Well, maybe somehow the B&E is covered in the obstructing justice? It could be that there are 2 charges filed for the same crime, so maybe they chose the one that holds the heftier sentence. I am guessing, but it sounds reasonable. Punching the dog was hearsay. If there was no damage resulting from the punch and the dog was not visibly suffering, then you can't really prove it. They could say that the dog shocked WH by charging him & attacking and WH defended himself by punching the dog to get away from it. He did not continue to punch and maim the dog, or use excess force, so I am guessing it was done by instinct to stop the dog from attacking. So I do understand why that was dropped. It wasn't nice to hit the dog, but if the dog lunged, I would imagine that it's reasonable to hit it down.
It could also be that WH admitted to lying about punching the dog to impress the young boys. How would you prove whether it was true or not?
Maybe someone with a legal background can explain how the B&E can be dropped?
I think that unless something more comes up with AJ's death investigation, that I won't be surprised to see only the ammo charge stick. Just a gut feeling. It will be hard to find a jury of 12 that will not be swayed by WH's deep desire to find his daughter at all costs, and he did what he thought was necessary to do that. If there are no additional charges to show that he was actually involved, and only attempting to divert, then I see a jury letting him go.
