I am interested in the following accusations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G2Q8GyeZ6wi9MkawWoFIJHymeEy25b3TuyPeuPKe44g
Specifically these affidavits:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TOUQX-5wMX-2DPhZQcmwcqZOxh_5sP47/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ChKF2YBzBjUCOd1sQrBZ8NKFmndzW1gD/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vVlI4073RnWucIMng1JR0iEl-3P1uyxm/view
They allege, basically, that the FBI had witness testimony that Keith Rainiere sexually abused an underage girl, but were unable to prove it. An agent then modified EXIF timestamps on some explicit photographs that Keith Rainiere took of this woman when she was of age, and used them to support a child pornography charge. That charge was then rolled into a RICO conviction along with several conspiracy charges, and probably turned a trial that was quite legally murkey into a slam dunk for the EDNY.
While Keith Raniere did commit many crimes, and was in fact the leader of an absurd sex cult, the chain of custody violations and discrepancies alleged here are severe enough to have piqued my interest. I am unaware of another case in recent history of the FBI doctoring evidence in this kind of brazen way to secure a conviction and it would definitely change my model of U.S. law enforcement to confirm this. I realize that the former forensic examiners signing these affidavits were paid by friends of Keith to look into things, but perhaps that's because they're worth looking into!
A reproduction would involve me acquiring the equipment involved, verifying that it works the way these affidavits specify, and can't be glitched accidentally into producing the anomalies that these defense witness say implies tampering.
This market will resolve N/A if I do not attempt to perform this reproduction by April 1st. I may attempt to reproduce the evidence even if this market is very low, out of respect for traders who want a resolution.
1,000
3.00How do you plan to balance attempting to prove a negative with checking positive claims? From skimming the first affidavit, there are a lot of claims along the lines of "x could not happen naturally" which is hard to verify -- you could try some bug testing, but it is hard to prove a negative.
As for positive claims you could check, the fist few I see are things like "Modified dates are normally unaltered when copying to a new file system.", or "that camera creates folders named "CANONlO0" to store the first 100 photos, "CANON200" for the second 100 photos, and so on." These could be checked. What portion of these kinds of claims would you need to verify to have this resolve yes?
@UnconditionalProbability I'll do my best to verify as much as I can. If I can't verify one way or the other a particular claim that's key to the affadavit's narrative, I'll give an explanation for that in the video I give for the resolution. If one of the key positive claims (such as the behavior of the camera's file saving) turns out to be clearly false or misleading, then that would be sufficient to resolve NO. Also remember that I have the ability to just contact the people who signed these affadavits, and ask them about any discrepancies..
I'll reserve the right for now to determine which claims in these affadavits are "key" or not "key" to the overall story, but if I actually resolve to do this I'll explicitly list out what I'm attempting to confirm.