Video yükleniyor...
Video Yüklenemedi
DOD admits they lied to congress about January 6th a few weeks before President Trump is sworn in. Would they have admitted this if Kamala won 🤔 "Today, the Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) sent a letter to Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General (IG) Robert Storch, demanding a... show more
79,555 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)
0 Yorum
Yorum bulunmuyor
Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek
![This prosecutor should be ashamed of himself for promoting such a fundamental mischaracterization of a defense attorney’s duties. Yesterday, in his closing argument in the trial of #EdrickFaust, elected district attorney Kalki Yalamanchili boldly stated that the defendant’s lawyer, Ahmad Crews, has the duty of “[making] sure, regardless of what the evidence is, that he does everything he possibly can to walk Mr. Faust out that door - even though he murdered Tara Baker.” This was (correctly) objected to immediately by Mr. Crews, but what Judge Lisa Lott did to remedy the statement remains unclear. Let me make this clear: defense lawyers are only under obligation to the Constitution. They are not intended to indiscriminately fight for the outcome of a client. They are, just as any other attorney, prohibited from fabricating evidence or information to mislead the court or a jury. Their job is to ensure the prosecution lawfully, and following rules of due process, proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Part of their job is to call into question the strength of the evidence against their clients, but not through stooping to the level of deception. The zealous defense of a client cannot be equated with immoral advocacy. It does not mean excusing crime, ignoring facts, or endorsing violence. Undermining and demonizing that role by portraying counsel as morally corrupt for doing his job pressures jurors to effectively punish defendants for the stigma associated with having defense counsel. If there are mistakes, prejudices, conflicts of interest, or any other reason to lose faith in an investigation, a defense attorney’s job is to bring it to the surface and hold the government to account rather than allow a defendant to be steamrolled into a wrongful conviction. Mr. Yalamanchili’s suggestion that defense counsel exists to defeat justice “regardless of the evidence” is an attack on the very elements of the justice he purportedly believes in…but he knows this already. #FreeEdrickFaust #JusticeforTaraBaker #Georgia](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2022772360667967536/amplify_video_thumb/2022772301993840640/img/zHnndWMexQU0OrBz.jpg)
![Trooper John Fanning, one of Michael Proctor’s supervisors at the NCDAO State Police Detective Unit (SPDU), reportedly “supervised” the jury at the #KarenReadTrial. As if this conflict alone wasn’t concerning, the fact that Fanning was later under an inconclusive internal investigation by the MSP for “whether [he] failed to adequately supervise by not taking appropriate action after Trooper Proctor sent inappropriate texts to a group of subordinate members, specifically, if he took any corrective action to address the unprofessionalism and inappropriateness of Trooper Proctor's texts”—thereby making him a potential witness & demonstrating his clear conflict, is incredibly concerning. In the full sit down interview w/ #KarenRead & Attorney Alan Jackson, Ted Daniel asks them about the potential jury tampering that occurred at the first trial—notably with the ultra curious last minute dismissal of 3 jurors, whose body language, reactions/expressions & outward demeanor appeared favorable to the defense, in addition to the “supervision” of the jury by one of Michael Proctor’s bosses, NCDAO SPDU Trooper John Fanning. It would be dishonest to try to claim that Trooper Fanning had no stake in the outcome of the Karen Read trial. Arguably, anyone with ties to the NCDAO, its SPDU or the Canton Police Department—and notably those with close ties to Michael Proctor, like his own supervisor, have clear conflicts of interest in this case. As you may recall, Trooper John Fanning was the lead investigator in the Sandra Birchmore case where he and his investigators concluded that Birchmore committed suicide while allegedly pregnant with a fellow Police Officer, Matthew Farwell’s baby, and wasn’t the obvious victim of murder by that same Officer who also raped and groomed her from a young age as revealed by 30k+ text messages inexplicably “overlooked” by Trooper Nicholas Guarino & Fanning. The Feds investigated that “investigation” too and have since indicted Matthew Farwell in Sandra Birchmore‘s murder. Additionally, Trooper Fanning was in one of Michael Proctor’s abhorrent group text message threads where he disparaged Karen Read. Fanning was subsequently internally investigated by MSP for this, and his failure to properly “supervise” Trooper Proctor—interesting that such a person would be chosen to “supervise” the jury. In a statement from the State Police, they said: “The Department’s internal affairs investigation determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegation that Lieutenant Fanning violated rules and regulations by failing to uphold the responsibilities of a supervisory member. This allegation has been classified as unfounded.” Frankly, given the circumstances of this case, it would be concerning if any member of the State Police oversaw and supervised the jury. Why was ANY member of the State Police supervising the jury? Has anyone ever heard of this before—Police Officers from the same agency that investigated, testified against & was a part of the prosecution against a defendant having one of their personnel in charge of and in direct control of the jury? This can’t possibly be a standard practice due to the obvious existing conflict, no? Plus, were it standard protocol, then why wasn’t the defense made aware of this fact until 10 minutes before making closing argument, after a nearly 10 week long trial? ——— Something majorly stinks about this, and perhaps it sheds some light on something peculiar that one of the deliberating jurors, who was recently interviewed by Aidan Kearney, kept saying in regard to the jury’s deliberative process. Specifically, something that stood out to me from juror Ron’s interview was his repeated use and references of the other jurors’ use of the term “distractors” to qualify or describe the abundant evidence representing “reasonable doubt” brought out by the defense at trial. “Distractors.” It’s somewhat of a novel term, especially in this context, and is obviously antithetical to a jury’s duty to assess a case based on the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is inherently intertwined with an assessment of the existence of, or lack thereof, reasonable doubt. There was no evidence or instructions from the court that came out at trial directing jurors to view defense evidence or ARCCA experts, for instance, as “distractors,” and the jury is very specifically instructed not to view/consume/bring any outside information into their deliberations. In other words, if they’re unsure who the ARCCA experts were there on behalf of (the Feds), they’re specifically told not to “fill in the blank” with information that’s not there, or evidence that didn’t come in at trial. So where did the information—this use of the term “distractors” come from? Who fed this term and this concept to the jury? The reason why it seems like it was “fed” to the jury is because it goes against everything the court, Judge Beverly Cannone, instructed them on. So, what prompted the whole “distractors” concept to taint the jurors’ minds and deliberations? ——— What immediately came to mind was the jury tampering by court clerk Becky Hill in the Alex Murdaugh murder trial. In that case, according to Murdaugh’s attorneys, Ms. Hill “invented a story about a Facebook post to remove a juror she believed might not vote guilty”. Judge Clifton Newman, who oversaw the murder trial, removed the female juror from the panel. According to the Murdaugh defense motion, Ms. Hill had gone to Judge Newman – the day after Murdaugh testified, not long before closing arguments – claiming that she had seen a post in the local Facebook group ‘Walterboro Word of Mouth’ from the juror’s former husband, Tim Stone. The post purportedly claimed that the juror was drinking with her ex-husband and, when she became drunk, she expressed her views on whether Murdaugh was innocent or guilty. A follow-up post from an account called Timothy Stone apologised for the post saying that he was driven by “Satan”. Murdaugh’s attorneys claimed that the Mr. Stone behind the Facebook posts was actually a random Georgia man who was ranting about his wife’s aunt – and has no connection to the case. Additionally, information from jurors had come to the defense’s attention about inappropriate comments supposedly made to them by Ms. Hill while she was “supervising” them—the same role as “supervisor” that Trooper John Fanning allegedly played in the Karen Read trial. In Murdaugh’s case, the jurors were *actually* brought back into the court and were called to the stand one by one and questioned about potential comments that may have tainted their verdict. A female juror, identified only as juror Z, said that Ms. Hill had told some of the jurors to “watch [Murdaugh] closely.” “To me, it felt like ... she made it feel like he was already guilty,” juror Z said. A separate juror, Juror E, said that he heard Ms. Hill say “watch [Murdaugh’s] body language”, but claimed that this did not affect his decision. ——— There were reports, at the time of the dismissal of the 3 defense-favorable jurors at Karen Read’s trial, that right before closing arguments, Trooper Fanning had reported the information responsible for dismissing these jurors to Judge Cannone. Among that information was reportedly a story about one of those jurors, claiming they’d been overheard discussing the case while drinking at a bar (or something to that effect)—a story that sounded highly suspicious at the time, particularly given the fact that Trooper Fanning had allegedly had that information weeks before, but never reported it to the court. The similarity in Becky Hill and John Fanning’s “stories” leading to the dismissal of defense-favorable jurors is rather uncanny. ——— Is it not problematic to have individuals—with conflicts of interest, who are also potential witnesses, and who seemingly have a vested interest in the outcome of the trial—be in charge of overseeing and supervising the jury? I’ve attached the referenced MSP Internal Investigative Report for Trooper Fanning to this post (attached in the comments below). What’s troubling is that, despite acknowledging in their report that “these allegations came to light on June 10, 2024, during the trial,” they didn’t immediately initiate an internal investigation, but instead waited until AFTER the trial ended, July 3, 2024, to launch their internal investigation, almost as if they were planning on not initiating an investigation had Karen Read been convicted, because apparently in that case the misconduct would’ve been justified… or something? It should also be noted that this same practice was employed for most, if not all, of the other Police Officers in this case, whose misconduct was exposed by the defense throughout the prosecution’s case at trial—whereby, despite admissions and the existence of evidence of their misconduct, the MSP, NCDAO and Canton PD seemingly did everything they could to avoid initiating any investigations or holding their officers accountable for their misconduct until after the trial ended—when they could no longer justify not doing anything. It makes you wonder: Had Karen Read been convicted, do you think they’d (the MSP, NCDAO or CPD) ever launch any internal investigations into the misconduct of their officers, as evidenced at trial, weeks before? ——— It should be mentioned that in the Sandra Birchmore case, which Trooper Fanning led the investigation of, despite the Feds spoon feeding the State Police & NCDAO (DA Michael Morrissey’s Office) overwhelming evidence + probable cause, in addition to punting the ball back to the state to do the right thing and charge Farwell with murder—a state level charge, they’ve refused to take any action to this day. In fact, not only has it now been nearly 6 months since the Feds apprehended & indicted Farwell, but the NCDAO, Fanning and the State Police, aside from taking no action, have made no statements and are still of the official position that Sandra Birchmore killed herself. To try to save face, the NCDAO, through its former spokesperson David Traub, tried to create the impression that the DA’s Office had been long working in collaboration with the Feds to secure an arrest in the Sandra Birchmore case, claiming that “two of [the NCDAO SPDU’s] detectives were present at the command post ... while federal authorities were attempting to take Matthew Farwell into custody”—whatever that means. This, of course, is patently absurd because the DA’s Office and State Police could’ve “secured an arrest” years ago—nobody was stopping them, but instead they framed Sandra Birchmore for her own murder. Spokesperson Traub then had the gall to say that “much of the information that they [federal authorities] built on originated with our investigation, including the collection of thousands of text messages.” (See a collection of statements from the NCDAO on the Birchmore case from reporting over the years, attached in comments below). While the Feds might be somewhat playing along with this narrative, don’t be fooled. Perhaps it’s to appease the very individuals who they’re investigating for the supposed coverup of Sandra Birchmore’s murder. Why? If the Feds had actually been collaborating with the State Police investigators from the NCDAO who investigated Sandra’s death, then at the Feds’ press conference announcing Farewell’s indictment, U.S. Attorney (at the time) Joshua Levy wouldn’t have feigned ignorance when asked who the lead investigator was on the case before his agency got involved (see clip 3 attached). Had the Feds actually been *collaborating* with the State Police & the DA’s Office, John Fanning’s name would’ve been the first thing uttered out of Josh Levy’s mouth. On a side note: I think this is very telling. Does it mean the U.S. Attorney’s Office is investigating Fanning? Who knows. But one thing’s for sure: Josh Levy 100% knew who the State Police lead investigator was and he deliberately avoided saying it. This observation is reflected in FBI Special Agent Chenee Castruita’s 45-page long probable cause affidavit for the arrest of Matthew Farwell, which notably contains ZERO references whatsoever to John Fanning, or any of the other involved State Police investigators for that matter. That’s telling. If there was so much “collaboration,” like DA Michael Morrissey’s Office wants the public to think, then not only would USA Josh Levy have had, at the very least, Trooper Fanning up there side-by-side with him at that press conference, but he would’ve acknowledged him by name in his press conference. Why hasn’t the NCDAO charged disgraced former Stoughton cop Matthew Farwell with murder? Is it yet another case of “pinning it on the girl” to cover up for fellow Police Officers’ crimes? ——— Of note, Trooper Fanning grew up in Stoughton, graduating from Stoughton High School in 1998, the same year that Matthew and his twin brother William—who also grew up in Stoughton—then 12 years old, became participants in the Stoughton police youth program. As Karen Read points out in the interview with Ted Daniels: “There were familiarities among players that never should’ve happened. There’s a sleeve of homicide in the Norfolk DA’s office, as there is in the other counties of Massachusetts. And yet, the person assigned to investigate this case—ostensibly investigate this case—lives a mile down the street from the crime scene.” (See clip 4 attached). Why is it that when there’s seemingly crimes—in this case murders, involving cops, that the NCDAO SPDU appears to send the most conflicted Trooper with the closest ties to that cop/those cops? In Officer John O’Keefe’s murder, the Trooper that lives down the street from 34 Fairview and is “second family” with the Alberts is obviously the last person who should’ve ever responded to that case, yet he was the lead investigator. Given Trooper John Fanning’s close ties to Stoughton, isn’t it interesting that he’s the one who was the lead investigator of Sandra Birchmore‘s death—a murder that allegedly involved a former Stoughton cop? What say you?](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1891692661267939807/ext_tw_video_thumb/1891692119082913792/pu/img/XXG39DUZUjLDvF8S.jpg)