2.Rebuttal Closing Argument — Prosecution

MR. LESKO: We're almost done. I want to join my colleagues in thanking you for your attention and your patience during the past six weeks. You heard a lot of witnesses. It's a complicated case. It's an important case. You paid attention and it's been remarkable really.

And you've heard that the government, the government bears the burden of proof and we have the opportunity to provide the final say, the final rebuttal argument and that's what I'm going to do today and I'm going to ask you to bear with me a little bit, I'm going to try to be efficient, I'm going to try to be fast but Mr. Agnifilo spoke for over three hours so there's a little bit to discuss here, okay.

Before I get to what Mr. Agnifilo argued, let's talk about what's not in dispute in this case, okay. What's not in dispute is interstate or foreign commerce, you didn't hear anything about that. And you heard evidence that Nicole lived in Brooklyn, New York and you heard evidence about witnesses and victims traveling through JFK Airport and you heard -- remember that little piece of evidence about the Domino's purchase on the Cafritz credit card in Brooklyn, so venue is not in dispute, okay, in the Eastern District of New York.

There are no arguments and I would suggest no dispute that the defendant knew the inner circle, that they knew him, that he was extremely close with each and every one, each and every member of the inner circle and that they revered him, they worshiped him, no dispute about that. Mr. Agnifilo even admitted here before you yesterday that the defendant was part of DOS. That's no longer in dispute.

So, let's talk a little bit about what is in dispute and before I get to that I want to make a point and that is that in many, many of his arguments on the issues in dispute time and time again Mr. Agnifilo attempted to confuse you and attempted to distract you, distract you from the evidence, the evidence that proves that his client, the defendant, is guilty of the crimes charged because Mr. Agnifilo does not want you to focus on the actual evidence in this case, the evidence that proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you remember when Mr. Agnifilo kept -- throughout his summation he kept saying, I think this, I think that, I think Mark Vicente is a good guy, I think Lauren Salzman, she was telling the truth, remember that. Mr. Agnifilo represents the defendant, ladies and gentlemen, he's a defense counsel. What he thinks, whether it's what he really thinks or something else, it doesn't matter, it's simply irrelevant. It's what you think about the actual evidence in this case that matters. What Mr. Agnifilo says or thinks does not change the actual evidence in this case, testimony under oath, video recordings, audio recordings, the documents, the physical evidence, the mountain of evidence that you heard over the past six weeks. What he says doesn't change that. What he says is not evidence. The questions he asked are not evidence. What I say here right before you is not evidence. Speculation is not evidence. Guessing is not evidence. Theories are not evidence. You heard a lot of theories from Mr. Agnifilo, they're not evidence.

As I mentioned to you, the evidence is what you heard from the witnesses and the exhibits, the trial transcript, thousands of pages of it, and it's your recollection, what you recall that matters. And it's been a long trial so please remember during your deliberations you can ask for the evidence, you can ask for the transcripts, you can ask for the exhibits, you can ask for page numbers, you can ask for testimony from a specific witness, you can ask for a particular topic and you'll get it, the judge will give it to you, and do that if you need to.

I'd like to take a few minutes to talk about the witnesses. In evaluating which witnesses to credit and not to credit, the judge will give you some guidelines about witness credibility and some of the questions you may want to ask include does the witness seem honest, does the witness have any particular reason not to tell the truth, was what the witness said supported by other evidence? And I would suggest to you in Mr. Agnifilo's closing that he really didn't attack any witness except for Daniela, okay, he attacked Daniela. Why did he attack Daniela, because he has to, because Daniela testified for five days in front of you in excruciating detail laying it all out, the confusion and the specifics. It's your job to determine whether or not Daniela was telling you the truth and no one is better positioned than you, you sat, what, ten feet from her and saw what happened.

When you evaluate the government's witnesses and I would suggest to you when you evaluate Daniela's testimony, you will conclude that it makes sense, that it's reliable and that it is backed up or corroborated by other evidence, the emails, the writings, the other testimony from other witnesses.

You can't take Daniela's testimony in a vacuum. Think of Lauren Salzman's testimony about Daniela, you put those pieces of testimony together and they create the full picture, the full tapestry of what happened in this case. And each witness had very specific information to share with you, a specific perspective on the defendant's conduct and I submit to you you know they were telling the truth for two reasons, the testimony of each of those witnesses backs up the testimony of the other witnesses, they fit, they don't fit perfectly I would suggest to you and that makes sense, nobody remembers everything the same way, but they fit.

The second reason you know they're telling the truth is each witness gave you limited testimony. They didn't generalize or stretch. They gave you specific information about what happened to them, what they observed and those specific pieces of information, again, fit together.

I'll give you an example, you heard from Nicole and you heard from Sylvie and their experiences were very similar, weren't they, but was there any indication that the two of them interacted, that they colluded, that they even knew each other, and think about what happened to them, very similar.

So, it's your job to figure out how these details fit together and I would suggest to you when you do that, when you do that work you'll realize that the details do fit together and that the witnesses are telling the truth and when you consider all of their testimony together, I submit to you that the full picture of the defendant's criminal enterprise comes into focus. All right.

So, let's talk about Mr. Agnifilo's arguments. He started out by talking about the enterprise, remember that, and asking if there was a common purpose, a common purpose. It was interesting though because later he basically answered that question, it was when he was talking about Lauren Salzman and he said the defendant made her life possible, do you remember that, and then he said something to the effect of he made it possible for everyone. That's important here. He made everything possible for this inner circle.

And what's also important is the enterprise here is not NXIVM and it's not DOS. The indictment alleges that the purpose of the enterprise was to promote the defendant and to recruit new members into DOS and into NXIVM. The indictment further alleges that by promoting the defendant, members of the inner circle expected to receive financial opportunities and personal benefits including increased power and status within the enterprise.

We do not have to prove a common purpose between NXIVM and DOS. NXIVM is not the charged enterprise. DOS is not the charged enterprise. The defendant and his inner circle are the charged enterprise, a group associated in fact, that's the charged enterprise. So, Mr. Agnifilo just got it wrong.

And you know and I don't -- I would suggest there's no dispute about that, that the defendant was the leader, the Vanguard, the grand master. He controlled everything, every decision, literally every single decision went through him. You know that there was no doubt who was in charge.

So, let's talk a little bit about the racketeering acts, okay, and I'll take them roughly in the order -- address them in the order roughly that Mr. Agnifilo did with one exception, I'll explain that when I get to it, but let's start with Racketeering Act 1, that's the identity theft of Ashana Chenoa. So, basically Mr. Agnifilo argued that, if I recall correctly, Daniela made the fake ID. That was essentially the argument. What did the evidence show. Well, the evidence shows that Daniela told you that the defendant's plan was to have her cross the border, the Canadian border into the U.S. with a fake identification and Kathy Russell met her and took her across the border and you know that Kathy Russell was in upstate New York near the border, Mr. Agnifilo acknowledged this, she bought gas at a gas station in I think it was Clifton Falls which is sort of near Niagra falls or on the way to Niagra falls. And you know that Daniela was terrified about the border crossing and you know that when they got to the border crossing she told the Border Patrol -- asked about the weather and adrenaline is pumping, heart is pumping and they are allowed to cross the border and you know the records show that Lisa Chenoa, that was Ashana Chenoa because it was her birth date and her last name and that you also know that Lisa Chenoa was on the records as crossing the Canadian border on Christmas Eve, you remember that. And you know that Ashana Chenoa was a real person because you saw her death certificate, you saw her driver's license and you know she died in a car wreck.

It doesn't matter that the fake identification, the sheriff's identification used the first name Lisa, the use of the Chenoa last name and her date of birth is enough to qualify as a means of identification. And how do you know that the defendant's plan involved the use of fake identification of an actual person, how do you know that? Well, I'm going to say something that sounds obvious, you know it because Ashana Chenoa was a real person and her information and her name, her date of birth was used on the identification and the defendant led a plan that used that information in the sheriff's identification so you can probably period, put -- stop there and that's been established but there's more.

You know that the identification was going to be used at a border crossing where there was going to be sort of a heightened level of scrutiny, I mean this wasn't like a teenager buying beer at a 7-Eleven or something like that. This was going to be a border crossing and that they would use -- the defendant certainly, careful as he was, would use a real person's identity to survive that level of scrutiny, the possibility that the information provided would be run through databases and so forth at the border and you know that the defendant was the decision maker so it's safe to infer like everything else that ultimately the decision to use the Chenoa identity was ultimately his to make and he made it.

And you know that the defendant went to great lengths to get Daniela across that border, he sent two of his closest associates, Kristin Keeffe and Kathy Russell, sent them, dispatched them, had them transport Daniela across the border and that meant this was very important to him. He didn't want to risk failure, further allowing you to infer that he knew that Chenoa was a real person, took risk out of that equation.

You also know that Kathy Russell was the one who took responsibility for this, for getting Daniela across the border because she used that as leverage, do you remember that, she used it as leverage to get Daniela to participate in sex, in threesomes with the defendant, remember that. And I would also suggest to you that it's perfectly understandable that after that blast of adrenaline at the border and getting into the United States that Daniela's memory right after faded. Think about it in your own lives when you have that sort of experience, that tense, stressful experience, right after is sort of like a blur and I would suggest to you that's what happened here.

Now, much was made, Mr. Agnifilo made a lot out of the Kristin Keeffe theory, it's a theory, the theory is that she's a free agent, she's acting on her own, maybe she's the mastermind, maybe she's doing all this bad stuff, I don't know, I couldn't quite make all of it out, but he definitely points the finger at Kristin Keeffe.

MR. LESKO: And you know that's not true. You know that she wasn't a free agent. You know that the defendant, like many crime bosses, gave orders to his associates to execute, to execute all those orders.

And Kristin Keeffe was, for a period of time, one of his closest and most trusted associates and she executed many of the defendant's orders. And you know that Kristin Keeffe, like, all the members of the Inner Circle didn't do anything without running it by the defendant. You know this specifically about Kristin Keeffe because Daniela told you that. You remember the morning meetings? In fact, what we'll do is, let's go through and Alex is going to help me, I'm going to go old school on this. We're going to use the Elmo.

So I'm going to show you Daniela's testimony at Page 2516 and let's start with Line 13. Actually, start with Line 11.

"QUESTION: Can you explain a little bit about that back and forth how that back and forth would work?"

"ANSWER: Yes. So the interactions were obviously Kristin, like, was actually out in the field, like, doing the work. Like she was -- is the one actually doing things. But she would also, she would always be there going back to Keith reporting on what was happening. So he was fully aware of everything that was happening and would be the one thinking about the things. And when they interacted, clearly, she presented certain options and this was going on, this is going on with so and so. So it would be all of the specifics and Keith would be the one to decide so he would have a last say. He would say, okay, I think you're right, I think you should do this, or he would come up to the idea or he would," next page, "tell her you should try to do this or you should try to get that. But it was very clear to me that it was Keith that was making all of the decisions."

That was 2516.

Do we have 2507? If you go to 2507, just a couple pages before that, Daniela is talking about sort of the process of the morning at Flintlock and how Kristin Keeffe would come downstairs, start of the day, remember that, with the hair in the rollers and discuss legal matters with the defendant. Literally, like, the first conversation of the day was with Kristin Keeffe on a very regular basis. And she's reporting to him, asking him for permission, similar to the transcript we just read. She didn't do a thing without getting direction from the defendant. She reported everything to the defendant. She was one of the executors in the enterprise.

I should also point out here that Racketeering Act 1, like some of the racketeering acts have, like, parts A and B and parts A, B, and C. These are called subpredicates. And what they mean you find any one of them is committed, and not that all of them have been committed but any one within a racketeering act you must find the defendant guilty of that racketeering act. They're called subpredicates.

Let's talk a little bit about racketeering act -- and I'm going to group 5 and 7 together because they're sort of go together and those are the key logging racketeering acts.

And Mr. Agnifilo spent quite a bit of time talking about key logging. This is the conspiracy to key log and the key logging of James Loperfido, Edgar Bronfman, and Marianna. And, again, essentially, Mr. Agnifilo's argument is pretty straightforward in it that Kristin Keeffe did it. That this was a Kristin Keeffe operation. And we've talked about Ms. Keeffe.

Let's talk about James Loperfido. Nice guy according to Mr. Agnifilo. That's for you to decide. But you know why his e-mails were monitored. It was about Mr. O'Hara, Joseph O'Hara, an arch enemy who allegedly did not pay back the $2 million loan I think it was partly for a vineyard up in New York. And why was this so important, and why this scorched earth around Mr. O'Hara that involved key logging Mr. Loperfido, his business associate? Because Clare Bronfman was involved. The defendant's piggybank who provided him millions and millions and millions of dollars. Tens of millions of dollars throughout the life of this enterprise. She was the money, she was funneling the money, so this struck close to home.

And you know that several of the intercepts of Mr. Loperfido's e-mails actually did involve Mr. O'Hara. We saw the exhibit with the name of Mr. O'Hara's company and I think his son's name, if you recall correctly. You also know, and I'm not going to spend too much time on this, that Edgar Bronfman was an enemy, and an arch enemy. And there are lots of reasons for that we may talk about an e-mail in a bit. The reasons for that are pretty simple and they go back, I think the Forbes article is sitting there somewhere, called NXIVM a cult. Could we have that in the Forbes article. It's not important, you saw it.

And you know that the defendant was directly involved, intimately involved, intimately aware of the key logging. Mr. Agnifilo made much of this thumb drive, sometimes the data was on a thumb drive, sometimes it was sent by e-mail. That doesn't matter. I mean Daniela could have taken the data and slipped it under his door for all it's worth, it doesn't matter. What matters is that he was receiving the data, receiving the e-mails on a regular basis that Daniela was mining using the key logging.

And you even know from the outset that Daniela was reporting to the defendant when she learned how to key log.

Let's pull up Government's 1518.

You remember this exhibit this was sent to the defendant November 6, 2005, and Daniela is doing Internet research trying to figure out how to get passwords user names so they can access the e-mails. And she finds this Magic Lantern program and teaching herself how to use that. So right from the start this is a defendant operation. Right from the start.

Mr. Agnifilo also discussed Racketeering Act 7, that's the key logging of Marianna. And that argument I didn't understand quite as easily. I think it was something to the effect, oh, they were living together and he was doing it and she was doing it and they were all doing it and I think it was some sort of he had quasi-permission to access Marianna's Facebook account. Does that make any sense to you? Permission to hack her Facebook account? So I'm going to give you permission to have my sister hack through key logging my Facebook account so you can see my communications on Facebook. If she was going to give permission and she's, you know, according to Mr. Agnifilo, living with the defendant, why didn't she just give him her password. Go look at my Facebook account. Not go have my sister hack into it. Why would you ever do that? And, more importantly, perhaps there's absolutely no evidence that Marianna gave the defendant authority to access her Facebook account.

And, just briefly, let's look at some of the e-mails where the defendant discussed the key logging of Marianna's Facebook account. Government's 1591. And I'll just go through this briefly. You've seen a bunch of these e-mails. Right at the bottom there, it's on the third page. Zoom in.

So this is from the defendant on November 5, 2008. "Where are you? Did you get any KYLG stuff?" Key log stuff. The defendant's own words.

Next page, right at the bottom. This is just a sampling, I'm not going to go over it all. Right at the bottom. Daniela, to the defendant: "Did you get the Facebook info?" "Yes." Defendant right above responds, "Yes, give me an overview of what these things are."

There's no doubt whatsoever the defendant directed Daniela to do the key logging. Received the e-mails that she mined from the key logging. Reviewed them. This was a defendant operation. And if you want to take a look at some e-mails regarding, that relate to Edgar Bronfman, turn your attention to Government's 1543. Those relate, actually, let's take a look at 1543, actually. So 1543, it's a whole collection of e-mails. These all relate to the Edgar Bronfman key logging. And then 1541 is an e-mail from Clare Bronfman to the defendant again discussing her father.

And so, you know what the motivation was in terms of key logging Edgar Bronfman's as e-mails. And you know there's multiple communications regarding those.

Remember there was the near friend and the far away friend in some discussion in some of the e-mails. And I turn your attention review government's 1543 and 1419.

All right. Let's turn to Racketeering Act 6. That's the videotape racketeering act. You heard a lot about the videotapes, a lot, and I'll try to brief. But you know from the outset Mr. Agnifilo characterizes as a crime on the court, remember that, and he's right. By providing altered videotapes in discovery in a federal case to the federal courtroom like the courtroom we're in here this morning, and having his attorney lie to a federal magistrate judge about it that was indeed a crime on the court and he altered videotapes. Here, Mr. Agnifilo's argument is pretty straightforward. I think it's that Mr. Vicente did not know that the tapes were going to be produced in a specific lawsuit, and that he got the project, the alteration project, mixed up with some other project relating to videotapes. And he's right. He predicted this was a conspiracy account so that specific knowledge about the specific case is not required. All that's required is the agreement to actually alter the videotapes and you know that that happened and we'll talk about that in a moment.

And I would suggest to you that the arguments about Mr. Vicente grossly mischaracterize his testimony. Mr. Vicente was very clear at the outset to alter videotapes and he knew they would be handed over in a case, let's take a look at transcript Page 653.

And this is Mr. Vicente recounting his conversation with the defendant. And when he tells the defendant he knows how to put the glitches in the tapes, Line 17, the defendant says, "Oh, that's good. There's some things we need removed the legal department has some things that need to be removed from the tapes and it has to do with a case where our methodology is being evaluated and our patent is being looked at." And right then, Mr. Vicente agreed to the conspiracy. Done, completed right there. But you know it went further.

Look at Government's 1397R. You know that Mr. Vicente worked on the project, wrote memos about the project. He told you ultimately that the project was completed and 1397 tells you around the end of June. By the way, you may recall that the tapes were produced July 1, 2008, a couple days before, look at the Monday or Tuesday heading, first and second bullets. Ms. Penza talked about this in her closing. "Duplication of tapes Keith has asked me for. Aging and weathering of the masters." Right there in the memo.

So let's talk about Mr. Vicente's understanding of the case and this is maybe where the confusion occurred.

Mr. Vicente explained that at the time he thought the lawsuit was a case involving a patent. He later finds out that the lawsuit was specifically the Franco lawsuit. It was a lawsuit no matter what, but he had specific knowledge of what the lawsuit was later in time.

Let's take a look at transcript of Mr. Vicente's testimony are Page 1299 he explains this here and Mr. Agnifilo, in his cross-examination, pulled out a selected question where Mr. Vicente is explaining, "At the time, I didn't know it was the Franco lawsuit. I learned that after the fact, but I knew it was a lawsuit."

Okay so, let's take a look at what Mr. Vicente said. 1299 and let's start at Line 11.

"QUESTION: What videotape alteration project was the bullet referring to?"

And we're talking about the memo we just discussed.

He says:

"ANSWER: "No."

What is that referring to? It refers to the extraction of certain things from the Intensive tapes to be handed over and what I thought, you know, was a protected patent-type case to later being told it was part of discovery for an actual case."

"QUESTION: So it involved a case?"

"ANSWER: Yes."

"QUESTION: What is your interpretation of the case?"

"ANSWER: Well, what I find interesting was basically that's the -- there was a legal wrangling going on between NXIVM and I think it is Rick Ross/Stephanie Franco. My understanding was than they had asked to see NXIVM's materials," he next page, "from a particular year."

"QUESTION: Let me stop you. That was your understanding of what the actual case but you said a patent case."

"ANSWER: Oh, it was more, no. To be precise, what I understood at that point is that there was a case going on and that the patent, I was told the patent was at risk because of this case. That's what I understood."

"QUESTION: So you knew there was litigation involved?"

"ANSWER: Yes."

Mr. Agnifilo also tried to argue that Mr. Vicente confused this project with other projects, you remember That. He's simply wrong and Mr. Vicente explained that. He explained that the digital project, I think it was digitizing some historical tapes that the defendant had made, videotapes were of everything, happened in 2014 when Clare Bronfman brought this expensive machine, I think it was called a Raid machine. You remember that he explained there was a Mexico film project going on. And he said at that time in 2008 that was happening in Mexico, that hasn't happening in Clifton Park. And he was crystal clear that the legal department videotape project in 2008 was the altering of the videotapes in that case. Crystal clear.

Let's turn next to Racketeering Act No. 11. This is the use of the Pam Cafritz American Express card. And Mr. Agnifilo said something interesting. He said that the defendant was doing what he had always done. And you know what, that's true. He always used other people's money. He never used his own money, although it all was his money. He did that to pretend was a renunciate because he didn't want to pay taxes.

But this was a little different, right? And why was it different? This time he used a dead person's money.

Let's keep this one real simple, folks. Pam Cafritz died. She couldn't give authorization to use her credit card. Dead people can't give authorization to use their credit cards from their graves. Mr. Agnifilo mentioned something about the defendant being entitled to the trust or the estate, but why hadn't he received the estate. Why was he continuing to use this credit card time and time again for years and pay for the balance out of the Key Bank account because he didn't want to pay taxes.

I would note also there is nowhere in the indictment where it says, "income tax." It says, "federal tax," and you know the defendant was obsessed with not paying taxes. You know that because you saw the declaration, I think, it's Government's 762 in that federal Texas case where he said he didn't have money to pay the $400,000 fee that was imposed on him. That was a bald faced lie.

How do you know that? He could have paid it on the credit card. He could have paid it out of the Key Bank account. He had access to hundreds of thousands of dollars just there. And you saw all the charges during that time period, so you know he had access to this credit card. Yet, he told the federal court that he had no assets when he had half a million dollars in cash hidden in Nancy Salzman's house. Come on.

And you know he was obsessed with taxes. You know that he spoke about it at the Intensive that Stephanie Franco attended because she was startled by what he was saying about not having to pay taxes. James Loperfido told you that pretty much his entire job was to figure out a way for NXIVM not pay to taxes. The ultimate goal was zero taxes. Mr. Loperfido told you the defendant controlled all the companies, controlled everything. Yet, Cathy Russell told Mr. Loperfido that the defendant didn't make any income. Did that make any sense?

And, of course, Mr. Loperfido told you about that movie at V Week, remember that? Not paying taxes, some sort of tax protest money movie. And he was concerned about that, wanted to talk to the group and they wouldn't let him.

So we know that the defendant's scheme to maintain the appearance of having no income and no assets while living an expensive lifestyle: Hot tubs, saunas, trips to Mexico, was all done not to pay taxes. And that's why you know the conspiracy to use Ms. Cafritz's credit card was done in connection with the crime of tax evasion.

Let's move on.

Racketeering Act 8. This is another racketeering act with subpredicates that involve the trafficking of Daniela for labor and services as well as document servitude. Just need one of the subpredicates.

I would suggest to you that when it came to Daniela, it was always about work. Yeah, they had a sexual relationship for, I think, it was a couple of years but the constant was work. Before she went in the bedroom, she was cleaning people's houses; she was doing book reports. You remember that? Extensive book reports. She explained that to you in detail. She was doing the key logging. She was following, I guess, following the defendant around documenting his every move. Organizing the library which appeared to be no easy task. Work, work, work, work. That's what it was all about with Daniela. And then when she gets put in the bedroom, it's still about work. But this time she's put to work to fix her issue. She has to figure out and she's given tools to do this work what are the tools a notepad and something to write with. And what does she do? She works. She writes plans. She writes letters. She writes and writes and writes and writes and you know what's proof of that? Government's 907. Take a look at them. Here's all her letters. Here's all her work. Her work product from that two years in the bedroom.

Daniela was also in fear, fear of having to go back to Mexico. Fear of encountering law enforcement, getting deported. Fear that she didn't have her papers. She didn't have her birth certificate and fear that she would lose communication, lose contact with her family. It was a climate of fear that surrounded her when she was in the bedroom.

And when she finally left, it's taken to the border and she went back to Mexico, it was back to work. Work. So how is she going to get her papers, do you remember how that was going to happen? She had to do book reports again. These damn book reports. And it was so extensive, the volume was so high, she couldn't keep up with it. And then she was back in the cycle -- more work, more work. So it was always about labor when it came to Daniela.

I want to point out something else. Do you remember when Mr. Agnifilo said that Daniela was, "Playing games." Remember when he said that? Was that eerily reminiscent of something? Reminiscent of communications between Kristin Keeffe and the defendant when Kristin Keeffe was taking the defendant to the Mexican border. Your recollection controls, not mine, but if my recollection is right, didn't he, the defendant, say the exact same thing that she's playing games. Maybe he said that when she was in Mexico, but it was after she left the bedroom.

And what was Mr. Agnifilo doing by using that terminology by saying that Daniela was playing games? He's blaming the victim. That's what he's doing. It was Daniela's has fault. It's the same blame that the defendant placed on her to convince everybody that what he was doing to her was right. It was Daniela's fault, she deserved to spend the 700 days in the bedroom. That's what that argument was about.

And didn't Mr. Agnifilo accuse her of stealing from those stores that were listed in that list? Wasn't that eerily reminiscent of something? Didn't the defendant accuse her of stealing? Wasn't that the whole sort of basis for the treatment of Daniela? There's echos in the argument that you heard here today from Mr. Agnifilo from the abuse of Daniela by the defendant even here just yesterday.

And incidentally, with regard to stealing from the stores, why would she lie about that? She admitted to stealing money, she admitted to key logging, she did that all under oath in federal court. Why would she make up the story about not remembering? Is she not remembering stealing from the stores?

Mr. Agnifilo also seemed to argue that this was just a family matter. Remember that? That her father was involved. That Daniela was put in the room for 700 days because her father was frustrated. Is there any doubt the defendant had total control over this family?

Remember the audiotape with Adriana, Daniela's mother, where the defendant is manipulating her: You kill the child would you go party or something like that. I mean, all this manipulation of the mother to get her on board with this plan to put her daughter in the room. Is there any doubt he's in control?

And the father, the father. This is the father that sent his young children to Albany. I guess, ultimately, in the care of the defendant without sending any adult with them. This is the father whose three daughters had sexual relationships with the defendant. Abortions. This is the father whose youngest, Camilla, was having a sexual relationship with the defendant when she was 15. Is that a father in control? Was this just a routine grounding? I don't know about you, but when I was grounded it is like I couldn't go out Saturday night, right? I've never heard of grounding where someone's put in a bedroom for 705 days. I don't know about you. Family matter.

How do you know that the defendant and not the father was in control? Well, Lauren Salzman told you that. Lauren Salzman, let's talk about her for a second. Lauren Salzman, who pled guilty to two racketeering offenses. Lauren Salzman who pled guilty pursuant to this cooperation agreement, Government's 3500-LS-6. Read every single page of this cooperation agreement. And you'll know that Lauren Salzman is facing 20 years in prison. And you know that Lauren Salzman was Daniela's keeper in the bedroom. This was a project that was assigned to her by the defendant, that she was going to be the keeper in the bedroom. And you know how she feels about that. You saw her reaction. In fact, I would suggest that if anything that Lauren Salzman did, I would suggest she feels worse about this, keeping Daniela in that bedroom for two years.

So let's look at what Lauren Salzman says about Daniela's father. Transcript 2125. Right at the bottom. Line 25. "Hector, the father, in my experience is an incredibly," we'll go to the next page, "Weak personality and could have been enrolled to be on board if Marianna was on board, or Cami was on board. Like, if the whole family said we're not on board, then I think Hector would not have been on board." End of the question. At Line 7, "He supported her staying in the room; correct? Lauren Salzman's answer, "It's true and he withheld her documents in the end as well."

This wasn't led by her father. This was led by the defendant. And how do you know that? We're going to take a look at some brief he can certainties of Lauren Salzman's testimony where she explains that she reported back to the defendant when she interacted with Daniela in the bedroom and that he was in total control and we'll go through this very quickly.

Page 1927 of the transcript, Line 6.

"QUESTION: Did the defendant appear confident and secure in that choice?"

This is the choice to put her in the bedroom.

"ANSWER: Yes."

"QUESTION: Did the defendant ask you to keep this project a secret?"

"ANSWER: Yes. He told me to the know anyone about it not to discuss it with anyone."

Going to Page 1934, Line 4.

"QUESTION: And during this period of time, did you report to the defendant?"

"ANSWER: Yes. Every time I interacted with her I did report to him."

"QUESTION: And what did he tell you in these reports?"

"ANSWER: Similar to what I said before. I mean, that, you know, sometimes he would be thinking about what, what should be done and sometimes I would ask him for direction."

Next page is 1937. Right at the top.

"QUESTION: Did the defendant give you instruction about what you were permitted to tell Daniela?"

"ANSWER: I wasn't permitted to tell her anything. He told me not to tell her. I couldn't tell her what to do."

Let's go to the next question on Line 8.

"QUESTION: Did the defendant ever tell you that Daniela should remain in the room for longer?"

"ANSWER: Yes."

Then go down to the last then go down to the last line.

"ANSWER: And he told me to come up with a way to fix that. And that a way to fix was staying in the room until the hair grew back."

Again, work, fixing the issue.

1940, Line 15.

"QUESTION: How often did you check in with the defendant about Daniela?"

"ANSWER: Whenever I went to see her, but there were times when I wasn't seeing her a lot."

Next Page. 1941, Line 3.

"QUESTION: Did the defendant express concern about the family interfering with the project at any point?"

"ANSWER: Yes. He thought they were interfering with the project."

Let's move on to Page 1966, Line 15.

"QUESTION: Did you believe you had authority to determine when and if Daniela would be sent to Mexico?"

"ANSWER: No, absolutely not."

"QUESTION: Who had that authority?"

"ANSWER: Keith. And I don't believe Daniela believed that I had the authority."

Page 1985.

"QUESTION: Who told you her behavior was manipulative and game playing?"

"ANSWER: Keith consistently told me that until we all started to see it that way."

Game playing. We talked about that. Lauren also explained that the defendant had to get permission for Daniela to visit the dentist. Do you remember?

Let's look at Lauren Salzman's testimony on that point, Page 1958. Right at the bottom there.

This is her answer:

"ANSWER: I went to Keith to ask if I could take her, or if she could go to the dentist and he said he would think about it. And it took six weeks for him to decide that she could go," next page, "and, I mean, part of her tooth broke off before it was okay to take her."

"QUESTION: During those six weeks, did Daniela tell you that she was in pain?" "ANSWER: Yes, she was telling me that she needed to go to the dentist."

"QUESTION: Why did you wait six weeks before she went?"

"ANSWER: Because I wouldn't take her unless Keith said that it was okay for her to go."

Lauren also explained that she and the defendant exchanged e-mails while Daniela was in the bedroom. And you saw some those e-mails, I'm just going to go quickly through them. Just show them to you, really.

Let's start with Government's 1238. And right at the bottom there, after Doom, I think, it says tomorrow is Goldie's birthday and Hector is asking if the family can write her letters. This is Government's 1238.

Go to the next page, Government's 1241. First line, this is a 3:46 a.m. e-mail to the defendant from Lauren Salzman, first line. "I'm going to sleep but apparently Bobo wrote a letter that said, "Let me out, I'm coming undone."

And Government's 1242 at the top, it is an e-mail from the defendant. This is on November 9, 2010, and just right in the middle there second line. It starts, "Might try asking her the difference between being in the room for a day... or as long as she has."

These e-mails are damaging, ladies and gentlemen. Extremely damaging. It indicates the defendant knew she was in the room at his direction and for a significant period of time that Daniela is coming undone in the bedroom. And to address Mr. Agnifilo's argument, specifically, the first e-mail reflects that the father, the father who is allegedly responsible for this, is asking if he can rite write letters to his daughter. Is he in control? Of course he's not in control. The defendant was in control, complete control like always.

Another minor point, but I think it's one that illustrates how Mr. Agnifilo played fast and loose with the facts before you. Remember he mentioned the e-mails forwarded that involved an immigration lawyer that were forwarded to Daniela. I guess the argument is something to the effect that she had the opportunity to consult with this lawyer and didn't avail herself of that opportunity.

Let's take a look at it. And I ask you to take a look at it, it's Government's 1554.

So if you look, look sort of midway down maybe we can magnify this. Look at that last paragraph that says, Because." Adrian and Camila. It's throughout, I won't bore you with this. All throughout, this e-mail is about Adrian and Camila and their visa issues. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Daniela. So that's a false impression.

There was another misleading argument, and I think, you know, common sense would prevail here and you knew what was going on.

Mr. Agnifilo called Daniela slick, and as an example of that, he pointed to the abortion clinic records where she said she was in the country as an, I think, a student or something like that, wanted to go to college here, that it was misleading. She's there with Pam Cafritz, and you know who Pam Cafritz is, right at the top. Right at the top of the Inner Circle. Pam Cafritz was the fixer. She minded the women and she was there to make sure that nothing bad happened at that clinic and that Daniela had gotten her abortion.

Daniela lied at Pam's direction and at the defendant's direction. She didn't want to raise any red flags and they didn't want to raise red flags and they're illegally harboring her. She became impregnated pregnant while they harbored her. Wouldn't that have raised a couple red flags at the clinic? Because they wanted her to have an abortion and you know it was an abortion she had endured alone. And it happened.

All right. So let's talk about DOS. Mr. Agnifilo spent quite a bit of time on DOS.

Let's start with the arguments you heard today and we'll get back into what was said yesterday a little backwards, but I think we heard some arguments so let's sort of deal with that.

First, Mr. Agnifilo claimed that Jay, that the labor performed by Jay, was all sort of under the delegates program and you know that's not true. I'm not going to spend too much on that. There was some work at delegates. I think Jay indicated she got paid a pittance, if anything, for that work. And then there was an another other set of work as part of DOS. Acts of care, assignments, and specifically you may recall the transcript writing assignment involving Pam Cafritz's memorial and the hours that Jay spent on that and got no pay whatsoever. So this was about labor. I think you also heard that Nicole had the same experience with the transcripts and the Pam Cafritz memorial. She was required to write those transcripts, I think she said, she stayed up like 23 hours or something like that to get them done. Never paid for any of it.

Mr. Agnifilo said that the sex in DOS was a small amount. How do you know that? How do you know what the ratios were? I mean, you know there were a lot of photographs, right? But how do you know how much sex there was. And if you want to look at sort of, like, let's do a -- the defendant likes mathematical formulas so let's do one.

You know there was a high involve of sex because 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. So don't come in here and say that there's a small amount of sex going on in this case.

Mr. Agnifilo made an argument about this one. I don't understand, but this was all about attraction and a person and some star and gravity, and gravity is pulling people together. I mean, last I looked this is what happened with gravity, all right. It's one way, down.

These women were not attracted to the defendant, they told you that. Sylvie told you she had found him creepy. Nicole said she wasn't attracted to him. Jay said she wasn't attracted to him. This isn't about attraction, that's a smokescreen, that's a red herring.

And what about the vagina shots was meant to be attractive? How did they help in this star-magnetism-attraction dynamic. The open-leg photographs. How did the dungeon help with that? That tail thing, was that about attraction? Attraction went one way, the defendant's attraction. That's what mattered.

Mr. Agnifilo talked about shifting perceptions. Your recollection controls, not mine. But I would suggest to you that when it came to the three victims in this case and even Lauren Salzman there was not a change in perception. There was a change in perceived control. There was a change in a coercive dynamic. There was a change in extortion. There was a change in dynamic there. But in terms of perception, I think the record reflects that Sylvie, that Nicole when they were having sex with the defendant knew that was wrong.

MR. LESKO: And knew that was bad. And that Jay, when she was ordered to have sex with the defendant -- you know this for a fact -- she knew that was wrong, she decided to head for the hills. And even Lauren Salzman when she finds out about the sex, she knew that was wrong. Remember the testimony about going to Mexico and having the group orgy. And remember how she was testified about that. She didn't want to do that, she knew that was wrong. She was going to see if it was actually going to happen, that's why she went to Mexico.

Mr. Agnifilio talked about what happened in the aftermath of all of this. This fellow, Franco Parlato, and all that stuff. I want to be clear here, the sex trafficking happened when it happened. The aftermath is of no moment.

The collateralized sex as a result of extortion and the threat of the release of the collateral and based on the lies that were presented to the victims, DOS, no explanation of the requirements of DOS, no explaining of the assignment of additional collateral or Andy, all those lies when they led to the victims having sex that's the completed crime.

So what happens after communications between victims and the defendant, Mark Vicente, Franco Parlato, it's of no moment.

Mr. Agnifilio argued that DOS was all about trust. Do you remember that? Trust. It wasn't about trust. If it was about trust, why do you have to collateralize the slaves? Why do you have to have blackmail material if you trust them so much, if this is a community of trust? Why take naked photos and sex tapes and letters lying about their parents and themselves and secrets and property? Why do you need all of that stuff if it's so trusting. You know that's not true.

Mr. Agnifilio went on to tell you the story about the father who makes the son study hard. And the son becomes a lawyer, the angel comes down -- it gets a little crazy. The gist of the story, as I understand it, is that the study, the requirement to study, takes on a different flavor when the angel says the father hates son.

Study is not illegal. You can interpret why you were made to study, that's not illegal. What if the father asked the son to perform oral sex on him? Does that perception change? At the time or after? What if the angel said, your father he hated you when he made you have oral sex. It's still illegal. It was illegal then, it is illegal later. It doesn't matter.

Mr. Agnifilio talked a lot about the communications between some of the victims and the defendant after they had sex with him as a result of the assignment. I think he also maybe read some of the communications involving Daniela. You know that this, from a psychological perspective, is a very confusing experience for these women. Dr. Hughes told you about that. And that the process of sort of exiting these sort of relationships, it doesn't happen overnight. It takes time. And it's very confusing to the witnesses. And Dr. Hughes told you that, but the witnesses told you that. And they fully acknowledged that, that was a very confusing process.

For Nicole it was particularly confusing, she was still collateralized. Daniela, confusing because for a period of time they still had her birth certificate. And think about that relationship going back to which she was not even 18 years old. Very confusing, and that's understandable.

So let's talk a little about what Mr. Agnifilio said yesterday about DOS. He started out by saying that the SOP tape was the best evidence of why DOS was formed. Again, a distraction. Was the SOP tape in 2012 about the men's group, like the collateral, you recall this. Collateral was like related to recruitment of new numbers. You had to put a thousand bucks down and if you only recruited three you lost your thousand; if you recruited more than that -- I'm probably getting it partially wrong, but that's the gist of it. I'll bring five people in; if not, I lose my thousand.

That was fundamentally different than the collateral in DOS.

And best evidence of DOS? Better evidence than the Cami chat? Let's look at Government's Exhibit 1779, page 285. Let's look at it again. This is showing this is the raw format, which you can go through. But if you look -- Ms. Penza went over this and I'm going to go over it again -- October 1st, 2015, 9:19 p.m. the defendant chats to Cami, I think it would be good for you to own a fuck toy slave for me that you could groom and use as a tool to pleasure me, dot, dot, dot. So this SOP tape is better evidence than that? Better evidence than all the other texts with Camila about the DOS concept at around the time it was formed? Better evidence than the recordings you heard about the defendant talking specifically about DOS and the branding and making the women position them as if they are being sacrificed. And make them ask to be branded so it appears that they are not coerced; because why, because they are being coerced. And it's coming out of his mouth, you heard on audio tape.

Better evidence than the DOS policies that you saw? The formulas regarding collateral, what weighed what. Ms. Penza went over this in detail, I'm not going to go over all of this stuff.

The DOS book, you saw the DOS book. What is better evidence about DOS than the DOS book.

Better evidence than, let's look at Lauren Salzman's testimony. How is the SOP tape from 2012 better evidence than what is reflected on page 1794 of Lauren Salzman's testimony, Ms. Penza went through this also.

Question: "What did you say?

Answer: "Is he fucking your slaves is what I said.

Question: "What did she say?

Answer: "She said just Nicole and Suzy. We're going to start working with India and Jay. And I said to her, when you say working, do you mean fucking? And she said yes."

Better evidence than that?

As an aside, while I'm talking about Lauren Salzman, Mr. Agnifilio spent a lot of time about how Lauren Salzman broke up with the defendant. This isn't high school, ladies and gentlemen. This is serious business. And I said this earlier, but what Lauren Salzman did in this courtroom wasn't breaking up with the defendant. It was testifying under oath, under a cooperation agreement after pleading guilty to two racketeering offenses, and facing 20 years. That's what she did.

So let's cut to the chase. It's 2015, Pam Cafritz is dying. Pam is the member of the inner circle who for years procured sex partners for the defendant, often beautiful women, and she wasn't going to be around much longer. So what did the defendant do? Maybe he was in a panic. He leveraged his manipulation and his mind control to create an organization that would serve up and continue to serve up a steady stream of sex partners for him. But this time he didn't have Pam. I imagine Pam was a very nice person, no reason not to believe that. He didn't have her. So what did he have to use? Lies, coercion, collateral. Because Pam wasn't going to be around anymore.

Remember when Mr. Agnifilio repeated that nursery rhyme? I don't think I ever said it, 'cross my heart hope to die stick a needle in my eye,' that's what little kids say.

But you heard Nicole's testimony. You heard Lauren Salzman's testimony. You heard Jay's testimony. You heard Sylvie's testimony. Collateral is what caused Nicole to be strapped to a table with a stranger performing oral sex on her. Needle in the eye, does that sound like a game to you?

Mr. Agnifilio did admit something about DOS, he admitted the defendant was connected to it. He had to, the tapes, the evidence, so overwhelming.

But then he said something interesting, he said the defendant was not the CEO of DOS. I agree. He was the Grand Master of DOS. He was the Master of all the slaves, the sex slaves. He was the Supreme Being in this organization.

Listen to the tapes, is there any back and forth between the defendant and the first line slaves? He's giving orders instructions. It's all flowing from him. He's not renting his brain out, that's absurd. This is his idea. He's thinking up the branding. He's thinking up the details, the positioning, where the hands go, what is said right before the branding. He's doing all of that.

Mr. Agnifilio also claims that DOS was created to heal Camila. Do you remember that, that she slit her wrists I guess. You know that's not true. Again, a mischaracterization of the evidence.

You know that DOS was created before Camila joined the first line. It wasn't created for Camila. You also know in that tape that the first line, some of them pushed back against Camila joining the first line. It wasn't a foregone conclusion. This wasn't created to heal Camila.

Mr. Agnifilio also argued that DOS was not created for sex. So let me get this right, if it's not created for sex, then what was going to happen in the dungeon with the cages and the tails and all of other stuff? Were they going to knit sweaters in the dungeon? Is that what is going to happen? Of course it was about sex. Mr. Agnifilio also talked about relationships. You may recall that. He said each relationship was unique. Well, that's definitely not true. To the extent you want to call the dealings with the sex slaves, with the DOS slaves, to be relationships, they were relatively uniform, weren't they? Many of the slaves in fact looked similar, many were branded, forced to perform acts of care, assignments, weight-monitored, sex with the defendant, send naked photos, send collateral. It's pretty form relationship with those women, not unique in almost any respect.

It's interesting, the defendant points to -- they all look the same -- Rosa Laura Junco. He pointed to Rosa Laura and says she didn't have a relationship with the defendant. Let's talk about Rosa Laura for just a moment.

She's the first line slave in DOS. And let's pull out Government's Exhibit 1325. Think about this e-mail. Mr. Agnifilio says she doesn't have a relationship with the defendant. Right at the start -- this is an e-mail, remember he's forwarding this e-mail to this encrypted e-mail account right when everything is falling apart, trying to get rid of stuff. And this is forwarding an e-mail originally sent by Rosa Laura to him October 4, 2015. Hello M, hello Master. I fear I may be affecting Laureisa and your possibility for succession. The next line, I am being a crappy SL DOS, dot, dot, dot slave. On the bottom, I'm a 100 percent clear that you are what I want for my daughter, and obviously for myself.

So let's unpack this e-mail, we've done it before, let's do it again. The defendant is on the hunt for a successor. I suggest to you a successor is an underage virgin. Laureisa, Rosa Laura's daughter, I don't know if she's a virgin or not, but she's underage, she's a teenager. Rosa Laura, who allegedly has no relationship with the defendant, is serving up her teenage daughter to be the defendant's successor, to have sex with him. And then she's saying that he is what she wants for her daughter; she wants her daughter to have sex with him and obviously for myself. And this is somebody who Mr. Agnifilio says has no relationship with the defendant. Does that sound truthful?

Mr. Agnifilio also claims that Allison Mack's circle, that they were doing something different from the other circles. They were having sex, I guess the argument is the others weren't in the other circles. You know that's not true. Again not true. Why? Sylvie told you.

Who is Sylvie's master, not a quiz, you don't have to answer it. I'll answer it for you, it was Monica Duran, not Allison Mack. And Sylvie got the assignment to have oral sex with the defendant. So it just wasn't Allison Mack.

Mr. Agnifilio also claimed the defendant was never abusive, do you remember that? What courtroom has he been in for the last six weeks? Never abusive.

Not only was the defendant physically abusive, you heard from Daniela when he threw her on the ground. Do you remember that? But he was sexually abusive and he was psychologically abusive.

You heard Dr. Hughes, I'm not going to go through her testimony, but you can ask for her testimony. You heard her explain all of the types of isolation, surveillance, all that stuff, used in abusive relationships. She called it the coercive dynamic. Do you remember that? He must have read the text book on coercive dynamic. The defendant used almost every single technique. The level of manipulation, the level of coercion, the level of mind control, astounding. This wasn't some prisoner of war camp in North Korea, this was in Knoxwoods, in Clifton Park, that's where this happened.

Mr. Agnifilio described Nicole's leaving telling the defendant, she was leaving, and again it was very nice, it was a nice description. Am I ever going to see you again, sort of one of those movie moments, right? He left out that one part, again distracting, confusing, he left out a part. That was the part when he asked for his money back, do you remember that? He asked for his three grand back, the $3,000 that Nicole had access to. 10,000 she had access, she took 3,000. He gave her that money so she could continue to be a sex partner for him. Forgot that part.

He also said that Nicole didn't tell Allison Mack about her sexual relationship with the defendant. Again, your recollection controls, but that's simply untrue. What did Nicole do right after the table, right after the table? She went right to Allison Mack and told her about it. So she wasn't keeping that a secret. He also argued that Allison wanted to somehow help Nicole. I'm not going to show it again, but you know what that meant, you know working meant fucking.

Mr. Agnifilio also made an argument about Nicole that may have shocked you. First he said that after the table incident, that Nicole's e-mails were less dark. Nicole were grappling with weighty issues, her e-mails were less dark. And he forgot to mention that in her testimony she told you that during that time period she was weighing options. I would suggest, you remember this clearly, because I think she said one of the options was Witness Protection, she was thinking about going into witness protection. She also said at that time that another option was suicide. So she was still thinking about suicide.

And then this is the shocking part. Mr. Agnifilio suggested that the oral sex on the table, blind folded, while she was collateralized with a total stranger when she was being videotaped, somehow worked. Somehow worked. It was strong medicine. Being strapped to a table while a stranger performs oral sex on you is medicine, strong medicine? That's no medicine. That's a sex crime. That's what that is.

And what was Mr. Agnifilio really arguing here? What was he really saying? I would suggest, but you ultimately have to determine that, he was arguing that Nicole wanted it. That it was good for her. Sort of like when the defendant was writing about raping good, remember, having orgasms for the first time during rape that it was good for her. That she wanted it.

Don't let him do that. Don't let him do that in this courtroom. She didn't want that.

Mr. Agnifilio also suggested that extortion wasn't in their heart, do you remember that argument? You can read the jury instructions all day and all night and you won't see anything about extortion being in anyone's heart. You're going to hear Judge Garaufis instruct you on the law, and his instruction controls on every aspect of the law in this case, but I would suggest to you that part of his instruction will focus on instilling fear, instilling in the victim fear as the sort of central aspect of the law of extortion.

The defendant's intentions are not at issue. The victim's fear is. That fear was clearly justified.

On the issue of in a heart somewhere, what was Allison Mack doing when she ordered Jay to seduce the defendant and got push back. Then she immediately played the sexual abuse, this will help you with your traumatic sexual abuse. Then afterwards, I instruct you to enjoy it. Was she speaking from the heart then?

Mr. Agnifilio also suggested that Nicole just left, Jay just left. There were no repercussions whatsoever. I would point out that the timing is off on Nicole. You can check this in the record, but he seemed to indicate that she was sending e-mails to Allison Mack on May 25 about the walk, and he's off on that.

Nicole told you that table happened on May 31 and the metadata associated with the photograph of the table confirms that it was May 31, that was just a day or so before the co-summit where the DOS became public and everything started falling apart. It's significant because May 31 is the day after Jay takes the hike with Valerie, and so that's unraveling on the West Coast, and Nicole is on the table. And Nicole left a few weeks later I believe. This is when everything is unraveling.

I should also note, Jay, you'll recall at that time, was taking a hike. Prior to that she had made peace with the fact, okay, my collateral is going to get released and then the process started for her. And Audrey left in the same time frame, June 2017. They left because it was all falling apart.

And Lauren Salzman explained this to you, go look at her testimony about this. And during this entire process where DOS is falling apart, people are leaving, ask yourself one simple question, what didn't happen as part of that process? You know what didn't happen, none of them got their collateral back. You know that release of collateral was discussed. Sylvie told you about warning Anna Gaby that her collateral would be released if she did not behave. And Lauren Salzman told you that the defendant contemplated the release of Sarah's collateral. And you know that while each and every one of you were sitting in these chairs in this jury, that collateral was released in Mexico, Sarah's collateral. Let's talk about commercial sex. Mr. Agnifilio spent sometime on that. I'm going to spent a little time -- I'm close to the end, I'll tell you that. And I expect, again judge Garaufis' instructions control, but he'll explain in connection with commercial sex a thing of value need not be financial. And that any thing of value can go to any person involved in the venture. He'll instruct that you any sex act is defined, any act for sexual gratification that includes oral sex.

And things of value did go to people involved in this sex trafficking in DOS. Let's talk about that. As Ms. Penza explained, the e-mail explained that Allison Mack and her getting paid for the source was contingent upon India completing the assignment. You heard that Nicole got access to $10,000 and that she actually used $3,000 while a DOS slave. And what is the first thing the first thing the defendant asked her the moment she said she was leaving, I want my money back.

Access to the defendant was valuable in and of itself. The first line slaves craved it. Access to the defendant, particularly for the first line slaves, meant increased financial benefits. You know that because of the Allison Mack situation, that's an example. Mr. Vicente actually told you that Nancy Salzman quantified the value of the defendant's time, that it was $100,000 per hour. Jay, Jay was told this was an opportunity to heal her sexual trauma. And you may recall during her entire time in DOS she had the expectation that she and the defendant would start a T-shirt company that would generate profits.

And lastly, DOS was literally, literally a pornography machine. Pumping out countless photos of women, nude women, posed just like the defendant liked them fully nude, pubic hair, open legs, vaginas exposed, shots of their face, carefully posed so he could add them to his collection of pornography, his pornography trophies. And that pornography had value, enormous value, to the defendant.

Mr. Agnifilio said -- let's turn to the child pornography. He didn't spend much time on the child pornography itself. I would suggest that there is no doubt that the evidence shows that there are two dates. Let's pull up Government's Exhibit 550, just to remind everybody.

You have the folder then the two dates associated with the sub-folder, November 2, 2005 and November 24, 2005. If we can pull up Government's Exhibit 504B. Those two dates correspond to the two folders on the hard drive. And then 504B is the exit data. I'm no expert, don't get me wrong, but I heard Examiner Boothe, just like you did. Exit data is extremely reliable. It's embedded in the jpeg, in the image itself. And the exit data shows that the data was created on the camera, in this instance, this particular instance, the 150 jpeg on November 2, 2005 which consistent with the title of the folder.

Then if you go, Alex, to page six under the Exhibit 504B6, right above all those zeros. It's the camera you saw that was recovered from the defendant's library. You know the hard drive was in the library as well.

So really the defendant's argument with respect to the child pornography is that all the Racketeering Act have to be for a common purpose, but that's not all.

And Judge Garaufis will instruct you on the law. I expect that he will instruct you as follows. That two Racketeering Acts may be related. And the relationship may be established by evidence that the defendant was enabled to commit the Racketeering Act solely by virtue of his position in the enterprise or involvement in or control over its affairs. So the child pornography counts are related to the enterprise because the defendant was able to commit them due to his position in the enterprise.

I just told you what I expect Judge Garaufis to instruct you on. Here members of the enterprise of the inner circle were involved in facilitating the defendant's access to Camila. Nancy Salzman hired her as a maid, keeping her away from her siblings and closer to the defendant's reach. And Pam Cafritz helped protect the defendant by making him lie to medical professionals about his sexual partners. The defendant was able to exploit Camila and take photographs of her, that are child pornography.

My colleague has advised me I may have misstated something. I want to clarify the record, the assignment for Nicole was in 2016 not 2017, she left in 2017. So I apologize for that. I would also note that, I think it's a fair inference, that at the time Camila was photographed she was the successor, she was the virgin successor, which was one of the defendant's top priorities. She was a member of the family, Daniela's family, that were brought here. Remember, a family where three of the daughters were sexual parters with the defendant, and the son worked in the community. So I think that intercuts Mr. Agnifilio's argument that this was not part of the enterprise.

We reached the final stage of this trial. You're the triers of fact, not us lawyers, and not the judge. And when you look at the facts, use your common sense. Think about what is reasonable and what is not reasonable. Think about what the evidence is and reject arguments that are not supported by the evidence. We asked you to base your verdict on the evidence and the law, not on any potential fear, favor, sympathies, biases, and be fair to the defendant.

When you go back to that jury room later today, I'm going to offer you a suggestion. I'm going to ask you to think about five places, five places as Ms. Penza described to you, behind closed doors.

The first place is the basement of 7 Generals Way, Allison's house. Jay's in this the basement. She gets a phone call. It's Allison. Allison tells her how well she's doing and how great she's doing, and tells her she has to seduce the defendant. She says, you're celibate, what is the big deal, what is one more? And Jay being Jay, she said her spy sense kicked in. She knew this was wrong. She pushed back. Allison went right for the gut, this is going to solve, cure, your sexual abuse. And Jay backed off. And Allison said, I give you permission. Permission, I may have said instruct earlier, permission to enjoy this. And Jay hung up the phone. And she said the walls were closing in on me. Alone in the basement, having just received the assignment to have sex with the defendant.

The second place is 2 Flintlock. Sylvie walking into a bedroom with the defendant. Being asked to take her clothes off. Being asked to lie down on a bed with a dirty sheets. And the defendant having oral sex with her. And she hasn't had sex with her husband. And she described to you that horrible thought process when the defendant was having oral sex that never seemed to end.

The third place is 12 Wilton. Daniela in the bedroom unraveling, early 20s, prime of her life, her mind drifting away. The cleaning products, I'm going to commit suicide. The loneliness, the despair. Do you remember those drawings, the letters? The wilting times. The day, after day, after day. Most of that time, or some of that time, the window blacked out and just a mattress on the floor and note pad.

The fourth place is 120 Victory, and Nicole. Being led into, blind folded, double-blind folded, forced to undress. Forced to lie on a cold table, legs strapped to the table. And all of a sudden as she hears the defendant's voice, then there is someone else in the room, and that someone else started to give her oral sex. And then the defendant starts questioning her about her sexual history and all the while she's being videotaped.

The fifth place, ladies and gentlemen, is 8 Hale. In 8 Hale was this, Government's Exhibit 503, the hard drive. This is the place where the defendant stored Camila's childhood, after he took it from her. After he took her innocence. She wasn't adult-like when he was photographing her with her legs spread. She was a child. She was a child. He did that to that child.

So we're at the final stage. I would suggest to you that we've reached the time when this man, the defendant, can be held responsible for his years of lies, his years of extortion and abuse and coercion and manipulation, his sex crimes. Hold him responsible for those crimes. Not because I say he's guilty, not because my colleagues say he's guilty, but because the evidence proves him guilty. We have proved him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ladies and gentlemen, find the defendant guilty because he is guilty. Thank you.