Jane Smith, who says she is lawyer in another country, shared some interesting thoughts about a recent post by Suneel Chakravorty, a friend and supporter of Keith Raniere. [Editor’s comments are in bold and in brackets.]
By Jane Smith
It is interesting to hear the other view as found in Suneel: ‘I Am Defending Raniere Because the Prosecution Was Wrong, the Judge Biased and the Defendant Is Innocent!’.
I fundamentally disagree but am happy to hear these views.
[In Suneel’s post, he said that there seems to be a belief in the U.S. that “the one thing we must never do is question a victim.”]
Wrong. We can question victims. We do it all the time. Some people, usually male, might like to think every rape victim is always believed and no man is ever guilty of sex with a 15-year-old, but most men know there are real cases where girls are harmed and that some but not most men can be extremely predatory.
KR [Keith Raniere] specialized in victim-blaming and fed into a general view some men like to hear that men get a bad deal (sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t) but KR obtained a lot of male support by feeding into the line that all men are exploited financially and probably in other ways by weak, manipulative women.
In trials, we question victims all the time, but we don’t only need their testimony. We prosecute violence against a spouse (male or female) even if the other spouse refuses to give evidence because there can be other external evidence. There is plenty of evidence that is not from the victims which proves KR broke the law — even if you leave victim testimony entirely out of it.
[Suneel addresses Keith’s arrest in Mexico by six armed, masked men with machine guns. He essentially says that, at the very least, it shows that we “have a government willing to kidnap its own citizen.”]
On the first point about Mexico, most people can see there was nothing done wrongly there. As for golden moments with his son, I thought he packed off the mother so he could have a group oral-sex session with other women, and he had not paid child support ever to his other child.
He is hardly father of the year. He is in jail because he had sex with what, in law, is a child. He could have easily only had sex with women over 18. He put his love of very young girls above much else and pays the price.
[Suneel wrote, “Abortion records of some of his romantic partners should not have been introduced at trial and I believe this is one of the issues of the appeal that is soon to be filed.”]
I don’t agree it was wrong to bring up abortion records of his partners. It was part of a pattern that he persuaded women not to have children and strung them along for years to a point when I think several were too old ever to have a child – in a sense he took away their chance ever to do so, to lead a normal life – not a crime, but indicative of how awful the man is.
[Suneel wrote “jury members typically wore comfortable, casual clothing, which would make sense for individuals sitting for 6-10 hours per day.” So why then, on the day the jury began deliberation, did they all “wear their ‘Sunday Best,’ as if they were going to church or a hanging? Had the jury already made up their minds before they began deliberating?” Suneel also opined that “It would not be possible to determine the facts of a six-week trial in less than three hours.”]
The fact the jury decided quickly is not unusual, and there is no requirement for them to spend a lot of time. Mentioning the clothes they wore is the kind of small irrelevant point those deluded by a cult tend to mention. The bottom line is KR was prosecuted for about 1/1000th of his wrongs only.
[Suneel wrote of how DOS and other of his companies were being “unfairly” labeled as a pyramid scheme in court.]
Pyramid scheme – DOS where women brought other women in etc. etc. and there was the collateral – I don’t see any problem with calling it a pyramid scheme – it was that.
[Suneel refers to the “sexy” texts from Nicole, a woman who later claimed to be a victim of sex trafficking, and the allegations of forced labor and identify theft.]
When he talks about the texts, he does not really understand how women caught in a controlling relationship like this (or young boys at boarding school abused by a male teacher – these issues are gender-neutral at heart) have to do just to get by – yes, they might send a sexy text as required by the person controlling and owning them – that does not mean the woman or young boy is not a victim.
Forced labor – he plays that down, but it is was pretty bad, and salaries not paid which had been agreed [upon] and that kind of thing, never mind the loss of business of those who left and had to leave their coaching business behind.
The FLDS making 12-year-old boys leave school and work all the time for just about no pay, or The Order having all member funds go to the group etc. is typical in cults, and unless we go after them for forced labor, it will never change.
[One of the charges against Raniere is that he used the late Pam Cafrtitz’s credit card. Pam, who lived with Raniere for about 30 years, left her entire estate to him. She had no children.]
Why would anyone use a credit card of someone who had died? I don’t understand why this is regarded as a wrong part of the decision. Why would you even take money from the estate of a follower? Give it to her parents or siblings instead, like any decent person.
