I actually did a photo search (ugh!) and the only bearded photo was in an orange jumpsuit. Maybe he didn't start growing it until after his arrest, but the fact they allowed him to KEEP it is prima facia evidence it was 'allowed'.
I don’t believe that the fact he has a beard is prima facia evidence it was allowed. From what I have gathered (although I have not been spending copious effort to keep up with the story, admittedly), he grew the beard after the rampage, once incarcerated. He was ordered to shave, but refused, citing religious reasons. It was my understanding that the military judge who recently ordered him shaven was the first to adjudicate the issue, but apparently he came to the “wrong” conclusion.
As I said, these impressions have been gained under the longer-term review of data presented, and are definitely not definitive. But I would be loathe to reassess them without direct evidence of some sort.
Thank you for responding, but I believe we will agree to disagree on this for now. Have a great day, FRiend.
By your reasoning the fact that he has not been tried over three years later means his murder of multiple people is allowed also. Just because action has not been taken does not mean something is allowed.