::::::Yes, that's a perfectly reasonable suggestion. And I quite agree. Except that what is "clear" to wikipedia editors is not always acceptable. We have no WP:RS of their being "off their heads." I think there is a large disconnect between the use of the word "murder" as in "has been legally convicted of murder" and what any sane person, looking at the available evidence from the media, would immediately describe as "murder". Of course, the outcome of legal procedings is sometimes wrong. And many people, even after they have been fully identifed, commit murders and escape justice. This does not make them innocent of murder. It just means they have not been legally convicted. Wikipedia still has to be guided by due legal process, of course, even if it is flawed, and however long it takes to complete. But by the same token, where there is little or no doubt as to the identities of the killers, how can a article title which uses the simple phrase "Murder of" be justified? The two killers here may never reach trial. But if they do survive their intervening custody, until they are convicted, we'd have to use the politically correct "Suspected muder of" or "Alledged murder of". In the real world, I'd argue there are few reliable sources saying "These men murdered Lee Rigby" only because reporters don't want to state the obvious, not because they have ethical misgivings or fear legal censure.