Keith Raniere’s trial lasted 27 days.
It started promptly at 9:30 AM on May 7, 2019 – and it ended at 2:50 PM on June 16, 2019 with Raniere being led away by U.S. Marshals to spend what may turn out to be the rest of his life in federal custody.
The first order of business on May 7th was a discussion between Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis and the defense and prosecution attorneys regarding two of the jurors who had asked to be dismissed from the jury.
Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis
The first was Alternate Juror No. 4 who asked to be let go because she had signed up – and already paid for – several courses at Queensborough Community College.
That sounded like a pretty reasonable request until a review of her receipt indicated that she had just done both of those things the day before the start of the trial.
Needless to say, Alternate Juror No. 4 did not get off with that lame excuse.
The second was Juror No. 9 who asked to be let go because his wife has stage 4 cancer – which meant that he had to be available to take care of their 6-year old son after school on those days when she was receiving chemotherapy.
Judge Garaufis granted his request – and replaced him with Alternate No. 1.
After several other minor matters were resolved – and Judge Garaufis had explained to the jury how the case would proceed – the prosecution and the defense both gave their opening statements to the jury.
And then, the prosecution called “Sylvie” as its first witness (Per a pre-trial ruling by Judge Garaufis, several of the prosecution’s witnesses were only identified by their first names).
Over the course of the next six weeks, the jury heard testimony from many prosecution witnesses, the last of which was FBI Special Agent Michael Weniger.
And when the prosecution was done presenting its case, the defense requested that several of the charges against Raniere be dismissed because the prosecution had not produced sufficient evidence to prove those charges.
After that motion was denied, the defense announced that it was not going to call any witnesses – including Raniere himself (After Judge Garaufis asked Raniere several questions about his decision not to testify, he then announced that “I find the Defendant has knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to testify in this trial”).
After both sides made their closing arguments to the jury, the judge instructed the jury how it should proceed in its efforts to reach a verdict.
After less than four hours of deliberations, the jury found Raniere guilty of all seven counts he was facing. It also found that the prosecution had proven that Raniere had committed every alleged underlying act with respect to those charges.
MK10Art’s splendid portrayal of Keith Raniere – right after hearing the jury’s verdict in his trial.
*****
What About the Potential Witnesses That Weren’t Called?
In putting together its case against Raniere, the prosecution had to make many important decisions.
Probably the two biggest were which people to call as witnesses – and which not to.
Now, with almost nine months having passed since the end of the trial, let’s take a look at some of the potential witnesses that weren’t called – and try to figure out why the prosecution decided to proceed without their testimony.
We’ll start with some of Raniere’s co-defendants.
*****
Nancy Salzman
Perhaps the biggest surprise is that the prosecution did not call Nancy Salzman, the woman who was the titular head of – and the public face of – Raniere’s criminal enterprise.
Nancy Salzman
Nancy could have easily provided testimony concerning all the charges against Raniere – as well as many of the related underlying acts.
And she could have provided some details and insight into Raniere’s motivations that no one else could provide.
So, why didn’t the prosecution call her as one of its witnesses?
Was it because of her allegedly fragile medical condition (Nancy was supposedly being treated for cancer – and had supposedly undergone a double mastectomy a few months before the start of the trial)?
Or was it because the prosecution was concerned that Raniere’s defense attorneys would try to shift the blame for some/all of Keith’s alleged crimes to her?
She was, after all, the President of NXIVM Corporation/Executive Success Programs – and a myriad of other companies and corporations that were part of the overall scheme.
From NXIVM’s Website
And it was her house in which FBI agents had found almost $520,000 in cash – as well as some Mexican and Russian currency.
Maybe the prosecutors were worried that she might hypnotize one or more members of the jury – or use her NLP expertise on them – and force them to find Raniere “Not Guilty” of any crimes.
What say you, Frank Report readers?
Why do you think Nancy Salzman was not called as a prosecution witness?
*****
Allison Mack
Allison Mack would have been a really entertaining witness.
Just imagine the media frenzy that would have surrounded the Eastern District of New York courthouse whenever she was in the area.
mk10art portrayal of Allison Mack being hounded by the media.
And the packed courtroom – and packed overflow rooms – that would have occurred whenever she was on the witness stand.
Allison could have testified about the entire DOS operation – and confirmed Raniere’s role in it (Instead, the prosecution had Lauren Salzman provide testimony about those aspects of the case).
And she could have provided some gory details about the branding process – and the excruciating pain that every woman who was branded had to endure.
AMK10ART’s depiction of Allison Mack and Dr. Danielle Roberts branding a DOS slave
They could have even shown close-up pictures of Allison’s own brand – knowing full well that none of the jurors would have been able to get that image out of their minds.
Allison could have also given first-hand accounts of her sexual activities with Raniere – including some of their threesomes (Instead, the prosecution had to rely on the boring recitation of emails that Allison sent to Keith about some of those trysts).
So, why didn’t the prosecution call her as one of its witnesses?
Was it because they were worried that Raniere’s attorneys would have asked her about her role in DOS – especially in light of the interview she gave to Vanessa Grigoriadis for The New York Times Magazine?
Were prosecutors worried that some of the jurors would have been confused by Allison being both a perpetrator and a victim?
Or were they worried that Allison would act out her sorrow and grief even more than Lauren Salzman did when she testified?
Marie White’s depiction of Lauren Salzman
Maybe they were worried that some of the jurors would get distracted by Allison’s ankle monitor or her cankles.
Or perhaps they were concerned that Allison might start singing a love song to Raniere from the witness stand.
What say you, Frank Report readers?
Why do you think Allison Mack was not called as a prosecution witness?
*****
Stay tuned – more parts to follow on this topic…
