I'm new here (hello!) and have read all of these threads – very much hoping at first that Sarah would be found. Like all of us I am saddened and horrified to my core at this case and my thoughts are very much with Sarah's loved ones.
Wanted to chip in now on the reported timeline on his work patterns and I agree when others have said that today's report on this from the court will be the most accurate.
I'm a journalist (although I have to add that news and crime are very much NOT my beat) and think it's important to look very closely at the wording of previous reports in MSM. Anything that says "it is claimed" can't be taken as absolute fact without verifying the source. By using a few careful phrases such as 'it is believed' you can publish A LOT and head it up as news.
I'm not trying to discredit the journos involved of course, but I do know some people who have worked at some of the MSM quoted and the pressure they are put under to publish at pace and offer their hungry audience something new, can't be understated.
It is easy to imagine that the reporters are there on the front line, piecing together the story with their investigative intel but that's not how it is (rather stressed young cubs writing from their bedrooms right now). And what is released by the police is so very limited (quite rightly), so they have to beef up their story however they can. They have to be seen to be keeping up with the fast-moving case even though they have nothing new technically to report. It's very much get the story up and check later – if at all if the story moves on quickly and by that point everyone has absorbed those things as fact.
Of course juicy leaks happen but it's interesting to watch the facts that Sky news and BBC are pressing publish on compared to other more – chose your adjective here! – media sources. Sad but true. Sorry, I know I'm probably stating the obvious but some parts of the MSM gets way more credit than it should. Tbh you guys probably do more comprehensive fact checking IMO.