General

Skeptical Reader Demands Suneel Provide Evidence at Raniere Trial to Evaluate Allegations of Cami Nude Pic Tampering by FBI

05/18/2021·

Guest View

An anonymous reader is demanding that Suneel provide the full and actual testimony at the trial of Keith Raniere that concerns the Camila underage nude pictures in order to evaluate if there is any merit to Suneel’s claim of evidence tampering. It is apparent that this reader is skeptical but at least he or she is willing to consider the evidence.

Serious Questions for Suneel

By Anonymous

I would like clarity on a number of points and to see the specific back up documentation from the trial transcripts.

I am solely interested in the evidence the pictures of Cami were planted, or doctored somehow. I’m not interested in any other surrounding issues or testimony, for example the reliability of EXIF data.

Can you supply Frank Report readers with ALL the testimony regarding the pictures of Camila including a larger sample of the surrounding testimony than has previously appeared on the Frank Report?

Please provide:

1. Prosecutions opening statement regarding the pictures

2. Defense counsel opening statements regarding the pictures

3. All of Brian Booth’s testimony regarding the pictures. Both on behalf of the prosecution and his cross examination by the defense.

4. Closing arguments from both as to the picture evidence.

I have reviewed all the excerpts of the Booth testimony on the Frank Report and I see potential gaps between how you describe what he said versus how I read what he said.

Most notably, it’s not clear to me Booth testified that the dates of the pictures of Camila were changed on September 19, 2018. It seems to me he states “file system data” was changed while in FBI custody. Not specifically that picture dates were changed, or that they (or anything else for that matter) were changed on the exact September 19, 2018 date.

If you can provide #1 – #4 – side by side, along with the pictures and descriptions of the exhibits that are referenced within, I will review it with an open mind. In side by side I mean, prosecution statements with most relevant portions highlighted, followed by the described exhibits labeled with photos; Then defense statements with most relevant portions highlighted, followed by the described exhibits labeled with photos. All for opening statements, expert testimony, cross examination, and closing arguments. All in the order that they came during the trial.

Please make the excerpted testimony more expansive than you previously have on the Frank Report so the context can be better understood, even if the highlighted portions remain the same.

The Nxivm 5, L-R Suneel Chakravorty, Nicki Clune, Eduardo Asunsolo, Michele Hatchette and Marc Elliot prepare to make a statement to the press about their allegations of FBI tampering with the photos of Cami.

Please exclude everything else except the data regarding whether the pictures were tampered with or not. I’m not interested in the testimony regarding the reliability of EXIF data (I think that’s a matter of opinion) or chain of custody (It’s pretty clear chain of custody was broken). Or the existence of Photoshop files (it seems likely Raniere would Photoshop his pornography collection) unless there was testimony or evidence of the Photoshop files introduced at trial. If this evidence of Photoshop files only came from your experts than please leave it out.

I want to know, was evidence introduced at trial that these pictures were tampered with or not?

I think you are getting lost in the weeds giving complicated explanations of information that is of only marginal importance, is a matter of opinion, or is, frankly, pretty out there. I don’t believe in large scale conspiracies at all. I don’t think the judge is corrupt nor the prosecution or their experts.

However, do I think it’s possible a rogue FBI agent accessed the hard drive and changed picture dates or inserted a picture of Camila somehow?

I think that is highly, highly unlikely.

So far based on the evidence from the trial presented on the Frank Report I only see proof that someone at the FBI accessed something – I’m not sure whether it was the hard drive or the media card that were in evidence (or both), that access wasn’t logged, it’s not clear exactly when the access took place, and Booth testified there were some dates on something (I’m not sure if it was the Camila pictures, folders the Camila pictures were in, folders containing other pictures etc. etc.) that were unreliable for some reason.

If you can provide #1- #4 than we all can evaluate these questions for ourselves.

Thank you for your time.

Comments (21)

Add Your Comment

Anonymous05/18/2021

Again, Suneel, et al, focus on less important data than that which is considerably weightier. This is unsurprising because they need to make their case and will only focus on emphasizing that which supports it while omitting the data that counters it. This is ironic since Abrams (who is likely their paid for alleged expert) in his letter asserts that Booth may have committed “perjury by omission”. The FBI testified that the images were created in 2005. They only admitted to the dates the files were accessed being changed later on 9/19/2018. The latter means that the files were merely accessed, but doesn't signify in any way that their contents were altered or tampered with in any way, because there is additional file system metadata that records this information: file creation and modified times. While EXIF data may or may not be easy (which is different than saying it is difficult) to modify, the same qualification does not apply to OS kernel created data which file system metadata is. That's the crux of the matter that shoots down their entire argument and makes it all irrelevant. Yes, it is remotely possible (in the range of slim to none) that such OS kernel created data is not actual in the sense that a file could have been created at a date and time that is dependent upon the user of the system setting the OS date and time appropriately. But this is highly unlikely to be set to any other date and time than when the OS was actually installed because an online connection would have been used in 2005 (and even earlier) to retrieve it from some reliable online source, and the only possible discrepancy for this date and time would likely be for the time zone information of the location from which the user installed it. And my educated guess is that if the OS was legal and registered appropriately which it would have been in order to be installed, then the date and time it was done is likely held by Microsoft in a database that has recorded that information and could be verified. This would sink the NXIVM dead-enders' case even further. So I don't believe Abrams when he says the FBI specifically testified that the creation dates are “not reliable”.

benjicarver05/18/2021

Give Suneel a break. He has not been the same since Clare went on an all corn diet for a week and he was traumatized by his wiping duties. .

Nutjob05/18/2021

Was he traumatized by his wiping duty, or by wiping doody? Did Babcock steal Suneel's line? “Gotta go. Doody calls!”

Nice 👍🏼 Guy05/19/2021

Bangkok wears adult diapers. …Plus his bedroom floor is covered with wood-chip-shavings, suitable for gerbil use.

Nice 👍🏼 Guy05/19/2021

NutJob – Funny! The “hairless cat” is a masterpiece.

Shivani05/20/2021

Nice Guy, it is so crude to mention either hairless cats or Suneel anymore, unless you happen to be dolled up as Rod Serling. And simultaneously pleading with your wife for a better allowance through the window of that doghouse. The HELL with that damned M Salzman sister you eyed at a supper club. U doity rat U. This is one mission I wouldn't accept, being Rod Serling out back in a doghouse someplace around Boston. But you might wanna go ahead, be a man. Take a hit for the Red Sox. Please do not mention Cleveland Indians, hairless cats or Suneel so close to what must be bedtime someplace. Somewhere 🎵 All of this is getting to be too too Manchester-by-the-Sea. You shirley understand. Possibly no one else here would. Man Chesters. How Nxivm-sickly it all churns. Sartre would bellow “NAUSEA.” Hairless icks. Thin lips, no fucking chins, rotten nostrils, bad haircuts, bald wimmen, branded crotches, oversized honkers, hips that lie, erectile dysfucktion. Eating disorders. Rampant jealousy among perverts, pimps, suckers and consumers. That was no finishing school. And Cleveland. Ohio. Tell me it is all a nightmare from coconut pie. I detest mincemeat and have refused to ever even try that unpleasant looking doodle smush of brownish, indecipherable crap. Say, that could be quite descriptive of Keithy-Weethie! An unpleasant looking doodle smush of brownish, indecipherable crap. Poetic as all get out. This day's work only has taken about three minutes. Magnifique. If you don't mind, please, one more request. No Sinead O'Connor, until or unless she is through with this particular arc of her 199th nervous breakthrough. If she says one more nasty word about Prince, maybe she will turn into a plaster of paris lawn gnome in Madagascar. I'm looking at the bright side.

Mx lady05/18/2021

This was also something I asked for. Even just reading part of the transcripts that Suneel shared showed a very different story than what Suneel was arguing. The FBI was just saying that the access dates had changed (not that content had been modified or metadata about image modification) Great post. I think it's the sort of thing Frank Report readers want

Anonymous05/18/2021

Suneel- I challenge you to name one of Kieth Raniere’s faults. No man is made perfect. We all have our faults. Most of the commentators, including myself, believe you view Kieth Raniere as a kind of deity. Personally, I am self-deprecating to a fault. I lack either form of pride, good or bad. Also, at times I am a hypocrite. I’d say, one of Keith’s faults is that he trusts people too much. Surely, you can name at least one of Keith’s other faults.

Mexican Lady05/18/2021

I also agree with this: “Most notably, it’s not clear to me Booth testified that the dates of the pictures of Camila were changed on September 19, 2018.” I want to mention this is a point that Nickie and the Dos Project has been pushing strongly on social media. They are saying they have evidence that the dates were changed. Where is that evidence???

shadowstate195805/18/2021

“Skeptical Reader Demands Suneel Provide Evidence” Headline “Badges? We don't need no badges. We don't need no stinkin' badges!”

Nice Guy05/20/2021

Shadow- Only a true Western Movie aficionado remembers that line! Besides the Sergio Leone westerns and the Shootist or the Magnificent 7, there are many other great westerns nobody remembers. My 2 personal favs. are Rio Grande 1950 and “Shane”.

Yaaaassssss05/18/2021

Suneel, you have no choice but to cough up what my fellow reader has requested, if your mission is to clear KR of any wrongdoing here is your opportunity. You will also gain some credibility with the FR community through this type of transparency. Alternatively, it could also prove you wrong but at least you will have retained a bit of dignity. Frank, if Suneel does not agree to this very sound and logical approach, you cannot subject us to publishing him further. Any type of pushback and it would be apparent that Suneel knows that KR is guilty as proven and that he condones abhorrent behaviors.

Mexican lady05/19/2021

Is the anonymous reader Roger Stone ?

Anonymous05/19/2021

Now that Keith Vanguard Raniere can have guests, it will be quite interesting to see which of the NXIVM-5 will move to Arizona. Perhaps, Jim Del Negro and the demure Esther Carlson will make the trek to be with their master.

Aristotle’s Sausage05/19/2021

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for these complete transcripts. They would sink Suneel’s arguments. How can I be so sure? Note that this “issue” of the “altered data” doesn’t appear in Raniere’s attorney’s appeal filing. Which grasps at every straw, no matter how wispy. Raniere’s attorneys seem to accept the nude photos of underage Camilla as genuine: “Defendant was charged with two acts of sexual exploitation of a child and possession of child pornography in connection with a number of nude photos of a 15-year-old Camila that were recovered from a hard drive” They just claim the photos aren’t evidence of sexual exploitation (!). Or maybe they’re not Raniere’s (!). The appeal filing even mentions the two specific dates in November 2005 when these photos were taken: “Defendant does not contest that the photos admitted into evidence …. are photos of Camila, the photos alone, even if recovered from a hard drive to which the Defendant may have had access at some point in time, cannot establish by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant employed, used, persuaded, enticed, coerced Camila to participate in the taking of the photographs on November 2 and 24, 2005 – over 13 years before they were recovered.“ Thus, what defendant Raniere’s lawyers are arguing is the kiddie-porn first line of defense, “How did those pictures get there?!” I doubt that this line is very effective in court, the speculation that even though the files are on his computer in his home, someone else might have put them there.

Jane Smith05/19/2021

I am not sure about the USA but here in the UK if you pay for daily transcript writing services, there can be restrictions on where and how you can use it.