Suneel Chakravorty
By Suneel Chakravorty
It is my contention that, during the criminal trial of Keith Raniere, the prosecution did many things to “dirty him up” by soliciting testimony and introducing evidence of acts that were perfectly legal. This was a calculated effort to make him repugnant in the eyes of the jury.
They dirtied him up.
For instance, they had Lauren Salzman testify that prior to Keith’s “arrest,” five of the first-line DOS women, including her, were planning a “recommitment ceremony,” which supposedly was going to include a “group blow-job for Keith.”
Suneel: Lauren Salzman’s testimony showed that Keith Raniere’s “sex life was not standard” and was most likely designed to shock the “straightlaced, conservative” jury.
These women were all Keith’s long-term romantic partners. All of them had been with him for years.
Of course, I do not know if this story of hers is even true. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that, based on her own testimony, Lauren seemed to be hyper-jealous of Keith’s relationship with other partners and resentful that Keith did not have a child with her.
Second, she was facing up to 40 years in prison for racketeering conspiracy and racketeering. She may have hoped to reduce her ultimate sentence by cooperating liberally, agreeably, and, if necessary, fictionally, with the prosecution.
Still, for many people, a group blow-job may be an ideal Friday night. To me, it’s hardly a topic of direct examination in a federal criminal trial.
Group blow-jobs are not illegal. The sole purpose of this testimony was to make Keith look dirty. To shock the jury, which, as Keith explained, had a number of straightlaced, conservative members, as evidenced, he said, by their jury questionnaires.
In their effort to dirty Keith by showing his sex life was not standard, the prosecution mentioned not only the number of participants but also the number of blow jobs.
The prosecution speaks at the Keith Raniere trial. “In their effort to dirty Keith by showing his sex life was not standard, the prosecution mentioned not only the number of participants but also the number of blow jobs.” — Suneel
For example, the number of times another government witness, Daniela, supposedly gave blow jobs to Keith was one of the hot topics of her testimony.
Remember, this is an adult woman in her 20s making the decision to perform oral sex on a man she admired and chose to be with.
Keith was not charged with receiving illegal blow jobs, nor on account of the number who planned to join together on a single occasion to give one to him, nor on account of the number of blow jobs one individual provided to him over time.
But it became an issue at trial — blow jobs.
In prosecutor Mark Lesko’s closing remarks, he told the jury, “Daniela told you about her sexual relationship with the defendant that almost exclusively involved at all times of the day having to have him drop his pants and having to give him oral sex, right?”
During his closing remarks, prosecutor Mark Lesko told the jury [and I can see no other reason for him to emphasize this other than to dirty Keith up] “Daniela told you about her sexual relationship with the defendant that almost exclusively involved at all times of the day having to have him drop his pants and having to give him oral sex, right? Two to three times a day I think she quantified it. So I’m not really good at math, that’s why I’m a lawyer, so if it’s two years and you have 365 days a year, what is that, that’s — oh my gosh — 730 days. And if she’s having oral sex with the defendant, let’s be fair, twice a day, that’s 1,400-plus incidents of oral sex with the defendant with Daniela.”
What legal relevance do 1,400 blow jobs have to the law or the charged crimes?
Does the Math Even Add Up?
[By the way, that’s supposedly 1,400 blow jobs, 2-3 times a day for two years, just from Daniela. Also, according to FBI Agent Lever, Keith had a “rotating group” of 15-20 women (by the way, this was simply asserted as fact and never proven.). If the other women also performed on par with Daniela, that would mean 30-40 blow jobs a day. Over a two-year period that’s up to 28,000 blow jobs. This man should not be in prison. He should be examined as a unique and perhaps priceless medical wonder, a national treasure, a testimony to American virility, and, if even half of this is true, I think it’s worthy of submission to the Guinness Book of World Records.]
Why did the judge allow this kind of testimony about consensual sexual contact?
To dirty him up.
Just the perfectly non-standard fact that Keith had multiple (long-term) partners with whom he had sexual relations was enough to make him look dirty – despite the fact that the women were all adults who consented to this arrangement.
Right from the start, it was all about dirtying him up.
MK10ART’s Portrait of Dani. “[…] the number of times another government witness, Daniela, supposedly gave blow jobs to Keith was one of the hot topics of her testimony,” Suneel points out.
In the criminal complaint, FBI Agent Michael Lever wrote: “Based on information obtained during the course of this investigation, since ESP’s founding, RANIERE has maintained a rotating group of fifteen to twenty women with whom he maintains sexual relationships.” This assertion was never proven and is likely an exaggeration, yet it was stated as fact to inspire moral outrage.
And so what? What if he had a million women? That’s not a crime.
Keith Raniere. “In the criminal complaint, FBI Agent Michael Lever wrote: […]RANIERE has maintained a rotating group of fifteen to twenty women with whom he maintains sexual relationships.’ This assertion was never proven and is likely an exaggeration, yet it was stated as fact to inspire moral outrage,” Suneel writes.
But the prosecution wanted to pull back the private curtains and let the jury peep in and be shocked, horrified and unsettled.
For instance, the prosecution read an email from Allison Mack about her having a threesome with Keith and another long-term female partner of Keith’s.
Keith Raniere and Allison Mack. “The prosecution read an email from Allison Mack about her having a threesome with Keith and another long-term female partner of Keith’s.”
Why? The women were in their 30s. It was fully consensual. How does a threesome have any relevance?
Because it is Allison Mack, a famous actress. It was sure to make news and dirty him up.
Why the hell was this read in court? All it shows are the private feelings of a consenting adult woman.
Then there were the endless Whatsapp texts between Cami and Keith that were read to the jury.
Mk10ART’s sketch of Camila. “They did not read any of the hundreds of texts he wrote to Cami that showed genuine solicitude and love and desire to guide and teach a woman who said she was in love with him,” writes Suneel.
It was mind-boggling how many hours this went on. And it was also very selective. The prosecution took texts out of chronological order and only chose those texts that made Keith look bad.
They did not read any of the hundreds of texts he wrote to Cami that showed genuine solicitude and love and desire to guide and teach a woman who said she was in love with him. And there were hundreds more where she wrote to him as a lover and friend and how she expressed gratitude for the wonderful influence he had on her life.
None of those were read.
Instead, the jury heard texts like the infamous “fuck toy slave” exchange.
Much was made of this. We don’t know if it was meant to be arousing or amusing or demanding or what – but it was not illegal. Calling a woman who has sex with a man “a fuck toy” by that man is not illegal.
But the prosecution made hay with that one.
It dirtied him up.
Then there was the one text where he asked her to meet him at her door in a sexy outfit and say nothing, just pleasure him, and then he would go.
Taken as a single instance of sexual conduct, it sounds selfish, but it was not the entirety of their sexual relationship. And once again, not illegal — Cami was 25 years old.
Judge Nicholas G, Garaufis sentenced Keith Raniere to 120 years in prison – and 5-years of post-release probation.
Yet, amazingly, Judge Garaufis, in sentencing Keith, actually quoted the text as if it was a high crime: “In one message, Mr. Raniere wrote her: ‘If you want me to come tonight, I will under these conditions: There will be no talking. You will meet me at the door in the outfit you think I would find sexiest. You will arouse me, we will make love for my satisfaction and pleasure. You will do everything you can to provide that. I will finish and leave. Do you agree yes or no?”
The fact that the judge read that text at sentencing shows how this whole trial went.
It deserved no weight at all. It should not even have been read in court, let alone been used as an act to justify a 120-year sentence.
Throughout the trial, the judge allowed the prosecution to shock the jury with things he himself was undoubtedly shocked by.
None of it was illegal.
Gratuitous things like Keith preferring women to not shave their pubic hair. This was introduced repeatedly at trial for no discernible reason. Preferring fulsome pubic hair is not a crime.
Why include this? Dirty him up. Make him look selfish. Get the jury to hate him.
The prosecution dirtied him up beyond recognition, taking the jurors into his bedroom and the bedrooms of his romantic partners, and they made him look dirty.
But even if all the above were true, it’s still not a crime.
Keith Raniere was convicted for moral turpitude, not for any alleged criminal conduct.
This is why he was convicted for a single, mildly kinky incident with Nicole with Cami where Nicole consented to be part of the act. This became a sex trafficking charge with a minimum 15-year sentence and resulted in a 40-year sentence for Keith.
The single act itself was not horrifying, and Keith had no way to know she did not consent since she gave consent to him before, during and after the incident.
Had it been charged alone, had this one brief incident of BDSM cunnilingus been told to the jury, it would never have stood the test of sex trafficking.
But by the time the jury had to make a decision, Keith was already dirtied beyond recognition.
