At the trial of Keith Alan Raniere, Lauren Salzman, who testified under a cooperation agreement, testified for three days.
During her testimony, Lauren spoke about the brand and its meaning.
And while her word is not definitely authoritative, she has an opinion about the brand that was scarred into DOS slaves by a white hot cauterizing pen that was wielded, in most cases, by a licensed physician, Danielle Roberts, D.O.
Here is some of Lauren’s testimony on the brand and how Keith came up with excuses following Frank Report breaking the news that Keith was branding women as slaves.
AUSA Tanya Hajjar examined Lauren Salzman.
This the photo the government used of Lauren Salzman in exhibits for the jury.
Assistant US Attorney Tanya Hajjar is examining her. Lauren testified about the brand:
Well, it was Keith’s initials and Keith knew it was his initials and I knew it was his initials and I knew he knew that it was his initials…. Keith [pretended he] didn’t know this… [after the Frank Report came out with the branding stories] That was the party line on it [to the disturbed Nxivm members [that] Keith just learned this, you know…. that a bunch of women went around and did this?
Q Were there subsequently meetings with the defendant and the first line of DOS?
A Yes.
Q And can you describe those meetings?
A That we went to the DOS house and were trying to figure out how to deal with everything that was happening. And everybody’s questions and upsets surrounding it and basically, you know, Keith directed that we were not going to tell anybody about his involvement; it was going to be secret; that he didn’t know anything about it; that he wasn’t associated with it; that the brand was not his initials and he gave several options for how we could address the concerns that were being raised to make it look like they were all things that were not the truth. Which is that the brand instead of being his initials could be explained that it had seven lines so it was the seven chakras or it was the four elements or it was bar alpha mu.
…. It wasn’t Keith and Allison’s initials because there were assertions that it was Allison’s initials too, which it wasn’t but those were going around as well….
Q … what did the defendant instruct you to say regarding the brand?
A That it was the seven chakras and the four elements or it was bar alpha mu but that it was not… intended to be his initials but that when the design was being created somebody noticed that it looked like his initials and so it was refashioned to include – incorporate them as tribute.
Q Now, these explanations of seven chakras, the four elements or bar alpha mu, had you ever heard of these things before to explain the brand or refer to the brand?
A No.
Q You testified earlier that the DOS meetings where the defendant attended were recorded?
A Yes.
Q After DOS was publicly disclosed were your meetings recorded?
A No.
Q How was bar alpha mu going to be an explanation of the brand? Can you explain that?
A Yeah, because it looked like the brand, like if you look at the K facing downward, you know, with an A under it, it could have been a bar like a line with an alpha, you know, which is a Greek letter. And the R, the squiggle for the R actually did look like an M, which is why people thought it was Allison’s initials. So it was like making it like it was Greek letters, like the bar is a mathematical symbol but it was the bar and then an alpha Mu, so it was like logical that it could have been Greek letters because we were a sorority and all the sororities had Greek letters.
For a long time, it was widely believed that Allison Mack was also honored by the brand containing her initials. Lauren Salzman says it is not so.
***
Q Were other first-line DOS masters interviewed by the same [New York Times Magazine] reporter [Vanessa Grigoriadia]?
A Yes. At least Allison, and I think possibly Nicki [Clyne], too. But I’m not a hundred percent sure on that.
Q Did you subsequently learn something about what Allison Mack had said to the reporter?
A Yes, I did.
Q What was that?
A There were a few things that I learned. One, was that she had said in — she conveyed it as a moment of impulse. She took credit for coming up with the idea of the brand and then was like, “I don’t know why I did that. You know, I just felt special in the moment and I was, you know, and I said it. But that was false.”
And that she also — her accounting of it was that she characterized it as this wonderful opportunity for women to explore their sexuality and sensuality as women, which I specifically disagreed with.
Q Was Nicki Clyne interviewed by the reporter, to your knowledge?
A Either she was or she believed she was going to be and we had discussions and made preparations for that.
Q Did she ask you for anything before she met with the reporter?
A She did. She … thought that it would be a good idea to have a visual representation of the brand and to show how each of the lines of the brand could legitimately represent the alternate story that we were laying out, which was the seven chakras, the four elements, Bar Alpha Mu, and there was another thing about triangles descending and ascending triangles and lines. And so I agreed to do draw this out and I… drew it on the graph paper where I just reproduced the brand each time in its entirety but highlighting the element that I was referring to and how it was each of the things, … the seven chakras or the four elements or the Bar Alpha Mu. I highlighted how you could see; each of those could be interpreted from the brand.
***
{After Frank Report revealed that the DOS brand was Keith’s initials, Lauren was instructed by Keith to draw three sketches showing three different possible meanings for the brand – other than what it really was – Keith Alan Raniere’s initials. At the tria,l the jury was shown the drawings Lauren made. Unfortunatel,y these are not available to us.]
Q Ms. Salzman, can you explain what you drew and why?
A Yes. So in each of the [three] diagram,s you can see that I drew the brand as it exists. So it has the K-A-R. But I highlighted specific sections of it to misrepresent what it stood for. So at the top, I highlighted the line across which is the back of the K and showed how it was the bar. I showed the A in the subsequent one below and said that it was an alpha. And the R in the final one with the line at the A …. as an M for Mu.
Q And this concept that the Bar Alpha Mu could be an explanation for the brand, who gave you that idea?
A Keith.
Q And was this after DOS was publicly exposed [by Frank Report]?
A Yes.
Q … . Can you explain what [you drew] … Ms. Salzman?
A Yes. [I represented] the brand [in the second version] as the four elements, so air, earth, water, and fire. And I drew the lines accordingly at the top. The back of the K was the horizon. The triangle in the A was the earth, the mountain. The R was the squiggly line representing the river or water element. And the brand itself because it was, you know, burned on, it was to represent fire.
Q And was this supposed to be another explanation for the lines in the brand?
A Yes, it was.
Q Other than the defendant’s initials?
A Yes.
***
[Lauren explained her third version.]
A Yes. I’m showing how there are seven lines in the brand and that those seven lines could be interpreted to represent seven chakras. As well, below that the symbology of lines and triangles and that straight lines could be seen as representing an unwavering moral code, and triangles representing male and female principles, which were not actually part of the brand.
Q And was this another false explanation for what the lines in the brand stood for?
A Yes, all of them are.
***
[During Lauren’s testimony, a recording was played where Keith discusses the branding with his first line slaves.]
Q Ms. Salzman, do you know what’s being discussed in this section of the recording?
A The brand.
Q And when the defendant says, It’s actually K-A-R —
A His initials are — the brand is his initials, K-A-R.
***
Q Ms. Salzman, you testified about the size of the brand. How large was your brand?
A My brand is probably almost two and a half inches by three inches.
Q And were you —
A There was a mistake. I was told it was supposed to be an inch by an inch. There had been a mistake, so it ended up being not only larger, but skewed from the square to a rectangle.
***
[The brand came up again when Marc Agnifilo cross-examined Lauren. He showed her a photo of the brand]
Q That’s the brand, right?
A …yes.
Q So, here it looks like a K.
Q Some people thought it was an A and M; is that right?
A Yes.
Q And it’s not, right?
A No.
Q You heard many people say Allison Mack’s initials are in the brand, right?
A Yes.
Q And that’s just not true.
A It’s not true. I mean, as Keith said, you can creatively see many letters in there.
Q But one of your slaves saw the K and the R.
A Yes, she saw the K and the R because the slave stencils were mirror image upside down — I mean the slaves’ brands were mirror image upside down, but the stencil was the right way.
Q So, when the stencil was laying on the table sideways, she saw KR, big K, little R.
A But it’s flipped on purpose so they wouldn’t see what it was.
Q I think you said on direct that it was sort of a mirror image. So, if you were looking in the mirror —
A You could see it.
Q You would see the K and the R in the mirror?
A Yes.
Q But you would be at a different angle where it’s harder to make that out if you were looking down at it.
A Yes.
Q And at least one of your slaves recognized the brand was Keith’s initials?
A That’s true, and had a number of problems with it because her father — well, her father was a rancher, and she said, “Basically, this is what we do to the cows, is we brand them with our initials and it shows that they are our property.” And it became — it was an issue for her.
Q And the brand itself had looked like a big K, didn’t it?….
A Yes, but it was flipped on its side upside down.
