via PFT, WAVY-10 reports that Gerald Poindexter has more to say about the rejected search warrant, and said for the first time that there is evidence linking Michael Vick himself to the dog fighting.
On the rejected search warrant:
"'Deputy Brinkman made a mistake. He should have gotten some legal advice during the affidavit for the search warrant,' said Poindexter.
Poindexter called it the domino effect. If one search is determined unconstitutional, searches after that could be illegal too and the case could fall apart.
Yesterday I said I wanted more information; I'm satisfied with Poindexter's explanation. Perhaps I will send him a letter letting him know that his explanation satisfied me, as I'm sure Poindexter's primary concern is the perspective of a blogger in Minnesota.
On whether Vick is involved in dogfighting:
"When asked, 'At this moment in time, do we have any evidence that puts Vick at dog fighting?' Poindexter replied, 'Yes.'
Poindexter said there are people who will make those claims. 'We have informants. We have people who are volunteering to make those allegations.'"
This is the big news. You've heard plenty of reporters and sources claim Vick was directly involved in dog fighting. However, this is the first time Poindexter himself stated that there is any evidence at all linking Vick to dog fighting. Ultimately, what anonymous sources are willing to say to sportswriters won't amount to much; it's what somebody is willing to testify to in a court of law that is going to determine legal guilt or innocence. Investigators and experts have repeatedly claimed the evidence points to dog fighting activities occurring on the property; this is the first time, however, an investigator involved in the case has suggested any individual might be linked to it.
WAVY-10 does provide video clips of their news coverage of this story. I don't much care for local news broadcasts, but watching WAVY-10's videos is much more informative and interesting than merely reading the text. There are more direct quotes from Poindexter in the videos than there are in the text.
In the previous clip I watched at WAVY-10, Poindexter was in a Hawaiian shirt standing outside a rural building with a hostile attitude toward the reporter (but local TV reporter's have a way of framing hostile questions). In these clips, Poindexter appears casual, but he's wearing a suit coat and answering questions deliberately and thoughtfully. He seems thorough, gives clear explanations, and talks passionately about getting the case right.
But I have to examine my own biases. Do I have negative connotations for Hawaiian shirts? I doubt it: I used to wear them all the time, and still do occasionally; furthermore, the loan officer on my home wore Hawaiian shirts every day, and I liked him fine. I think it's time to move discussion of this case into what really matters: what is your perception of Hawaiian shirts?