I see this as an important issue that requires extreme caution Im speaking generally as I havent had the time to try to analyze Yoyohooyos  specific assertions Of course the Massei report is biased Its trying to justify the courts prosecution point of view Whether or not it is deliberately MISleading is something we cannot prove or disprove But by definition it IS leading ie it leads the reader to follow the judges reasoning If the judges reasoning is incorrect deliberately or not or based on false assumptions then the report is misleading That would seem to be the reason for the policy on primary sources and in this case we have to follow not only the general guidance on primary sources but the stricter rule WPBLPMisuse of primary sources Do not use trial transcripts and other court records or other public documents to support assertions about a living person That seems pretty cutanddried Maybe the report can be used to confirm what the court concluded but anything more than that including details that the court believes to be facts in reaching its conclusion would seem to be prohibited as they are assertions about a living person  Demanding other RSs which may not exist as an alternative to the Massei report is not a valid argument for using a prohibited source At the risk of climbing on a soapbox I will add thats the problem with this article We want to provide accurate reliablysourced facts but too few facts are indisputably known and I fear that many of the sources we might like to rely on have been less careful in their scrutiny of officiallyprovided facts what the prosecution and court have allowed to be released than we are trying to be here If we remove all contentious material the article would be shorter and contain few details And maybe that would be a good thing