i see this as an important issue that requires extreme caution i m speaking generally as i haven t had the time to try to analyze yoyohooyo s specific assertions of course the massei report is biased it s trying to justify the court s prosecution point of view whether or not it is deliberately mis leading is something we cannot prove or disprove but by definition it is leading i e it leads the reader to follow the judge s reasoning if the judge s 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 wp blp misuse 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 cut and dried 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 rs s 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 that s the problem with this article we want to provide accurate reliably sourced 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 officially provided 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