Some of these posts are crazy but some are fair questions.
1. People are found not guilty for reasons and it is not fair to emphasize a person being charged with a crime they are ultimately found not guilty of.
2. The use of a podiatrist is a big reach to get a search warrant. It suggests they used other means and failed.
3. Where are you getting all of your information, Cannonball? If you're getting it from MPD, why are they giving it to you? What is their agenda?
bbm
One other thing, darring, regarding your item 1 - taken alone, you're right, it isn't fair to emphasize a person being charged with a crime they are ultimately found not guilty of.
But... what if something occurs later that follows the same pattern of behavior? How much smoke does it take to believe there is actually a fire?
You can look thru the 1996 trial record and see a lot of smoke, especially when combined with 2003. BWH may indeed turn out not to be the guy in the MB case, and I have said that in previous posts. But at a minimum, one should be able to look at his background and his work history and at least see why MPD became very interested in him.
And in all honesty - they never arrested him on the MB case. They executed a SW. They let the FBI look at devices, and the FBI found child *advertiser censored*. Not anybody else's fault but BWH that the *advertiser censored* was there because he was ultimately responsible for the devices.
MPD never said a word about him in the media. They could have identified him publicly, but they didn't. They released documents only when requested - which was many months after those documents became unsealed.
The real kicker for me was BWH agreeing to do an interview with a TV station while in jail. In that interview, he acts perplexed that officers showed up at his door in December 2016, like he had no idea what it was about. But he was first interviewed in May 2016. He knew people had tipped MPD about him. He had to know that they would look into his background, and he knew what they would find. So IMHO, it was disingenuous that he would act incredulous in a TV interview, like he can't understand why a SW would need to be executed with a high degree of security. After all, they were serving that warrant on a man who had not only been a police officer in the past, but a tactical officer. They had no idea what they were facing, so they had to be prepared for anything.
As a former LE tactical officer, he should have understood that completely. So why act like he didn't in that TV interview?
Finally, we all know that police corruption can and does exist, as does the "thin blue line" and cops looking out for and protecting one another. BWH has had multiple officers - his own kind - testify or swear affidavits against him in these incidents. Lancaster PD, MPD, Texas Rangers, the Texas State Guard, the FBI. All are law enforcement, and yet they did not cover up for BWH, one of their own. What does that suggest to us?
