This is Part 2 of Journal Gate
Here is part 1: Brooklyn Prosecutors Lean on Mysterious ‘Bombshell’ Diary; Defense Calls It ‘Fabricated Evidence’
The Journal That Could Sink the Case
Key Evidence or Key Fabrication?
Which came first, the handwritten or the typed journal?
The Mystery Behind Ayries Blanck’s Journal
The case is United States v. Rachel Cherwitz and Nicole Daedone. The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York filed the indictment on April 6, 2023. US District Court Judge Diane Gujarati has scheduled the trial to commence on January 13.
Prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York allege that Daedone and Cherwitz conspired to force employees, students, and volunteers of their company OneTaste Inc to work. The government has not filed charges for forced labor.
Evidence against Daedone and Cherwitz includes Ayries Blanck’s journal, dated January 15 to March 14, 2015.
Before it is all over, Ayries Blanck will have a lot of explaining to do. But she won’t be writing it in a journal…
Two Versions of the Journal
There are two versions of the journal: a handwritten one and a typed one.
The Typed Version
In 2023, the prosecution provided the defense with 30 typed pages labeled “Journal Entries regarding experiences at OneTaste maintained by Ayries Blanck.” The prosecution made no mention of a handwritten version at that time.
The Handwritten Version
Then, in 2024, prosecutors shared 25 double-sided notebook pages they described as “photocopies of physical journals” authored by Ayries.
The content of the 25 double-sided notebook pages and the 30 typed pages is virtually word-for-word identical.
Did Ayries really write the journal, or is she fooling us all?
The Prosecution’s Claims About the Journal
The prosecution says the handwritten came first. Ayries, they say, wrote the journal in 2015 right after she left OneTaste.
They say the handwritten journal is Ayries’ “excited utterances” written while “still under the stress and excitement of her departure from OneTaste.”
It details Ayries’ “relationships with the defendants… shortly after the time she performed labor and services in connection with the charged conspiracy.”
She “recorded” the journals “much closer in time to her experiences at OneTaste as part of her own personal healing process, indicating a high degree of trustworthiness. The journals constitute the best evidence of [Ayries’] then-existing psychological and emotional state; accordingly, their admission would be consistent with the rules of evidence and the interest of justice.”
Why the Timeline Matters
When you are crooking up evidence, it is not best practice to put the fake evidence on a Google Doc before you finished faking it.
But what if Ayries didn’t write the journal in 2015? Why is that important? Who cares?
If she claims she wrote the journals in 2015, but actually wrote them later (or didn’t write them at all), her statements are not excited utterances made shortly after she performed her labor and services.
If Ayries lied about the date of her journal, how do we know she didn’t lie about everything else?
The journal paints a damning picture of Daedone and Cherwitz. The journal almost makes the case for the prosecution if it is true.
By “true,” I mean it is a journal – like a diary – and it’s dated with 28 entries between January 15 and March 14, 2015.
Typed, Tweaked, and Troubling? Autymn’s 54 Drafts Undermine Claim
Ayries’ sister Autymn Blanck reads from a journal. Was it faithful typing or fiction writing?
Let’s talk about the typed version. Ayries’s sister Autymn testified that she faithfully transcribed her sister’s journal in 2022 – seven years after Ayries wrote it.
The prosecutors agree. They said Autymn “initially created” the typed version by transcribing Ayries’ handwritten 2015 journal and “used them in connection with a documentary about OneTaste that later aired on Netflix in or around November 2022.”
And it is true. Autymn appears in a Netflix documentary 2022 reading from the journal.
So how can I ask which came first? Do I doubt Ayries, Autymn and the government?
From Handwritten to Netflix—or Vice Versa
Forensic Analysis Blows Holes in Handwritten Claim
A forensic analysis of the Google Doc makes doubting a possibility for the logical person. Let us excuse those invested in the outcome and do not care for logic. You might care to stop reading at this point.
But the forensic analysis shows:
The Google Doc “initially created” by Autymn went through 54 major drafts and some 500 minor edits between May 4 and May 27, 2022, the same day Autymn filmed her segment for Netflix.
The typed journal the prosecutors shared with the defense was the last of the 54 edits.
None of the earliest drafts resembled the handwritten version.
Each draft changed, with dates moved, details embellished, and significant portions reworked.
From the first draft on May 4 to the second on May 6, not a single word was retained.
In the transition from the second to the third draft on May 6, nearly everything changed again, with only five words remaining the same.
All 54 typed versions are different. From the first draft to the last, nothing is the same.
It was the final draft Autymn read on Netflix.
Authenticity Concerns
It is puzzling. If Ayries hand-wrote the journal in 2015, and Autymn faithfully transcribed it on a Google Doc in 2022, then edited it 53 times, how come the handwritten matches the last typed version?
Not the first?
The journal as evidence ship might have sailed away….and at least one duck was left behind
To Be Continued…
