Never in my life did I imagine I'd come across a Daily Mail article labelled as a "thorough and believable report". It's half banned as a source on Wikipedia for crying out loud
The Daily Mail publishes a lot of articles by contributing journalists, Harriet Alexander is actually a pretty good journalist https://twitter.com/h_alexander
Well, completeness and superficial verisimilitude is proobably easier when you can just invent a story based on what people are likely to find believable with as much detail as you want because you don't have any journalistic standards.
(However, that site is a nightmare of ads, popups and auto-playing video, only legible with uMatrix.)
It's also legible, I'd even call it pleasant, with Firefox plus NoScript. Many sites block or degrade images when JS is disabled, but not the Daily Mail.
This is a more thorough and believable report: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8997575/Assassinati...
(However, that site is a nightmare of ads, popups and auto-playing video, only legible with uMatrix.)