There has been a bit of back and forth between Suneel Chakravorty and Sherizzy over the question of whether the FBI tampered with the evidence of child porn in the case of Keith Alan Raniere.
After Suneel wrote, Suneel Smacks Back at Bangkok, Presses Allegations of FBI Tampering With Cami Child Porn Pics, Sherizzy wrote a comment which I turned into a post, entitled Suneel Is Wrong, Cami, Raniere, Agnifilo; None Disputed Nudes Were of 15 Year Old
Suneel then wrote a post: Suneel Stands His Ground; Clarifies Why He Believes FBI Tampered With Cami Nude Pics
Now, Sherizzy is giving his rebuttal to Suneel’s rebuttal.
By Sherizzy
Your rebuttal to my comment is unpersuasive.
Of course, you never explicitly claimed to be an expert. The fact that you believe yourself to be more knowledgeable than the experts who testified at trial comes across through your words and tone.
Keith Raniere used Post-it notes to give messages to his attorneys during his trial.
Post-it notes to defense counsel repeatedly and ferociously during cross-examinations reveal Raniere’s high level of input in his defense. It follows that he was just as passionate about his defense when alone with his attorneys. Further, the fact that Marc Agnifilo would badger Lauren Salzman given his experience also serves as proof (Raniere was handing him notes throughout her cross).
Lauren Salzman broke into tears when she was cross-examined by Keith Raniere’s attorney, Marc Agnifilo. The judge stopped the cross-examination.
This is a 2005 photo of the type of Camera Keith Raniere allegedly used to take nude photos of Cami and other females in 2005. The problem with it being 2005 is that unlike the other women photographed, Cami was only 15 in 2005, making photographing her in sexually explicit ways a federal crime.
Also, let’s look at this logically. If Raniere knew the Cami photos were not from 2005, don’t you think he would have brought that up? If you were a defendant and you knew that evidence was not authentic, wouldn’t you bring that up to your lawyers? Would you permit them to make an argument that concedes that they were authentic? This is also the first line of defense. It wasn’t mine, the cops planted it – OJ? Almost every gun and drug case where the evidence was not found on the person. If it was a valid issue, it would have been raised.
I guess you did not read my clarification of my “weight of evidence” point. Any piece of evidence must be authenticated before it can be admitted as an exhibit at trial. Once the prosecutor lays a proper foundation, as they did here, any challenge to that evidence goes to its weight. The jury here weighed the evidence, including the cross of the expert about the break in the chain of custody, and they found that the photo was authentic. Raniere did not put experts on the stand so he cannot challenge the evidence now on appeal. The issue is unpreserved.
A photo of a Lexar camera card similar to the one seized at the Executive Library of Keith Raniere. FBI Forensic Examiner Brian Booth testified at Raniere’s trial that the FBI lost custody of the Lexar camera card after the FBI seized it and someone, unknown to Booth, accessed the card before the FBI regained custody. No evidence of any kind was presented by the defense that any changes were made to the camera card that could have resulted in changing the date of the Cami photos, making it appear that she was younger than she was. Following the trial, Raniere’s followers have claimed they have uncovered new evidence about the card.
Most importantly, despite your claim that you have “evidence” of tampering, all you have put forth is conjecture. Ifs and mays are not evidence. You must prove with factual evidence that the photos were tampered with by law enforcement. Your opinion that it is easy to tamper with the data is your opinion. The expert at trial held a different opinion, which is not perjury. You need to prove that you know for a fact that the photos are not authentic. You have not done that because you lack real evidence.
Also, the evidence at trial belies your claim. Raniere’s anniversary with Cami established her age as 15 when they first had sex. Lauren’s testimony showed that he always set anniversary dates based on the first time he had sex with that person. Many witnesses testified about Raniere’s penchant for naked photos, especially close-ups of vaginas with a bit of face showing. Daniela found a folder of naked pictures around that time when she backed up his hard drive. And, of course, Cami’s victim statement confirmed that Raniere took naked pictures of her and had sex with her when she was 15.
MK10ART’s sketch of Camila. Cami did not testify at trial. Instead, her first appearance was at the sentencing of Keith Raniere. While she was not under oath, Cami stated that Raniere did begin a sexual relationship with her when she was 15 and that he took nude photos of her at the same age.
So, you are saying that each one of these people is lying. That the prosecutors made them lie. Where is your proof? Isn’t it more probable that Raniere, a man with a history of keeping naked photos and having sex with minors, kept a photo of Cami at 15?
Lastly, I don’t know what comments you are reading, but the ones I have read – all of them – display your complete lack of credibility with FR readers.
You are a math guy, Suneel. You should be able to see how your claim is illogical. Your idol worship of Raniere is making you blind to the evidence.
