I see no reason that the article authors should be instructed to include certain language. I see it like this: The article authors are quite nice to disseminate some updates on the crime, and it's also quite nice that people can read it without the rehash. But according to you, it should be rehashed, and attempts to the contrary mean some sort of malice on the part of the author. By default. Why must we assume malice on their part, or an implication that no crime was committed? Is it really impossible that maybe they just wanted to put out an update, that it's also customary for journalists to withhold certain language for legal reasons, or that the author sympathises with rape/sexual assault victims?