The EXIF data dates were the evidence that the photos were taken in 2005, when Camila was 15.
Bangkok made a point, strengthening a story I broke in the FR months ago.
FBI Forensic Examiner Stephen Flatley was taken off the case mid-trial because, the DOJ prosecutor told Judge Garaufis he had to go to Ghana.
FBI FA Flatley had testified at another trial, three years earlier, that EXIF data is not reliable.
In the case against Keith Raniere, with Flatley, purportedly sent to Ghana, the DOJ called Forensic Examiner Brian Booth, who testified that EXIF data is reliable.
According to FBI records, Flatley was in NYC until June 2019, one month after the Raniere trial began. When did Flatley get assigned to Ghana? Did he go?
Just prior to his testifying, Booth ma
de a second forensic FTK report of the camera card removed from Raniere’s camera.
Flatley had made an FTK report months before. Both FTK reports were made from the original camera card.
The second FTK report had 33 digital photograph files that were not on the first report. The camera card, which before, with Flatley’s report, had little to tie it to the hard drive, with Booth’s FTK report, now had more than thirty digital files also found on the hard drive. All the new files had EXIF dates of 2005.
This helped make the case of child porn. Camila was 15 in 2005.
The newer FTK camera card report had some hard to explain files.
For instance, the file names and metadata, including EXIF, of four digital files on the new report of the camera card matched the file names, and metadata [including EXIF data] on the hard drive where the Camila photos were found.
The problem, and it never came out at trial, because it was not known by the defense at the time, is that the files matched in meta data, including EXIF data, but the actual digital photos did not match. On the hard drive, the files were of Daniela. The same files on the camera card with their matching EXIF data, were photos of Angel.
Whether Raniere sexually abused Camila when she was underage is not under discussion. We are looking at evidence the FBI used to convict Raniere of abusing Camila.
The following is Dr. Kiper position, mostly from an white paper he wrote, and from my interview with him on testimony of FBI Forensic Examiner Brian Booth on the reliability of EXIF data.
EXIF Data and U.S. vs Raniere
By J. Richard Kiper, PhD, PMP
FBI Special Agent (Retired) and Forensic Examiner.
The US DOJ for the EDNY alleged Keith Raniere used a Canon digital camera to take 22 explicit photographs of a female, Camila, when she was 15, saved them to a compact flash camera
card, transferred them to a Dell computer, which was never found.
Then he backed up those photographs to an external hard drive, which was seized by the FBI.
Figure 1: The Government’s narrative regarding alleged contraband found on a “backup” drive.
To DOJ needed to prove two things to demonstrate that Raniere, using the Canon camera created the alleged contraband.
1. The contraband photographs were taken with the camera used by Raniere.
2. The contraband photographs were taken when Camila was legally underage. In 2005, she was 15.
The prosecution relied on information embedded inside the digital photographs, called Exchangeable Image Format (EXIF) data.
A Canon digital camera automatically records how a photo was taken, on what date, and with which camera settings.
This is called EXIF data and is saved into the content portion of a digital photograph file. The EXIF data does not automatically change when the digital photograph is transferred to another device, such as a computer or a hard drive.
The prosecution used the Camila photos’ EXIF data’s creation date, [November 2005] to argue that she was underage in the pictures.
They also showed that the EXIF data of the photos showed the make and model of the camera allegedly used by Raniere and seized from his library.
EOS 20D
How reliable is EXIF data?
According to the FBI’s expert witness, Senior Forensic Examiner William Booth, a photo’s EXIF data is reliable because it is “very hard” to change.
Consider a few of his sworn statements from his testimony. The emphasis is mine:
Question: Is there a particular reason why EXIF data is more
difficult to alter?
Booth: They purposely designed it that way.
Question: Do you know —
Booth: It’s mainly to be able to store information. And they
don’t want data to be moved around and changed, especially time and date information. Those things are very hard for the
consumer to be able to modify, unless you wind up getting
software that’s just developed to do that (p.4820).
Booth: Well, the best reference is the EXIF data because that
gets put into the JPEG file and it’s not easily modifiable and
it moves with the file the same way from device to device, no
matter where you place it. It has nothing to do with the bearing
of a file system at all or the dates and times associated with
it. So it’s on its own, but are created at the same time that
you take the picture (p.4830).
Booth:… But when it comes to photos, they still keep you from
changing dates and times. It’s not easy to change those. You
have to go through special processes to change those things.
(p.4977)
The above are just a few of Booth’s statements about the reliability of EXIF data and how hard it is to modify.
Prosecutor Mark Lesko emphasized Booth’s testimony in his closing argument to the jury:
LESKO: … I’m no expert, don’t get me wrong, but I heard Examiner Booth, just like you did. Exif data is extremely reliable . It’s embedded in the jpeg, in the image itself. And the exif data shows that the data was created on the camera, in this instance, this particular instance, the 150 jpeg on November 2, 2005… (p.5572).
The FBI’s expert witness and the DOJ prosecutor told the jury they could rely on the photo EXIF data to determine Raniere created the alleged contraband with the Canon camera in 2005, because the EXIF data is “extremely reliable” and “very hard” to modify.
Is it true that digital photograph EXIF data is “very hard” to change?
Modifying Photograph EXIF Data
A Google search will enable anyone to find freely-available, simple-to-use tools for editing EXIF data.
One of my favorites, ExifTool, was featured in an article titled, “7 Free Tools to Change Photo’s Exif Data, Remove Metadata and hide dates.
For purposes of the following demonstration on how easy it is to modify EXIF data, I will use a digital photograph from U.S. vs KEITH RANIERE case.
The photograph, with the file name “IMG_0043.JPG,” is a picture of a maple tree. It was found on the “backup” hard drive, in the same studies folder that the alleged contraband photos of Camila were found.
The EXIF data shows it was taken with the same Canon camera around the same time.
In Figure 2 below, the Microsoft Windows details pane (invoked by selecting the “View” tab of any Windows folder) is interpreting the EXIF data of Figure 2.
Windows display of EXIF data for IMG_0043.JPG.
According to the Windows display of EXIF data, this photo was taken on 10/17/2005 with a Canon EOS 20D digital camera.
I verified this information by using the industry standard
ExifTool I mentioned earlier.
Here is how ExifTool interprets the EXIF data:
Figure 3. ExifTool display of EXIF data for IMG_0043.JPG.
How hard is it to change the camera model?
In the Windows folder with the Details Pane enabled, I click the “Camera model” field and type whatever I want.
I changed the camera model to an iPhone XR.
Figure 4. Changing the “Camera model” field in the EXIF data of a photo.
I also changed the Camera maker to Apple.
Then I clicked on the “Date taken” field and set it to the United States Independence Day, July 4, 1776 –246 years ago.
Figure 5. Changing the “Date taken” field in the EXIF data of a photo.
Therefore, a person viewing the file in Windows would now see a photo that was taken by an Apple iPhone XR, in 1776.
Figure 6. Windows display of saved changes in the EXIF data of photo IMG_0043.JPG.
Despite the government’s contention in court, the EXIF data was very easy to change.
At this point, you might be thinking, “That’s fine for the Windows interpretation, but was the EXIF data really modified? or just changed in the Windows on that computer?”
To verify that I changes I made in the Windows folder changed the EXIF data in the file, I opened the file again in ExifTool:
Figure 7. ExifTool display of saved changes in the EXIF data of photo IMG_0043.JPG, showed the EXIF data was changed to an Apple I phone and July 4, 1776.
The next question one might ask is: “What about a forensic tool?
Would a digital forensic tool verify these changes in the EXIF portion of the file?”
ExifTool is a forensic tool, although it is in the public domain.
But to put to rest any doubts about whether the EXIF data was changed and would not be detected as changed, I viewed the photo in the FBI-approved digital forensic tool, AccessData’s FTK Imager.
In Figure 8 below, I imported IMG_0043.JPG and used the Hex viewer to read the raw EXIF data.
All the EXIF changes I made were readily visible, and there were no traces to indicate that I or anyone else had ever made those changes.
Figure 8. FTK Imager display of saved changes in the EXIF data of photo IMG_0043.JPG.
Conclusion
What does this mean?
It means the government misled the jury about EXIF data. They used that misleading information to to convict Keith Raniere.
I could have used many other freely available tools to modify the EXIF data that the government claimed was “extremely reliable” and “very hard” to modify.
Instead, I did not even have to use software. I simply used the built-in features of Windows on my computer to modify the EXIF data of an actual digital photographs produced by the government at trial.
I verified those changes in three different ways.
Anyone can reproduce what I demonstrated in this article, using any digital photograph.
Modifying EXIF data requires none of the “software” or “special
processes” claimed by FBI examiner Booth, nor is it “very hard” to modify, as he claimed in sworn testimony.
It is unclear to me why a Senior Forensic Examiner of his caliber would have made those false statements under oath.
Implications
Why would the FBI’s star witness, the digital forensic examiner, swear under oath that EXIF data cannot be easily modified? And why would he make such false statements multiple times during
his testimony?
The prosecution needed the jury to believe that EXIF data could not be easily modified because it was the only piece of digital information that supported the narrative that the photos on the
hard drive allegedly belonging to Raniere were of an underage subject.
If the prosecution told the truth – that EXIF data can be easily modified with no special skills or tools – the jury may have reasonably doubted the reliability of the dates as evidence of a crime.
It is a miscarriage of justice for the prosecution (and the jury) to have relied on the authenticity of EXIF data to prove creation dates and the origin of digital photographs.
If the government could blatantly mislead a jury about something so easy to disprove, it leaves me to ponder: What else were they lying about?
EXIF Data!
EXIF Data!
EXIF Data!
“What is a meaningless point?”
(Johnny Carson, circa 1979, as Carnac the Magnificent)
https://youtu.be/iuT0Aj70Ekg
Why is Bangcock leaving FR until summer?
1. Mommy can’t afford to pay the internet bill and daddy has summer custody.
2. Eurailing from Green14 to Green14.
3. Greyhound to Smallbany. Steal a poodle. Find a dog groomer.
4. He’ll be too busy volunteering at Swing Left.
5. Being incorruptible_bk is taking up all his time.
6. He’ll finally be giving undivided attention to his Star Wars origami kit and Harry Potter crochet book.
7. He’ll be spending the next 90 days explaining to his rehab buddies that Raniere got 120 for taking a pic of a 15 yr old.
8. He’ll be making the juvie boys happy cause they’ll have a little runt to beat the shit out of.
9. He’s a Swiftie and if he doesn’t follow her around on this tour, when will he ever the get the chance again???
10.. It’s another needless lie. He’ll be regulary posting and trying to get a reaction from gullible FR readers.
I go with number 3, he’s finally going to make contact with his infatuation
I figured he spends months at a time in Alaska commercial deep sea fishing where he has a job as the lowest peckerwood on the boat. Can you imagine being stuck on a boat with Bangkok for months at a time? But I think he’s probably too much of a pussy for that and the crew would probably kill him. So if not that, then I agree with Natashka and #3.
NutJob-
LMFAO!!!!
Awesome list!
I needed some laughs on this Monday night.
Thanks buddy!
Awesome list!
Nutjob’s lists are the business – 10/10 (and its probs 10.)
but If 2 bring a gillie suit for certain parts of europe, and any ground to air missiles you have hanging around.
Definitely number 3!
I am not Nice Guy.
11. Daddy and Mommy have joint custody and it’s
Disciplinarian Daddy’s turn.
Some people like a good spanking.
Suneel if you read this please know I still believe you to be an Alien and an ugly-ass-fuck. Will you take me to your leader?
Frank-
I mentioned the whole thing with the Hex Editor early on (2 years ago) on the Frank Report and you ignored me. I explained why Kiper is a liar. You brushed me off as a shit collector.
Now as of late the HexEditor comes into play.…LOL
Please let me know when this group of pseudo-quasi-techies actually know WTF they’re talking about. LOL!
Kipper is full of dogshit. I should know—I collect it.
+**
In addition to Aloonzo being a tech expert – it looks like Captain Combat Luthmann is weighing in and accusing the government of malevolence. LOL
Allegedly Luthmann literally spray painted or coated scrap metal to sell it as copper?!?
I digress…..
Have a great night and cook some pastries or something sweet and mail it to me. Please!
You’ve got my address ship it COD.
Did you hear Bangkok is going away?
Frank-
Every year Bang does this to us….
He’s a little dick.
After 5 years you’d think he’d explain himself(herself).
Bangkok is 27. WTF?
>> Those things are very hard for the consumer to be able to modify, unless you wind up getting software that’s just developed to do that.”
In other words Booth didn’t lie as the deadenders claim. In fact, he told the truth in specific detail.
Even if we play devil’s advocate and accept the notion that EXIF metadata is “easy” to change, the problem is the deadenders want us to believe that this capability to “easily” change metadata means that it WAS changed by the FBI, which they haven’t proven one bit. In fact, the article implies that such a change CANNOT be detected and so now effectively constrains the argument to rest on ignorance:
>>But to put to rest any doubts about whether the EXIF data was changed and would not be detected as changed…and there were no traces to indicate that I or anyone else had ever made those changes.
In other words, the author wants to project the corrupt and fraudulent attributes of Vanguard onto the FBI and have us all just believe without evidence (because there can be none according to the above) that the FBI used software to tamper with the evidence and convict him instead of believing the more likely scenario that he took the pictures based on all of the other evidence submitted to court which went towards proving an established pattern of behavior.
>> Instead, I did not even have to use software. I simply used the built-in features of Windows on my computer to modify the EXIF data of an actual digital photographs produced by the government at trial…Modifying EXIF data requires none of the “software” or “special processes” claimed by FBI examiner Booth, nor is it “very hard” to modify, as he claimed in sworn testimony.
ROFLMAO. What do you think a “built-in” features of Windows is? Magic. It’s software. Using a built-in hex editor isn’t something a general “consumer” would normally do. It’s something someone with actual computer science knowledge and experience would know because it requires understanding things like binary and hexadecimal data.
Q.E.D.
It’s very hard to modify the data, unless you have specific software.
That’s like saying it’s very hard to breathe unless you have access to oxygen.
Windows is everywhere! The software is part of Windows. It’s probably right next to solitaire.
If the Government has to lie and mislead, it means either they had a weak case, dishonest FBI Agents and Federal Prosecutors, or both.
>> That’s like saying it’s very hard to breathe unless you have access to oxygen.
Not at all. Booth was talking about it from the regular Joe consumer perspective. It’s not like a text document you can open up and quickly edit in Notepad or some property dialog in Windows, especially when it comes to the example of a bit editor. Your average consumer doesn’t know anything about encoding of data on computer hardware. You can’t breathe at all without oxygen, but you can change data on a hard drive with a bit editor, and that isn’t specialized software to specifically change EXIF metadata through a GUI. A bit editor can change any type of data, and that is not easy for a regular Joe consumer to do to an EXIF image without understanding that bit encoding and the structural format of the file.
But what does it matter? Who was Booth confirming the reliability of the data “against” during the trial? There was no claim the FBI (or anyone at all for that matter) tampered with the data. Booth didn’t tell any lies, and the defense already got him to admit that the metadata date can’t be 100% certain to introduce doubt, so there’s nothing that can be appealed here.
This post facto Hail Mary attempt to claim Booth committed perjury won’t hold up at all, and the claim the FBI tampered based on nothing but the fact that EXIF data can be “easily” changed with software has even a less of a chance of succeeding.
Richard – I don’t understand though why keith’s defense didn’t provide their own rebuttal witness to this during the trial? Isn’t this something they would have known from discovery that Booth was going to testify to? Why didn’t his attorneys challenge this testimony then?
I’m not attorney I don’t know how all that works. What would you have done if you were leading his defense and knew you had access to unlimited funds to get any witness you want to say whatever you want?
Suneel claimed to be at the trial. He is competent on a computer. Why didn’t he automatically think that Booth was talking BS and speak with Reniere’s attorney’s that he lied on the stand about it being easy to change? Because these tampering charges are BS. The whole thing was plotted after he was found guilty. Booth’s testimony mattered not one iota to Suneel at the time. Why? When he is so competent in such matters. That’s the problem with narcissists, they try fill your head with fantasy and some will fall for it. Suneel scored brownie points with his plan and got promoted to Power of Attorney because of it and Suneel, I guarantee, feels very very special for the first time in his life.
Its there if you know where to find it and easy to use if you’ve used it before or someones there to tell you how to do it
The Mighty Van Halen-
I agree with you 100%!
Hopefully the Luddite Bing’Bongs and conspiracy fanboys will read your comment.
Thanks!
This is laughable. First, that Bangkok’s post is an “impressive story”.
Well, it sure is a story. Like Hansel and Gretal is a story. It’s a troll post, meant to pull your leg. Like his earlier pro-pedophilia post, it’s meant to get people riled up, raise a stink. Then he sits back and laughs.
If you think Bangkok was serious, go back and read the whole post. All the way to the end. He left tells all over the place. It’s a joke, people.
Raniere’s Rule 33 motion, on the other hand, was made in dead earnest. He and his firebrand lawyer probably do think it stands a good chance. Which makes it even funnier.
That’s an interesting theory. 🙂
I’m not sure that it’s accurate though.
Some of you Bangkok-haters are in luck…
In a couple days, I’ll be traveling far away from my homebase for a long while —- and I probably won’t be posting on FrankReport again until summertime.
In my absence… I am appointing Niceguy to carry on my important work here.
Niceguy was once a solid anti-liberal and I have great hope that he’ll stop kissing the ass of liberals. He’s recently become a RINO and it’s embarrassing.
I implore him to become a legit anti-liberal again. He must stand up to Nutjob and Ice-Nine. He must carry the torch of liberty here, in my absence.
Have a good day. 🙂
Ok Frank, ahem, “Bangkok”, have a nice “trip”
Bangkok-
I’ll miss you. It’s been a long
5 years.
During your time away…..
……Please remember to wear condoms. The World doesn’t need anymore special people in it like yourself.
I bid you farewell.
The question is: does it create a record or timestamp of the modification?????? That is really the l smoking gun, if it exists.
Ug this old chestnut again? It not even if agree or disagree with Kiper, its just well worn ground. If Frank’s timeline from his aborted series is accurate, the card should have never been admitted to begin with because a forensic copy was not made before an agent looked at it, breaking chain of custody of the data. If they planted evidence, yes that should be investigated. The hard drive continues to remain unassailable besides the almighty post it note, hailed in the hallowed halls of justice as the definitive proof of all things. Its not real until there is a post it note on it. Specifically yellow. No other color.
But here is the thing, for the purposes of the trial – this isn’t new evidence. His lawyers should have questioned the evidence at the time and didn’t. They had time to do it, could have demanded more via a delay, but didn’t. Likely because Raniere in his continued display of stupidity, likely ordered them not too. Raniere was likely his own worse enemy in his own trial, something the extent of we will never learn as his lawyers are not allowed to share (unless Raniere compounds his stupid with an appeal claiming incompetent defense).
New evidence means literally new evidence, not re-examining old evidence with new experts. All this talk is irrelevant for purposes of a successful appeal.
It is new evidence and Moira WITHHELD this information for months, providing only days before the trial– that denies Raniere the right for a proper investigation.
The new evidence is that the FBI agent lied regarding data– Why is perjury not an issue? We are supposed to be able to trust those with fidelity, bravery, and integrity. How could they have anticipated lies told by those employed to act with the highest level of expertise and honor.
Nice to know you’re on first name terms with Moira LOL!
Good try, New Trial
A Rule 33 Motion is for new evidence
Evidence has to be turned over by a specific dates so each side has time to examine it before trial.
This wasn’t some TV show “wait a minute,” we have new photos and evidence we pulled out of our rabbit hat.
The charge of child porn, along with others, came out in Superseding Indictment.
Shortly after this, plea deals started happening.
Raniere could, if asked, for a delay at any time for this legal team to work in his defense with any of the evidence turned over.
Raniere knew he had taken those photos. He knew he had taken the pictures for decades. Why try to fight it?
There were plenty of text and email messages to back the evidence of these photos.
Raniere’s legal had hired an expert before the trial.
All and all, this is not new evidence
Too bad you’re bored with blatant injustice– and yes, they need to be written about repeatedly– until justice is served and those who lie, fail to follow the chain of command, and manipulate data are held to account.
VF: “ … It wasn’t the beak in. It was the cover up.”
If “Intelligence” is still playing dirty tricks and if their next trick is World War III, is it too late to expose all the cover-ups?
https://youtu.be/pXE3I2QTGzQ?t=732
_______________
The Seattle Times
July 10, 1991
By John Hinterberger
“… What Liddy didn’t know through all those years was that the break-in, which he supposed was for the purpose of gathering political intelligence, had nothing to do with bugging top Democrats’ strategy.
What he also didn’t know was that the cover-up that toppled the Nixon White House was unnecessary.
The real reason, it now seems – if “Silent Coup” is correct – was that Nixon’s lawyer, John Dean, was hiding an embarrassing personal liaison.
Dean’s wife, Maureen Biner Dean, had been a roommate and close friend of a woman who headed a ring of Washington, D.C., prostitutes. That information was locked inside the DNC office.
“The real ops (operations) officer was Hunt; and his principal, the man who conceived and commanded the Watergate operation, was John Dean. John Mitchell and Richard Nixon had nothing whatsoever to do with it,” Liddy said.
“In other words,” I asked him, “if Nixon had known Dean’s real reasons for the break-in, he would not have protected the `burglars’ and the cover-up would never have happened?”
“That’s exactly correct,” Liddy said. “He would have flushed the whole thing right at the start. Mitchell would not have gone to jail and Richard Nixon would have retained his presidency.”
And had Liddy known that he had been manipulated by Dean and Hunt, he would have broken his Watergate silence and altered the course of history.
Liddy is a flamboyant man, a militarist and an admirer of German fascism. He sees himself as “a good soldier,” appears totally without bitterness, and clearly without remorse.
That “Silent Coup” may clear up some of the mysteries that surrounded the Watergate years gratifies him.
“Why did Hunt not disclose the call-girl connection with John Dean’s wife?” I asked him.
“He was paid off,” Liddy said. “Hunt got almost $200,000 for his silence.”
“And who was `Deep Throat?’ ”
“Al Haig, certainly. `Silent Coup’ documents his connection with (Washington Post reporter Bob) Woodward.”
…
______
“There are animals crashing around in the forest. I can hear them but I can’t see them.”
— Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee
‘If’ was never in a a true story. Nixon lost the presidency because he was a corrupt lying bastard.
The Washington Post
By Stephanie Mansfield
October 24, 1987
“… Maureen Kane, former flight attendant and nice Catholic girl from California, met John Dean while she was working for the National Committee on Marijuana and Drug Abuse. She was the daughter of a diamond setter and had been voted “Best Looking” in high school. People told her she looked like Grace Kelly. “Which I always thought was the greatest compliment.” She was a beautiful single woman, with an upturned nose and California party girl demeanor and a terrific figure. “I was like any young person who liked to have a good time. I had fun.” Barry Goldwater Jr. introduced her to Dean. He was divorced too.
They lived together for a while before bowing to convention and marrying. She was never really a Washington Wife, per se. Shortly after they were married, Watergate broke. But she feels she spent enough time here to observe the species …”
According to Wikipedia, Barry Goldwater “ … belonged to both the York Rite and Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, and was awarded the 33rd degree in the Scottish Rite …”
Maybe Barry Goldwater introduced Maureen Kane to John Dean, for a “honey pot” operation? (See: Whitney Webb’s “One Nation Under Blackmail: The Sordid Union Between Intelligence and Organized Crime that Gave Rise to Jeffrey Epstein Vol. 1 and Vol. 2)
Does anyone know if Maureen Dean (Nee Maureen Elizabeth Kane) knew Adelheide Charlotte Riecken?
…
Intrepid Report
By Wayne Madsen
Posted on December 18, 2014
“… Rikan, a former Army private who used her actual name Adelheide Charlotte Riecken while she was on active duty in Germany and Fort Myer, Virginia, across the Potomac from Washington, DC, was born in Germany. After leaving the army, the attractive blond became a popular stripper along the old 14th Street corridor of strip clubs just a few blocks from the White House. After hooking up with notorious DC mob boss Joe Nesline, Erica or Erika “Heide” Rikan, as she was known, began working for another notorious outfit, the CIA. As with Palfrey’s Pamela Martin and Associates, Rikan had a corporate cover called Business Services Consultants, located at 5101 River Road, Suite 415, Bethesda, Maryland. Rikan’s business cards listed her as “Erika L. Rikan.”
According to the book “White House Call Girl: The Real Watergate Story” by Phil Stanford, Heide also used the name Kathie Dieter, especially when she was doing business with her Columbia Plaza business partner, one James McCord of McCord Associates. McCord was one of the burglars of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate and a top CIA surveillance expert. McCord also happened to videotaped trysts between Heide’s call girls and leading DC celebrities and politicians. It is not known who was actually taped and which tapes made their way into the hands of Richard Helms at the CIA but Heide’s black book included two key members of the Senate Watergate Committee that was investigating the Nixon White House: Senator Lowell Weicker (R-CT) and Sam Dash, the Democratic counsel for the committee, whose unlisted phone number was in Heide’s book. Also in Heide’s black book was Nixon aide and chief committee witness against the president John Dean; Dean’s wife, Maureen “Mo” Biner Dean (sometimes referred to with the code name of “Clout” in Heide’s black book) …
Rikan’s and McCord’s operation at the Columbia Plaza was the main base from which chief White House “plumber” G. Gordon Liddy, McCord, and E. Howard Hunt, along with three Cuban CIA contractors, launched their bugging operation against DNC headquarters at the Watergate. McCord and Liddy set up their surveillance nest at the nearby Howard Johnson’s Hotel, across the street from the Watergate. It is now assumed that Nixon aides were interested in seizing a list DNC Chairman Larry O’Brien maintained of blackmailed customers of Heide’s ring, which included DNC officials as well as top Nixon aides …“
Agreed. Legally due process was followed in the trial, and the defense could certainly have done a better job by requesting additional time to assess and forensically examine that evidence during the trial.
As I’ve said before, to claim that “EXIF data cannot be easily modified” under oath is a subjective statement – ‘easily’ means different things to different people, people also have differing levels of technical ability and knowledge; Booth may have not been as knowledgeable in this specific area as his colleague.
File names and EXIF data may have been tampered with, but what is less certain is when and by whom. The amount of corroborating evidence was overwhelming though.
The new evidence is the discovery of the misconduct, which was not apparent at trial and uncovered much later.
Alleged misconduct
Awesome article, Frank.
Small Typo: “Just prior to his testifying, Booth ma” (line was cutoff mid-word)
Next line says: “de a second forensic FTK report…” (line begins mid-word from previous line)
That’s how it appears in my Firefox browser, anyway.
What an astute observation!
If you continue with writing readable, intelligent, cogent articles (sans political bias), you’ll soon have the THE BANKOK REPORT. Congratulations and keep the journalism coming.