While those examples you gave are vague, forensic evidence and subsequent investigative discovery are not.
If you look at your examples, any half decent lawyer could explain those as circumstantial and non relevant. However, if they released that the victims DNA were discovered in that truck and the licence plate and suspect were also caught on camera, and say other pictures show the defendant with bags or bedding leaving the scene, it is a whole different ball game. Hence the reason other possible photos or forensic findings were not released. Those would be prejudicial.
I am of the belief that based on what was released (in the interest of obtaining investigative information), that LE did not taint the investigation. What Defence Council argues at trial could prove me wrong, but I am not seeing any red flags. Quite the opposite - I think LE released just the right amount of information while being sensitive to the victims family's and the accused.