By Bangkok
I hate to burst your bubble, but Keith’s Rule 33 motion still has legs.
Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis will deny it, of course, but the appellate court – the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit – will ultimately decide it.
Many naive people believe the suggestion of ‘FBI collusion’ is farfetched.
Let’s examine the DETAILS here…
The original FBI computer expert, Stephen Flatley, who analyzed Raniere’s digital evidence, had testified in another, 2016, case that EXIF data is mostly unreliable for dating files, including digital photographs, and that altering EXIF data is easy.
He swore that under oath. That’s part of the record.
In USA v Hirst, the defense planned to show that metadata on files proved their client was innocent. The prosecution called FBI Forensic Examiner Stephen Flatley who testified, over defense objection, that the FBI does not rely on metadata, such as EXIF date, to determine a document’s date, because metadata is easy to manipulate.
This was different from what FBI Forensic Examiner Brian Booth testified in USA v Raniere in 2019 — that EXIF data [which is metadata] is hard to change and very reliable.
However, the EDNY did not like Flatley’s previous testimony —- because they needed to make the jury believe that EXIF data (proving Cami was 15) is totally reliable and could not have been altered easily.
Therefore, four weeks into Raniere’s trial, this same FBI computer expert Flatley (who said EXIF data is unreliable) was suddenly removed from the case and sent to Ghana, Africa, making him unavailable to testify at Raniere’s trial.
Then, lo and behold…
The FBI assigned a new examiner (FBI Forensic Examiner Brian Booth) to analyze Raniere’s digital evidence. And, lo and behold, Mr. Booth then CONTRADICTED the previous FBI examiner Flately, saying that EXIF data is extremely reliable and that it was DIFFICULT for anybody to alter EXIF data.
In other words, Mr. Booth backed up the EDNY’s desired narrative by contradicting the previous FBI agent’s testimony.
Lacking an actual photo, FR uses this image for FBI Senior Forensic Examiner Brian Booth. When he told the jury in USA v Raniere that EXIF data is hard to alter, his nose grew several inches.
When you look at this alteration of FBI testimony to fit the FALSE narrative of the EDNY (since we now know that even a 12 year old can download free software to alter EXIF data in seconds) —- it shows the FBI was colluding with EDNY prosecutors to produce a desired narrative.
That’s not my main point.
There are hundreds of YouTube videos to teach anyone how to change EXIF Data.
My main point is this…
When you look at the PROVEN collusion demonstrated above, this makes it much more plausible that Dr. Kiper’s other allegations (regarding file tampering) also took place.
Dr. Kiper’s report still has not been refuted by anybody.
A couple months ago, Joseph O’Hara attempted to refute it by posting that Dr. Kiper received a copy of the hard disk that wasn’t authentic (wasn’t given to him by any trusted court sources) and thus Joe was implying that somebody from Raniere’s team may have altered the hard disk to support his own case.
But, that suggestion is beyond laughable BECAUSE the first thing the prosecution will do is verify that Kiper’s copy of the hard disk is identical to the prosecution’s copy of that same hard disk.
If it’s not, the Rule 33 motion would be permanently rejected (as the deadline for filing a new one has elapsed).
In other words, Joe was tacitly admitting that the EDNY will have a hard time refuting the detailed allegations made in Kiper’s report. Therefore, he has resorted to questioning the SOURCE of the data, rather than the REPORT ITSELF.
The facts are: Dr. J. Richard Kiper, a former trainer of trainers of FBI forensic examiners, swore under oath how and in detail how he got the FBI digital exhibits – exactly as they were produced from FBI’s Computer Analysis Response Team (CART). It only makes sense, since evidence handling was a larger part of his job with the FBI during his 20 years.
IMO, I think this Rule 33 motion has a decent chance to succeed.
And if it succeeds, there will never be a 2nd trial on any charges —- because MOST of the key witnesses will not be available or willing to testify again.
Allison Mack and Lauren Salzman 2017.
Lauren, Allison, and Nancy will not assist the EDNY in future trials, since they’ve already been sentenced and cannot have more prison time added if they refuse to assist the government again.
Other witnesses have already moved-on with their lives and won’t wanna be put under the spotlight of a sex-cult trial for a second time. Many of them live in other countries and can’t be forced to testify anyway.
Witnesses like Mark Vicente would be easily impeached in a 2nd trial, after putting his name on a multi-million dollar lawsuit and tainting his own credibility as a money-grubber.
Plus, the EDNY will not wanna risk having egg on their face for possibly losing a second trial — especially if the FBI was shown to have altered evidence & testimony in a biased manner (if the Rule 33 motion succeeds).
Raniere’s team would destroy any FBI witnesses and humiliate them in a second trial.
A 2nd trial will never happen.
If the Rule 33 motion succeeds, the EDNY will likely offer Keith a plea deal for time served for all convictions which were reversed due to the Rule 33 motion.
There’s just no other REALISTIC possibility.
I challenge anybody to refute what I’ve just said.
Have a good day.
PS — Yes, I’ve argued differently in the past. But, I now believe differently after seeing how despicable the FBI has behaved.
