FBI caught planting child porn evidence

[AMart]

Even taken at face value that does NOT say the FBI planted anything. It is his attorney saying a picture was altered and incorrectly dated.

He was found guilty of a long list of crimes and I can't imagine this making any difference either way. It was one picture the prosecution says was from 2005 and his attorney says it was not.

I would not doubt the FBI has planted many things but that isn't what is in actual question here.

You have not read through it lol

 

[pknopp]

In bid for freedom, notorious NXIVM sex cult leader claims to have proof of FBI evidence tampering

Attorneys for Keith Raniere, 61, claim the FBI backdated photos of a nude woman to make them appear to be child pornography when they were actually of an adult female.

www.eastbaytimes.com

Thanks. That article states what I said. The FBI is accused of misrepresenting one picture. Not planting it, but misrepresenting it. A small portion of what he was found guilty for.

 

[Mac-7]

Thanks. That article states what I said. The FBI is accused of misrepresenting one picture. Not planting it, but misrepresenting it. A small portion of what he was found guilty for.

Fine then put the FBI agents in jail along with Raniene

 

[pknopp]

Fine then put the FBI agents in jail along with Raniene

If it was proven they intentionally altered evidence, I believe that should happen. Odd how I've long argued that law enforcement that lie and plant evidence (which wasn't done here) should be charged but yet so few generally agree with me.

The officer that got the warrant that lead to the killing of Breonna Taylor presented "evidence" to the judge that directly contradicted what he was told. Has he been charged? No.

 

[Mac-7]

If it was proven they intentionally altered evidence, I believe that should happen. Odd how I've long argued that law enforcement that lie and plant evidence (which wasn't done here) should be charged but yet so few generally agree with me.

The officer that got the warrant that lead to the killing of Breonna Taylor presented "evidence" to the judge that directly contradicted what he was told. Has he been charged? No.

Link?

 

[meaner gene]

Here is an idea. Take this

and email or tweet it to your favorite writers at Fox, Cnn, Politico, CBS, etc, then they can write a story about it. Then you can post it here!

Although off topic, the arguments made in the defendants motion that the data on the hard drive (WD HDD) and camera compact flash (CF) card were not put into evidence for 11 months since their original seizure, and altered either before or after being in evidence.

I can't help but draw a parallel to the Hunter Biden laptop, whose content similarly was subject to alteration.

 

[meaner gene]

Even taken at face value that does NOT say the FBI planted anything. It is his attorney saying a picture was altered and incorrectly dated.

He was found guilty of a long list of crimes and I can't imagine this making any difference either way. It was one picture the prosecution says was from 2005 and his attorney says it was not.

I would not doubt the FBI has planted many things but that isn't what is in actual question here.

The point being as soon as a law enforcement agency "alters" some evidence, it puts in question all the evidence they present. And a legal sanction for altering evidence can be the exclusion of all other evidence that agency presented to the court. So it is possible that in a domino theory, the rest of the evidence would fall.

 

[meaner gene]

If it was proven they intentionally altered evidence, I believe that should happen. Odd how I've long argued that law enforcement that lie and plant evidence (which wasn't done here) should be charged but yet so few generally agree with me.

The officer that got the warrant that lead to the killing of Breonna Taylor presented "evidence" to the judge that directly contradicted what he was told. Has he been charged? No.

The supreme court has given warrants a wide lattitude as to errors. With a high bar for errors to be fatal, and thus invalidate the warrant. They allow what they call minor errors and even questionable affidavits to stand in support of a warrant. They apply a "good faith" standard for inclusion of false information in support of a warrant.

 

[pknopp]

The point being as soon as a law enforcement agency "alters" some evidence, it puts in question all the evidence they present. And a legal sanction for altering evidence can be the exclusion of all other evidence that agency presented to the court. So it is possible that in a domino theory, the rest of the evidence would fall.

He isn't going to get out of prison.

 

[pknopp]

The supreme court has given warrants a wide lattitude as to errors. With a high bar for errors to be fatal, and thus invalidate the warrant. They allow what they call minor errors and even questionable affidavits to stand in support of a warrant. They apply a "good faith" standard for inclusion of false information in support of a warrant.

The judge understood she was lied to and no, the Supreme Court has not allowed for a wide latitude in errors.

 

[meaner gene]

He isn't going to get out of prison.

He is undoubtedly guilty of many things. He was sentence to 120 years. But the legal system doesn't allow false evidence, and like such legal principles as "tree of the poison fruit", one bad apple does spoil the whole bunch girl.
I'm sure they have other evidence not subject to their manipulation or influence that would be admissible if he's granted a new trial. But they would bear the burden of proving that evidence wasn't fabricated.

 

[pknopp]

He is undoubtedly guilty of many things. He was sentence to 120 years. But the legal system doesn't allow false evidence, and like such legal principles as "tree of the poison fruit", one bad apple does spoil the whole bunch girl.
I'm sure they have other evidence not subject to their manipulation or influence that would be admissible if he's granted a new trial. But they would bear the burden of proving that evidence wasn't fabricated.

I replied because of a lack of any explanation of what was posted. As already noted, it doesn't appear anything was planted. There is a question being presented concerning the presentation of a picture. If the FBI intentionally did something to misrepresent it then they should be held accountable (but sadly they will not) but it seems to have been a pretty minor point (which would make even less sense to misrepresent it).

 

[meaner gene]

The judge understood she was lied to and no, the Supreme Court has not allowed for a wide latitude in errors.

I didn't say wide latitude of errors, but the supreme court has let what they call minor warrant errors stand. And they allow officers using confidential informants who have reason to give false information, to pass that information in a "good faith" basis for admissibility.

 

[pknopp]

I didn't say wide latitude of errors, but the supreme court has let what they call minor warrant errors stand. And they allow officers using confidential informants who have reason to give false information, to pass that information in a "good faith" basis for admissibility.

The officer admitted he lied to the judge.

 

[meaner gene]

I replied because of a lack of any explanation of what was posted. As already noted, it doesn't appear anything was planted. There is a question being presented concerning the presentation of a picture. If the FBI intentionally did something to misrepresent it then they should be held accountable (but sadly they will not) but it seems to have been a pretty minor point (which would make even less sense to misrepresent it).

Cal it the "Traci Lords" conundrum. She began her porn career when she was just 17 (and thus underage, making her sexual performances "child pornography". She produced fake documents saying she was 18 years old, and of legal age, which kept the other actors, cinematographers, directors, producers, etc from being charged with various child sex crimes. But the child pornography law is one of possession and not intent. Which meant someone possessing video tape of Traci Lords earlier works would be guilty of 18 USC 2252 etc.
So changing the date of a nude photograph, knowing the identity of the person photographed, serves to establish their age at the time the image was taken. So changing the image date from 2008 to 2005 of a person born in 1990 would change it from illegal (minor child age 15, which has additional punishments) vs an adult of age 18.

 

[meaner gene]

The officer admitted he lied to the judge.

You need to be more "legally specific". Was he under oath when he lied to the judge, and was the lie in the warrant itself, or just a statement made to the judge.

Perjury is a serious charge, with serious consequences, including invalidating the warrant, and thus make inadmissible the "tree of the poison fruit".
The USSC court says that determination is based on whether the false information would have changed the judges mind for issuing the warrant.

 

[pknopp]

You need to be more "legally specific". Was he under oath when he lied to the judge, and was the lie in the warrant itself, or just a statement made to the judge.

He lied to the judge to obtain a warrant. I do not have to be any more specific.

Perjury is a serious charge, with serious consequences, including invalidating the warrant, and thus make inadmissible the "tree of the poison fruit".
The USSC court says that determination is based on whether the false information would have changed the judges mind for issuing the warrant.

"We have no evidence".

 

[miketx]

I tried to find an actual story on this. No such luck. Have an actual link?

Atta boy groomer! Ask for a link and then deny the hell out it if provided.

 

[pknopp]

Atta boy groomer! Ask for a link and then deny the hell out it if provided.

You are the one defending the sex offender.

 

[meaner gene]

He lied to the judge to obtain a warrant. I do not have to be any more specific.

There is actually a great difference depending on the circumstances of telling that lie. If a judge asked him "Is this the first time you've applied for this search warrant?" and being his third try for a warrant, lies and tells the judge "first time your honor".

This lie, while not under oath was still to an officer of the court, and could face judicial, but not criminal sanctions. If that lie was part of the application for a warrant, that might invalidate any warrant issued. As the judge knowing two other judges rejected it, would have scrutinized the application much closer.

But as a statement that wasn't part of the warrant, knowing or not knowing how many judges rejected the warrant, it itself wouldn't change the case at hand, since each application stands on its own.