This is in response to K. R. Claviger’s post Why Weren’t Some Potential Witnesses Called By The Prosecution?
By the way, that photo of Clare Bronfman is bone chilling and freakish. I’ve never seen it before.
She looks demonic and it is as if it’s a mugshot in a bad movie kind of a facial expression, too.
Claviger mentioned – among those who could have been called as witnesses but were not called – Joe O’Hara – writing that he was a convicted felon.
Claviger wrote “which automatically means he would have no credibility” to testify for the prosecution in Raniere’s case.
Nancy and Lauren Salzman, Allison Mack and Clare Bronfman are convicted felons too.
From a variant point of view, here’s.another slate of reasons how come these goblins didn’t get to testify, with Lauren being the exception here.
1) Allison Mack: Mack would have had to come up as witness before so many other witnesses were called who crucified her during their testimony. She lost credibility as a potential witness by exactly what was exposed about her in court.
Also, as the trial progressed, additional input from more witnesses became unnecessary to convict Raniere, and it would have become too repetitive. You learn to get a feel for the jury and never risk losing any of them to oversaturation.
2) Clare Bronfman: She arranged or at least semi-arranged an “understanding” that she would not be testifying, probably as part of her plea deal and perhaps somewhat nebulously. Her ivory tower is going to crash later.
3) Nancy Salzman: She was seen coming and going as a clever swine of a woman. She was not only a buffoon trying to act like a qualified therapist/executive. Nancy Salzman handed her daughters’ lives over to Raniere, and the prosecution team was well aware of this. It’s very likely, especially after deposing Lauren Salzman, that the prosecutors would find it more expedient to do their work without a word from Nancy Salzman’s twisted mouth.