Again, where is that language used in the article? Anything is possible, including that they are believing the informant, who may be the one who is telling the lie. That's why I say let due process do its thing and see what is revealed by due process. Instead of useless speculation. You do realize that just because the police chief has made the claim that the policeman is apparently being not being truthful, is not due process. In fact the chief is absolutely wrong in making that statement, as he is basically short-circuiting due process.
I have been following the case closely.
In the article, it was not just one informant.
The officer had several informants. None of them remembered going to the house in question and doing a buy. Heroin of the type supposedly purchased was found in the city vehicle the officer used.
Goines is the second officer suspended in the case. The first was suspended for other inconsistencies about the warrant used.
If Police Chief Acevedo lied about officer Goines giving false information for the warrant, he can be sued for libel. I doubt he would do so without very strong evidence.
This case never met the smell test. Neither victim had a criminal record. They were married for 20 years, and lived in the same modest house for the entire 20 years.
The neighbors never saw any activity around the house, and described the couple as quiet people who kept to themselves.
It doesn't fit the profile of a drug house, or of drug dealers.