Your first para was the writer's conclusion upon reading para 2, and he cites it. However, as we've discussed here many times, the wording in para 2 - which the media writer plucked from a SW - doesn't actually support the media conclusion made in para 1. Foxnews, People, and probably several others were very sloppy in the way they related the facts here.
In fact, after finding the underlying source SW of the oft-cited partial quote in that article, to reference it here, I discovered to my surprise that it was a bit less vague than I recalled. Not only had the media miscast what that partial quote says, but in its fuller context, LE actually seems to point at MB alone as the one who was being referenced as having been unfaithful.
Here's the quote in its fuller context. Bold added.
"Throughout the course of the MURDER investigation, evidence has been recovered from electronic data extractions performed on Brandon Bevers (husband) and Ms. Bevers personal electronic devices (I phones and an I pad). This extracted information has provided officers with potential persons of interest Target Numbers based on the nature of the communications (text, messages, and recovered deleted messages) between Ms. Bevers and the above Target Numbers. A portion of these messages (as well as deleted messages) recovered indicate and confirm statement and tips provided to officers of an ongoing financial and marital struggle as well as intimate/personal relationship(s) external to the marriage with identified Target Numbers."
https://www.scribd.com/doc/311723138/ATT-Warrant-Dated-April-25
So the things they found were in MB's communications (not in BB's too) with "Target Numbers," and also they identified that the "relationship(s)" were with those very Target Numbers. In addition, the wording mentions "relationship(s)" which means that the sum total of all the extras in that family being indicated could have been as few as one.
Working from that statement, it could be entirely satisfied by the stuff between MB and CW, for example. That would fit "relationship(s)" with Target Number that MB would have been in contact with. But it's written with some legalese vagueness to hint at more, perhaps to use that hint of "who knows how many" as a method to justify to get a wider search permission.
In the Facebook SW, LE said much the same thing - they only point at MB, and in that place link her to CW by name.
"In the course of our investigation we have had multiple references to the Decedent’s Facebook account which listed the decedent’s plans and activities for assignations with people alleged to be her lovers. Additionally we have received information from the spouse of the decedent that the decedent was having love affairs with at least one person, identified by the spouse as Casey Williams and our investigators have uncovered communications between the decedent and other persons through the Facebook private chat service specifically including Casey Williams, making arrangements to meet with the decedent."
That doesn't mean that we can say for sure what BB was (or wasn't) doing. But in these places, he's sure not being referenced by LE as being involved in outside extras. He was cheated on, his wife was murdered, and unless he was somehow involved, no justice in dogpiling him with unsupported accusations of infidelity too.
MPD has not said publicly when each section was time wise. Other than the portion that was orig released with time stamp... then later the time stamps were removed. 
)
