for including the hunted-and-pecked "translation" of the article. (Couldn't read that one either.)

Sorry, but I am unimpressed by the newspaper's crediting Leslie with "Ringold's" killing. Not only is the date of the appearance of article eight years after the fact, but we have no way of knowing the identity of the source or sources of the information included in it.

I suspect that the Ringold mention came from Leslie himself, but who knows? And if it was Leslie, why believe him? You needn't DISbelieve him, but without proof of the truth of his claim, the article cannot include that info as if it is a matter of settled fact. (I mean, it can, because it did, but it is wrong to do so.) If you choose to include it, you need to qualify it with attribution, e.g. "According to Mr. Leslie," or "Mr. Leslie claims that," or some similar figure of speech.

I know that journalistic standards at that time in that place were either problematic, wretched, or non-extant, but even so....