General

Part 3: Cami Pics ‘Tampered but True?’ Cami Says It’s True; She Was Photographed at Age 15 By Raniere

05/19/2021·

Frank Parlato

This is Part 3 of Cami Pics Tampered but True.

Part 2 Cami Pics Tampered but True? EXIF Data Is Hard to Change… Is It Really?

In this series, we are examining two things: (!) Did Keith Raniere take nude pictures of Cami when she was 15 and (2) Did the FBI tamper with the evidence to prove it?

Cami herself did not testify at the trial – which is troubling from a standpoint of due process – for the single biggest victim of the Raniere case was Cami.

She haunted the entire trial – from the prosecution reading extensively and selectively from her texting and at times ‘sexting’ with Raniere when she was in her mid-twenties – to the revelation that she was the secret person who performed cunnilingus on the blindfolded sex-trafficking victim Nicole – to the dramatic showing to the jury the nude pics of her – when she was [allegedly] 15 – with jurors turning their heads away and shaking their heads.

Cami was in a sense almost half the trial – as far as importance goes.

Yet, she did not testify.

Raniere lost the right of confronting the victim who did the most to put him where he is now – in prison with a 120-year sentence.

Why she did not testify is unclear, although it appears that she said her attorney advised her not to testify, an attorney apparently paid for by Clare Bronfman.

Of course, Cami did appear publicly, just once, at the behest of the prosecution, but only after the trial was over – and only after Raniere’s supporters, including Suneel Chakravorty, made a stink about the tampering of the Cami photos.

Cami appeared at sentencing. She was not under oath.

By the way, I, for one, believe her. I DO think she was groomed by, and then had sex with Raniere when she was 15, just as she says she was. I do think she IS telling the truth. But what I think is not evidence. Nether was her statement at sentencing.

MK10ART’s painting of Camila

Among other things, Cami said at Raniere’s sentencing were these relevant statements concerning the photographs:

[Camila’s Complete Statement at Raniere’s Sentencing –‘When I Was Still 15, He Took Naked Pictures — Naked Pictures of Me!’

“He [Raniere] first had sex with me on September 18, 2005. He would expect me to celebrate September 18th as our anniversary together every year. That first time, which was my first time, I was 15. He was 45…

“He would often take me to his executive library where he would ask me to take my clothes off before coming up the stairs to the loft as he watched. During these secret meetings when I was still 15, he took naked pictures — naked pictures of me.

“The experience of being photographed is seared into my memory. As a 15-year-old that is not something you easily forget. He would have with me some type of sexual contact during every meeting. He wanted to take a picture with no exception.

“While he hid our sexual relationship from others, he explained it to me by telling me I was very mature for my age, and the flattering and the romance of hearing that when you’re a teenager; I know now that it was false. I was a child. I also know that it was no excuse to rob me of my youth or to interrupt my life the way he did. He used my innocence as — my innocence to do whatever he wanted with me, not just sexually but also psychologically…

“I left in 2017 thanks to my sister. When I walked away [from Raniere] I had the mind of a 15-year-old in the body of a 27-year-old. I missed out on the incredibly basic things people learn in their youth, so I was completely unarmed and unable to cope. Even after I left, I was still constrained by him.”

I repeat: I, for one, believe her statement. I do believe he took nude pictures of her when she was 15.

However, I am not sure – not absolutely sure – that the pictures or the dates on the camera card were not altered.

I can understand that the FBI might have wanted this case so badly that they justified their altering dates on the camera card because they believed it was true anyway. He did take the pictures.

Make the evidence fit the actual crime?

We all know this is not due process. We all know that even if Raniere, or any other defendant, committed a crime, we do not want law enforcement concocting evidence. If they did, we’d have a bigger problem than Raniere.

Sure, it won’t change Raniere’s guilt, but if it is true, it will say a lot about the FBI if they tampered with the pics.

Even if Raniere is 100 percent guilty of taking pics of Cami when she was 15, he is entitled to some remedy, even if that means a new trial, where Cami can and indeed must testify.

In fact, she should have testified anyway. Raniere appeal is based in part on Cami not testifying, as we shall see in the next part of our series.

Comments (13)

Add Your Comment

Aristotle’s Sausage05/19/2021

Frank, you’re contradicting yourself. In the previous part you ask us to consider the optics of the FBI handling of this matter. Now, you’re asking us to set aside what Camilla said in court in her impact statement because that’s not formally evidence. Well neither is “optics” evidence. The FBI might have tampered with the evidence (why they would do it by “losing” the card, not sealing the bag it was “found” in, and not restoring the easily changed (?) EXIF data back to its original state though? Hmmmm?). But “might haves” are not evidence either. Facts are this: there’s no evidence the FBI faked evidence, and Camilla says Raniere took nude pictures of her when she was a child. The case against Raniere is rock solid.

Ice-nine05/19/2021

None of this changes the fact that Keith used magnets on a refrigerator to write, “Slap My Heinie”

Anonymous05/20/2021

Icy- I don’t think you can back up such an assertion with any data. How do you know someone else didn’t arrange the letters playfully? Keep an open mind.

Mexican lady05/19/2021

I have not seen evidence that the dates of the photos were altered and the scar of Cami removed. The FBI accessing photos later on means nothing. Maybe the FBI was searching for where the pedo photos were and was sloppy finding them. It does not mean the FBI fabricated evidence. This post bothers me a bit because I think it is helping the cult of Raniere to believe they have found a conspiracy. They have nothing. I would like to see a smoking gun of evidence of Camila’s pictures altered and implanted there.

Anonymous05/20/2021

I completely agree. Relentlessly creating posts, intended to rally Raniere's base and the public at large to support his getting off on a technicality is not upholding the spirit of due process rights. Not at all.

Sherizzy05/21/2021

I also agree. It’s as if Frank drank the Kool-aid. Giving Suneel a platform to spew his conspiracy theories is one thing (which Frank has done a million too many times), but Frank spewing those same theories is troubling. This whole series of posts is disturbing and redundant. I understand that Frank hates the government. He loathes the FBI and the DOJ. But he has let his own personal disdain from his own criminal case infect his impartiality. That’s a big no-no for a journalist.

Mauricio Ricardo Urtaza Reyes05/20/2021

Yeah, well the FBI protects pedophiles not incriminate them. At this point, It would be amazing if there was another trial, another opportunity for people to see the darkness that Nxivm had. Where is the investigation of the woman that Emiliano Salinas says that trafficked kids? That's interesting, very interesting. Where is the investigation for the snuff experiments? They know that Raniere was a pedophile and at least two of his sex slaves were helpers in maybe raping kids, Rosa Laura and Cafritz. But these are just líes for Suneel, I mean we know that Raniere was a liar, someone that created a dumb criminal enterprise, in the lightest of perspectives. He said a thousand líes, from not having sex with anyone, to being the smartest man in the world, to hitting women in a Luciferian ritual. Plus, Camila said that the pictures are true, which is the only proof that I need to know that the pictures are true. Oh, and the mountain of evidence of Raniere being a pedophile that wanted to control the world. Because maybe that's the worst crime that Nxivm did, wanting the Luciferian principles they teach to interfere with the elections of two or three countries? Let's remember that Emiliano Salinas wanted to be president, that Asunsolo said that Obama was in Nxivm and had strong connections to Democrats, that Hillary Clinton was in, and that the Bronfmans are really close to Trudeau. That sounds worse than being a pedophile, at least by the number of people that Nxivm could damage. Or the suspicious deaths of Raniere's lovers, or that time that he stated that people died because of his beliefs, or the pedophile propaganda Nxivm taught that the Nxivm 5 now defends in the hope of releasing a liar, and that's probably one of the BEST things that you can actually call Raniere

Data schmata05/20/2021

Cult true believers like to use Cami not testifying as proof of one thing ( Keith's right to confront his accuses) then switch it to “not being under oath” to imply Cami was free to lie. But Cami DID talk to law enforcement. Which does carry weight and penalties for lying. Do you honestly think on a case this large in scope that like a paralegal just interviewed Cami one time and the prosecution was like, “We're good. She's telling the truth.” That's not how it works.

K.R. Claviger05/20/2021

I can't recall whether anyone has already raised this point but it should be noted that Keith also had the right to call Cami as a witness. Granted it may have been difficult for Keith's attorneys to force her to show up in Brooklyn, NY for the trial — but the question is “Did they try to do that?” And since Cami was being represented by an attorney paid for by Clare Bronfman, did Keith's attorneys even interview her?

Nice Guy05/20/2021

Maybe the Bronfmans will pay Cami off if Raniere gets a second trial. I thought Bronfmans were going to do that during the first trial.