Loading video...
Video Failed to Load
Double-header debut completed with points on the board 🤩 Climbing 12 places to P7, Felipe Drugovich brought home valuable points for Mahindra Racing ⚡ Hankook Tire Motorsports Official #BerlinEPrix
26,175 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)
0 Comments
No comments available
Comments from the original post will appear here
![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)
![‡ Brant – Fast, Expensive, and Worrying In a recent 2yo MSW race at Santa Anita, Brant, a $3m OBS March sales purchase, made a winning debut for his high-profile connections. Sent off at odds of 4/5, he tracked the pace before taking command on the turn, and drew off to win by 5 1/4 lengths. He recorded a very fast raw time, and a 101 Beyer figure. His high auction price was due largely to his having breezed an eighth of a mile in :09 3/5 at OBS. In the wake of the bidding, Amr Zedan, who purchased the colt on the recommendation of his trainer, Bob Baffert, and bloodstock agent Donato Lanni, was quoted in TDN as saying: "These horses are difficult to come by. He ticked all the boxes. He was a very precocious Gun Runner with a great pedigree. And more importantly, if you have someone like Mr. [Bob] Baffert in your corner, that gives you the courage and the guts to just go after quality. And you'll know they are in the best hands to turn them into champions. This one is for the team: Donato and obviously Bob and his ability to turn them into champions. So if you have the great team, the great training, the rest is easy. Was he pricey? Yes. But quality dictates price. So I never hesitated.” The hyperbole, and boilerplate optimism, are understandable, as even owners with very deep pockets prefer not to dwell on their inevitably long lists of expensive failures. But Zedan and their team have also enjoyed a number of high-profile successes, including Taiba, another Gun Runner colt, which won the Santa Anita Derby and the Malibu, both Grade I, before being retired to stud. Lanni, who has signed for at least some of Zedan's other good horses, was quoted as saying: "This is what the boss [Baffert] wanted and what Amr wanted. Gun Runner is a tremendous stallion and he worked really good and galloped out good. He did everything you want one to do.” Again, boilerplate, and if one were to take the reactions of the owner and agent at face value, it would be easy to arrive at the conclusion that the horse had no faults. But that would be naïve. So, let's first take a look at Brant's pedigree. Gun Runner is a "top" sire, and well-capable of getting high-class runners. It's a bit too early to fully judge him as a source of durability, but excluding his current crop of 2yos, his runners are only averaging 10 career starts. That number will rise, but likely not enough to reach, let alone exceed the contemporary industry average of ~15. In other words, though he himself raced 19 times, and won his swan song (the Pegasus World Cup) at five, there is no evidence to suggest that he is likely to eventually prove to be a particular source of durability. Brant's dam, Tynan, raced 13 times, and he is her first registered foal. His second dam, Pappascat, has produced at least five foals to have raced, and while only one has reached 20 starts, four of the five raced at least 12 times, which by today's degraded standards, isn't so bad. The fact that the coat color inherited by Brant, and his dam, can be traced to a notably unsound influence, Unbridled's Song, may or may not be meaningful. But I wouldn't ignore it as a potentially worrying connection. Brant's dam-sire, Liam’s Map, was lightly raced himself, and both his sire (US) and dam have poor records in terms of durability. As a sire, he has thus far produced numbers similar to Gun Runner. So while Brant's first two dams promise more than many that I have come across in similar assessments, and his sire displayed durability on the track, his overall pedigree suggests average durability at best. And what about the word that Mr. Zedan used twice in the above quote – "quality"? Well, Curlin is a quality sire, but in terms of bottom-line production, it leaves a lot to be desired. That's not to say that there are no good runners to be found, in fact the closely related Pappacap, under Brant's second-dam, was a Gr. III winner, and twice Grade I placed. However, through Brant's first six dams at least, I believe there to be just a single Grade I winner, Al Qasr, a Champion stayer in Peru, which appears under his fourth-dam. That is not, by any reasonable definition, a strong bottom-line, although it is fair to say that Brant's first dam is unproven. *** What might be learned from Brant's debut race? Everyone can see that he ran fast, and was much the best of that field, but I would say that there were some nuanced aspects of his performance that were both interesting, and worrying. Those nuances relate to his action, as viewed both through the pan shot, and head-on. Watching the basic (pan) view, Brant appears to display some "knee action". It isn't extreme, but also isn't the type of action that ideally suits dirt runners, and I wouldn't say that the colt appears totally comfortable. Here's a brief, related post on knee action, for reference: Then, we have the (embedded) head-on view, in which Brant displays seriously distorted action in his near-fore (left front leg; right when viewed head-on). It's a fairly extreme example of what is called "winging", and for a number of reasons, does not bode well for durability. Such action is never desirable, and is typically related to certain foreleg conformation flaws, which may include an offset knee, and/or toeing in or out, etc. Note also that under typical American racing conditions (i.e. tightly turning, left-handed tracks), the left front leg is subjected to the greatest torque, which amplifies the potential for injury. It should go without saying that there are occasional anomalies, horses with poor action that remain sound despite such flaws. But they are the exceptions, and it is not uncommon to find abbreviated careers associated with such action. For further reference, here is a link to a closely related post that I wrote after a filly named Amor Fati broke her maiden in eye-catching style in February of 2024. She has made just one further start, and hasn't recorded a work over the past 15 months. What's interesting about Brant is that there are two separate issues relating to his action, and that the some obvious mitigating steps that could have been, or should be taken, in efforts to keep him sound, were not, and are unlikely to ever be taken. First, with regard to his knee action, keep in mind that it is a characteristic that is more typically associated with turf horses. And guess what? Brant's dam was a turf horse. His second-dam was also at her best on turf, and was Gr. II placed on that surface. Also, in some respects, he physically resembles that female line more than his sire. Of course no one who spends millions on a horse that breezed exceptionally fast at a 2yo sale would be thinking "turf", given that the commercial market, and stakes schedules greatly favor dirt runners. But at the same time, it would be a mistake to assume that a fast breeze at OBS necessarily indicates that a given horse will be best suited to dirt. I say that partly because the OBS track features an all-weather surface called "Safetrack", which is far from being identical to dirt racing surfaces. While countless horses have gone through those sales and excelled on dirt, it should never been taken for granted that it will be a preference. And to further flesh out the point, take a look at Brant's breeze video through this link (his pedigree page can also be seen): Despite being rushed to cover a furlong much faster than he ever will again, I would say that he looks smoother, and displays slightly less knee action than in his recent debut race. Why? Could it be, perhaps, because he would prove more comfortable on turf and/or synthetic tracks, than dirt surfaces? Given how he ran first out, this is purely an academic point, as there is virtually no chance that his connections would consider switching surfaces, unless his form on dirt were to deteriorate badly. The second, more important point, relates to Brant's distorted action. I can't find a head-on conformation photo of the colt, but would be very surprised if he does not display flaws in his near-fore. Even in the very unlikely event that the leg were to appear correct, such distorted action would have been on display at the sale, as well as in pre-training at Eddie Woods' farm. And it defies belief that experienced horsemen who were prepared to purchase an extremely expensive horse for an important client would not have covered that base. Which in turn begs two important questions. First, why recommend the purchase of a very expensive horse, no matter how fast, that has yet to race, and displays such distorted action? Secondly, why choose to give such a horse to a trainer whose style and history suggest that injury risk would likely be amplified, rather than mitigated? The answers to those questions help to illuminate why the breed-to-sell paradigm is so insidious. As long as breeders and stud farms are willing to overpay for stallion prospects, and turn blind eyes to conformation defects, distorted action, lack of durability, and modest female families, the connections of horses like Brant need only hope that they hold together long enough to win one or two big races, enabling them cash in. These are the number of career starts made by Zedan's previous best (and expensive) male runners: 9 Arabian Lion 6 Arabian Knight 9 Muth 10 Medina Spirit 11 Hejazi And as long as the AGSC (American Graded Stakes Committee) continues to enable the paradigm through its dishonest KY Derby "prep" Grade I designations, the ultimately damaging feedback loop will likely continue. The answer to the second question is closely entwined, and should be obvious. For all of his faults as a trainer, Baffert has long produced results in stakes races that lead to valuable stud careers, so owners who wish to play the breed-to-sell game consider him to be a logical choice. Of course Baffert and Zedan are hardly alone in supporting the dubious paradigm. But that a horse like Brant could bring millions at a sale, and be given to a trainer who trains very hard, and has compiled a very poor safety record, underscores the extreme degree to which the value of durability has been marginalized by the industry. One final note, and it's a genuine qualification that I always make when producing this type of post, I hope that Brant will enjoy a long, injury-free career. But if I were a betting man...](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1949810344609665305/amplify_video_thumb/1949807748373262336/img/UxdtjUDx3PoP2gwC.jpg)
