From today's front page:
Leanne Kingston was a doting mother-of-four who was going through a tough time.
The 39-year-old shared custody of her children - aged 8, 14, 16, and 19 - with their father, her on-and-off partner, who she had just broken up with again.
On Monday the children waited patiently at school, but their mother never came to collect them. Ms Kingston, one of triplets, was found dead by her sister in the bathroom of her modest Papakura home about 4pm.In other words, a woman was murdered. Why can't the media just say this anymore? It seems like some sort of biographical intro, the text equivalent of a violin soundtrack in a minor key, is necessary for every single article. Honestly, are we so jaded that we need to be overtly led to feel sad and angry about someone's murder? The article continues:
This is a woman who just got murdered, not a fading Dancing with the Stars starlet selling her story to the Woman's Weekly. Questionable taste and questionable relevance. Finally, however, the story gets on to talking about the actual event, and the ongoing police investigation. What follows is a rare inside-look at the nitty-gritty of how the thin blue line protects the public:
Friend and neighbour Margaret Tate said she and the children's father couldn't live together, but couldn't stay apart.
"They used to have time out, he would go out of the country or to the South Island for a while," she said.
"Asked if her killer was someone she knew"? Well, given that no one has been arrested for, let alone convicted of, the murder, I can imagine the police having a hard time ascertaining whether they knew the victim - no 'homicide note' having apparently been left to clear things up. How inconsiderate.
Police have spoken to several people, including the children's father.
[...] Yesterday, forensic experts and detectives scoured the property and spoke to neighbours.
Police said friends and family of the dead woman would be interviewed to try to determine her movements. Other addresses connected with the woman were also being examined.
Asked if her killer was someone she knew, Mr Gutry said police were keeping an open mind.
"We're looking at all options, looking at everything."
That information would determine which direction the inquiry took, he said.
That aside, I can't imagine anyone getting less information from the story had the entire last section been cut and replaced with: "Police are investigating like they usually do." Looking at forensic evidence on the property? Check. Interviewing friends, family and witnesses? Check. Let's just call it 'looking up leads'. Not leaping to conclusions and arresting random people on the street? Check. But that last sentence cracks me up:
That information would determine which direction the inquiry took, he said.So... the information that police get from the site, witnesses and initial leads will decide what they do next? As they say on the internet: Thanks. For. That.