It is contentious, rejected, disputed, poorly sourced, but I suppose tabloid journalism could be argued although sensationalizing a crime story is at the very heart of tabloid journalism. My main point is that we are likely running afoul of NPOV by not clearly linking these episodes as one man's 10-year effort to recast the murders. That his research rejects facts that don't align with his beliefs, his sourcing is poor, he exploits pretty much all the subjects, and his main points are pretty much rejected. The sourcing is there, but our structure is, perhaps unintentionally, misleading. I'm open to the best ways to address these issues.