Frank Report continues its study of Lauren Salzman, who seems to be both an insane victim of Keith Raniere and a perpetrator of his insane evil. It is becoming increasingly clear that Lauren is a mentally defective person who followed a psychopath who led her to her own destruction.
This is Part 7
Part 1 How Lauren Salzman Described Her Branding Session
Part 3 Lauren Salzman Describes Collateral She Got From Her Slaves, After Lying to Them About DOS
Part 5 Lauren Salzman and Her Slaves Got Bare-Ass Paddling
Part 6 Lauren Salzman Manages Her Slaves – With Cruelty and Insanity
The series is based on Lauren’s testimony in the trial of Keith Alan Raniere.
In this next part, we learn a little more about their history together and how Lauren – served up by her mother, Nancy – became a deranged individual who let a creepy monster take possession of her whole life.
Assistant US Attorney Tanya Hajjar is examining Lauren.
***
Q Can you describe your relationship with [Raniere] over the past 20 years?
A Yes. He was my mentor and teacher…. we had a romantic relationship, a physical, sexual relationship from mostly between 2001 and 2008, or ‘9. And then not for a period of almost ten years, and then briefly in 2017, and he was my master.
Q Was your relationship with him important to you?
A Very important to me. Yeah.
Q Why?
A Um, he was my most important person. I mean, I respected him and trusted him and looked up to him; wanted to be like him. Um.
***
Q How often while you were part of DOS?
A Every time I was in town in Albany, we met three times a week, about ten hours a week.
Q And where were those meetings held?
A Initially, they were held at people’s homes, and then later we bought a house and they were held at the house. It was considered the sorority house.
Q Were these meetings secret?
A They were, yes.
Q Can you describe these meetings to the jury?
A So, the start of every meeting, we would take a naked photograph and – as a group – and send it to Keith. And the photograph had to be fully frontally naked and our brands had to show. We have brands. And we were to be – look uniform and happy in the photographs, and then we would get dressed.
***
Q Can you describe what happened in those meetings when the defendant [Raniere] attended?
A When he would attend, we would all get undressed, totally nude, and sit on the floor below him, and he would usually sit on, you know, above, on a chair. And depending on what the focus was, he talked to us about a number of different things…
Q You said you and the other first-line slaves removed your clothes. Did the defendant remain clothed?
A Remained clothed, yes.
***
Q How old were you when you first met the defendant?
A Twenty-one.
Q How old are you now?
A Forty-two.
***
Q Ms. Salzman, did there come a time where you and the defendant began a sexual relationship?
A Yes, there did.
Q When did that begin?
A In April 2001.
Q What was the date?
A April 1st.
Q Who initiated that?
A He did. But I was open to that.
Q And what happened on April 1st, 2001?
A We began a sexual relationship.
Q Was that date later commemorated in any way?
A Yeah, as an anniversary. We considered it our anniversary.
Q And the word “anniversary,” was that used to describe the first date you had sex with the defendant?
A Yes, that’s correct.
Q Did you celebrate your anniversary with the defendant?
A Yeah.
Q How?
A Um, when we celebrated it, I mean, generally we would spend time together or just acknowledge it as the date of the anniversary. Wish each other a happy anniversary.
***
Q Now, at the time you began your relationship with the defendant, did you openly or discuss it or acknowledge it?
A No. He asked me not to.
Q Did you speak with your mother about it initially?
A No, he asked me not to.
Q Was it difficult not to tell your mother about the relationship?
A Yes.
Q How long did you have a sexually intimate relationship with the defendant?
A It was mostly between 2001 and 2008 or ‘9. And decreasing, you know, towards 2000, you know, ‘6, ‘7, ‘8, ‘9, so during that time. And then we didn’t for, you know, nine or ten years. And then he initiated again just for a brief period after DOS became public in 2017.
Q And during that entire period of time from 2001 to 2017, were you in sexual romantic relationships with anyone besides the defendant?
A No.
Q And was that a requirement?
A Yes.
Q Can you explain that.
A Um, yeah, well, for – I mean, for me it was a monogamous relationship, and at one point in time he – after we had stopped being intimate and weren’t spending – intimate sexually -–- stopped spending a lot of time together, he had told me he had made the decision to put the relationship on hold.
But it was my understanding that that wasn’t a permanent decision and so, you know, it was my understanding that if I had a relationship with somebody else, that would be leaving the relationship. So I didn’t, you know. I stayed.
Q You said you considered the relationship monogamous. Was that monogamous on both sides?
A No, for me.
Q Did you ever express wanting to have a relationship with someone else to the defendant?
A Yes. I – yes. In 2013, I wanted to have a relationship with somebody else, and I discussed it with him and told him I was thinking of leaving the relationship.
Q What happened?
A …. there were a couple of things that happened. So, he told me that if I stayed, he would reinvest in our relationship and that we would have children. And I asked him when? And he said, “Soon.” And I said, ‘”Soon like a year or soon like five years?” But I wanted to say “Soon, like a month or soon like five months,” you know? And he said, um – between that time, within that time, a year to five years was his estimated time frame.
…. I [had] been spending time with someone else… that was not part of our community and that I had gone to high school with, and I shared a kiss with that person and I went and I came back and I told Keith and I said if you want – I understand if you want to end the relationship because I did this. And I was hoping that he would end the relationship because I did that. And he didn’t. And I said I was trying to get myself to a place where I felt strong enough to leave.
And so, then he made the promise that if I stayed, he would invest …. but then we had a subsequent walk where he told me that he had considered resigning as Vanguard because of what I had done. [kissed a man.]
Q Was that a big deal to you, resignation as Vanguard?
A It was, yeah. It was a huge deal to me. Because – and I couldn’t make sense of why he would like leave the community without a leader because I had done this [kissed a man].
So then … I just always thought of it like if I ever wanted to leave, or how I would leave, or I always had to be much more mindful that I would do something that would be so, um, lacking in such care for the community that I loved and cared about, that I could do something that would make it so that he wouldn’t be the leader for them anymore. It was really upsetting for me. And I took it very – I took it to heart.
Q Did you check in with the defendant before making decisions in your life?
A Yes. Most of my decisions.
Q Can you give some examples of that?
A Sure. Like if I wanted to go and visit my grandparents out of town. Or if I wanted to buy a house. Or plan a work trip out of town. I would check … if those things were, like created any difficulties for him, or he was on board for those decisions, if he thought they were good. I checked with — I mean, medical advice before like medical decisions. I checked most things.
Q Did you receive medical care without his permission?
A I mean, basic medical care. Like annual medical care, you know, but not major medical care. [Raniere controlled the medical care of his slaves – and some of them died, possibly poisoned.]
Q Before you began a sexual relationship with the defendant in 2001, did you have a discussion with him regarding your weight?
A Yes.
Q What did he tell you?
A That he thought a good weight for me would be around a hundred pounds.
Q And how did he make that decision?
A … he – I mean, basically saw me in my underwear and assessed whether there was fat on my body, and what a good weight would be, based on looking at me and my body constitution.
Q So he told you – is it right that he told you you should be a hundred pounds after looking at you?
A Yeah. Yeah.
***
Q Now, at the time, did you consider the defendant an authority on your weight?
A Yeah. I considered him an authority on almost everything, on most things.
Q And to your knowledge, was that view shared by others in the community?
A Yes.
***
Q Were there certain myths about the defendant that were repeated within the community?
A Yes.
Q Can you describe some of them to the jury, please.
A Yeah. Like that – like a lot of times when there – if there would be like a big – if we were teaching like a big – if we released like a new curriculum, and he gave us this curriculum and there would be like a big snowstorm or something, like a lot of times the weather, we would attribute to that these things happen around Keith a lot of times. Or like if technology didn’t work, it would be like technology acts funny around Keith. Like these kinds of phenomenal things or there are these phenomena of – but like, yeah, attributed to around him this stuff happens.
Q Did the defendant himself encourage or reinforce that in some way?
A Yes, I believe so. He would say that his technology was acting up and that he has those types of problems or – yeah.
Q Did he attribute that to something specific?
A Just that it was this unique thing about him where these things happen. And, yeah. I mean, like that it was – that it was something special about him. And then, I mean, my perception of it and the way that people related with it, that it was something about his energy or his impact on the world somehow.
Q What about the weather?
Keith told women he had supernatural powers like being able to make it rain on a woman while not a drop fell on him – and Lauren believed it.
A Yeah. That – yeah, like, um – well, he told me this one story a few times that there – that he was on a walk with somebody, and that they were behaving somehow in a way that wasn’t good, and that it was – he was trying to show them some point, and that it was raining, but that it wasn’t raining on him. It was raining on them. And that he pulled them to show them that the rain wasn’t happening in here and that, you know – and that that was to convince them or to show them something that he was trying to convey that there was something about him that was different or something about his perspective or the way he was viewing the world that was really important. And that he was proving it to them by demonstrating this point. And he told me that story a number of times
***
Q Did you interpret that to be a metaphor or –
A No, actually. Actually.
Q Did there come a time when the defendant took intimate photographs of you?
A Yes.
Q When approximately was that?
A Somewhere before 2006. Like around 2005, I think.
Q So how old were you approximately if you recall?
A I think I was late 20s.
Q Where were those photographs taken?
A At 8 Hale Drive.
***
Q Where at 8 Hale Drive were the photographs taken of you?
A In the loft bed.
Q Can you describe what happened to the jury.
A Yeah. … I remember that we had been intimate and then afterwards he wanted – he had a camera that was on the – there was like a shelf above the bed, and there was a camera. And he took the camera and said that he wanted to take a picture of me. And I was very shy about that and didn’t want to have a picture taken of me. And he was like, no, let me. It’s going to be nice. And so he took, I think, two pictures. But they were like – they were looking up at me from like the angle of – it’s like an up-close crotch shot, like – like vagina looking up where you could see my whole upper body and face.
Q Did you see the photographs at the time the defendant took them?
A I saw one briefly. Quickly.
***
Q Did you express concern to the defendant about someone seeing the photographs?
A Yes. I said I didn’t – that I was concerned that some – yeah, I was worried that somebody might see it and he was like nobody will see it. Don’t worry.
***
Q Did the defendant ever give you instructions about grooming your pubic hair?
A Yes.
Q What did he tell you?
A That he thought that if I – that if I loved and cared for him, I would care for his preferences. So his preference was that it be natural. So not groomed. And not – he thought that was loving, that I would keep it that way.
Q Did he tell you anything about what that preference is based on?
A I don’t know if it’s the basis for the preference, but he said it held the pheromones and he liked that.
Q Did you ever ask him permission to change that, to change your pubic hair grooming?
A Yes.
***
Q Did you engage in sexual activity with the defendant and other women?
A Yes.
Q Who?
A Well, mostly Pam. Sometimes Barbara [Jeske]. Once Marianna [Fernandez] and more limited interactions with Kathy [Russell] and Siobhan.
***
Q Who initiated these sexual encounters?
A Keith.
Q Why did you participate in them?
A Well, initially I participated in them because I was curious and I … had questions regarding my sexuality, and I wanted to explore that. And then sometimes because Keith wanted to. Wanted that.
Q Were you ever approached about having a sexual encounter that you didn’t want to participate in?
A A few times.
Q From who?
A Well, …. early in my relationship with Keith, Dawn approached me and said that she was inviting me if I wanted to have that with them. Daniella [Padilla] also approached me…. And then later Allison [Mack] and also Kryslana (phonetic).
***
Q Was there something that happened with Dawn Morrison?
A Yes.
Q What happened?
A We were … at 3 Flintlock hanging out one night, and …. Keith was like tickling me or it started out as tickling, roughhousing, but then tried to pull my pants off. And I didn’t want them to come off. And I interpreted that as him initiating a sexual interaction, and he was just very like persistent and forcible about it, and I had to say no several times until he acquiesced to the no.
Q Did the defendant ever frame his sexual relationships in terms of personal growth?
A Yes.
Q Can you give some examples of that?
A Like early on in our relationship he asked me how I would feel if he took on Dani [Padilla] and Monica [Duran]. And taking them on, to me, meant starting a sexual relationship with them to help them grow. …. I think, generally, he related with it a lot that way. Like he would say that …. sometimes the sexual relationships were very difficult, but he was helping them.
***
Q Did other women express unhappiness to you in their sexual relationships with the defendant?
A Yes. Many. Most.
Q Can you name them? Some of them?
A I mean, different people at different times for different reasons, but I think that generally, it was difficult to be in a relationship with somebody who had relationships with so many people. But, yeah. Ivy. Barbara. Both Barbaras [Bouchey and Jeske]. And myself. Kristin. Marianna. Camila. Monica.
Q Were you ever asked to intervene?
A Yes.
Q Who asked you?
A Keith. Kristin. Pam. Most often.
Q Can you explain that to the jury.
A Sure. That someone he was having a relationship with would be upset with him in some way, and sometimes maybe even be threatening to leave or wanting to leave or end the relationship, and we would be asked to help them. And help them, ultimately, was to work through whatever their upset was so that they would be happy with him instead.
Q So when you say “help them,” what does that mean? What did you do?
A Looked at why they were having an emotional reaction and I mean oftentimes it was – like within the ESP model and the framework that we were working with, there was a lot of focus on it. It was believed – we all believed that we are responsible for our own emotional reactions, and that if you have an emotional reaction to something, the thing that you’re having the emotional reaction to is just triggering a reaction that you have inside yourself. It’s not causing you to have that reaction, it’s giving you an opportunity to see the issues that you struggle with. And so, generally, if somebody had an emotional reaction to something, and in this specific case, something with Keith, we would look at the fact that they were having a reaction, and look at this as an opportunity to work it through and – and the thought was that if you left the circumstance to be more comfortable, you would be covering up that issue and your opportunity to work it through.
So sometimes you would talk about that, like this is for your growth. This is an opportunity, how are you ever going to get through their issue if you leave?
Q Was the intention to persuade them to stay or to leave?
A Stay. Stay. And work through whatever you have to work through so you stop having that reaction. So stay and feel happy. Be joyful.
Q Did you consider that reenrolling them?
A No, but I think it was.
Q Can you explain that.
A Well, at the time I considered that helping them. Or helping Keith with them. But I think often if somebody – if they wanted to leave, we would reenroll them. And this is a good idea. This is for your growth. This is very helpful for you. Keith only has your best intent in mind, you know. And how are you going to get through this if you leave? So it was reenrolling them in this idea of growth and this idea that this relationship is especially helpful and effective for growth. And essential. Because if you left it, you wouldn’t have that same opportunity.
Q Did the defendant ever tell you in the context of these interventions that not to say that he had sent you?
A Yes.
Q Did that happen often?
A Frequent.
Q Looking back now, do you have an opinion about what you were being asked to do?
A Yeah. I mean, there were times – I mean, there were lots of times I wanted to leave the relationship and somebody reenrolled me back into it or talked me back into it. And there were times also where I was talking to somebody who wanted to leave and wasn’t happy, wasn’t either getting through the issue or finding a way to exist there in some kind of healthful way or healthy way, and I talked them back into staying. And I do think some of them, it would have been good for them, healthier for them to not be there.
***
Let’s recap this insanity:
Lauren had a sexual relationship with Keith from 2001 to 2008- ‘9. Then no sex for almost ten years.
At the start of DOS meetings, she and the other first-line slaves would take a full-frontal naked picture and their brands had to show.
When Raniere attended, they would all get totally nude and sit on the floor below him, and he would sit on a chair dressed.
She kept her sexual relationship with Keith a secret.
He stopped having sex with her. She went out with a guy – after four years of no sex – and kissed him.
Keith said he was thinking about resigning as Vanguard because she kissed another man. And dunce Lauren – who wanted to leave him – stopped dating the other guy – despite Keith not having sex with her for more than 4 years. Lauren felt guilty about it and determined never to do anything that would cause the great one to quit.
She made no decisions – even on medical health without his approval.
She believed in his supernatural bullshit stories.
She posed for graphic nude photos though she did not want to.
She had threesomes with Pam, Barbara Jeske, Marianna Fernandez, Kathy [Russell and Siobhan – and Keith.
Despite her own desire to leave him at times [and the lack of a physical relationship], she would follow Keith’s direction to persuade women to stay in this unhappy harem-style relationship.
And, in turn, other women were sent by Keith to work on her to stay.
Women hurting women was the hallmark of Raniere’s mad rule.
Lauren was a big part of it – both as a victim and an enabler.
But when you look at it – look at the big picture – it is utterly mad. The women are insane. Lauren is insane, just like Raniere.
.
