When I read a very long, very maudlin, front-page Inquirer story about crime in Newark, I was left knowing very little about the exact nature of the crimes, other than the fact that there were "shootings in the schoolyard." And here's all there is about the principle suspect:

Five days after the shootings, Jose Carranza, considered the principal suspect, offered to surrender to Booker in the presence of a well-known Newark lawyer. The two came face to face at police headquarters.

"I don't think words can describe the level of emotion I feel about what these individuals have allegedly done to these families and what they have done to our community," Booker said.

Two other suspects, both 15, are being held. Their names have not been released because of their age.

Carranza pleaded not guilty at an arraignment Friday. After the arrests, Shalga Hightower said she wanted "the right justice" for her daughter, Iofemi, and the other victims.

"They took three angels away from their families," she said, "but one angel survived, so the story could get told."

Why? As details, aren't the gruesome nature of what happened to them, the fiendish nature of the principal defendant, and the callused insensitivity of the criminal justice system, at least as important?

Rarely have I seen a story so long and yet so woefully incomplete at the same time. Newark is in the New York area, and you'd think that if a report about crime there was important enough to merit treatment on the front page of the Inquirer that they'd at least supply the details.

To find them, I had to turn to the New York Daily News:

The illegal immigrant accused in the execution-style killings of three college students in Newark was freed on bail twice this year after being charged with assault and child rape, prosecutors said yesterday.

The shocking revelation came as cops arrested a third suspect in the schoolyard shootings, which have horrified homicide-weary Newark.

And as if the crime weren't already heinous enough, Fox News Channel 5 reported that two of the victims may have been sexually assaulted before being shot.

About 500 people, including Mayor Cory Booker, attended a prayer vigil last night at Mount Vernon Elementary School, where Terrance Aerial, 18; Dashon Harvey, 20, and Iofemi Hightower, 20, were forced to kneel before being shot in the head.

Aerial's sister, Natasha, 19, was shot in the face and slashed with a knife but survived. She has been helping investigators from her hospital bed.

And that's not important?

Carranza's illegal status alone was enough to trigger a headline in the International Herald Tribune, "Murder of three at New Jersey schoolyard stokes immigration debate." The IHT notes that legislation has been sponsored to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future:

NEWARK, New Jersey: The murder of three people at a Newark schoolyard has further stoked an already contentious immigration debate, with critics of the city's current immigration policies highlighting that one of the alleged attackers was in the U.S. illegally and had faced serious criminal charges before.

Newark city councilman Ron. C. Rice on Monday said he was introducing a bill that would require local police to notify federal immigration authorities whenever they arrest someone living the U.S. illegal who is charged with committing a felony.

The bill would be the first piece of legislation resulting from the shooting of four Newark college students, which left three dead and one wounded.

I'm so tired of spin, editorialized reporting, and withheld details that my fingers are almost too exhausted to keep writing about this stuff.

While I have no quarrel with reporting that the victims were nice people who had promising lives, does this cancel out any obligation to report the heinous nature of the crimes, the depraved nature of the perpetrator, and the egregiousness of his release?

I hesitate to blame the Inquirer, because it's an AP story and not written by Inquirer staffers, but I'm wondering if crime reporting is being seen more and more as an opportunity to make the facts fit the narrative that fits the bias of the writers.

Call it what you will, but I don't see how they can call it reporting.

Remarkably, it took six AP writers (Erin McClam, David Porter, Jeffrey Gold, Janet Frankston Lorin, Daniela Flores, and Randall Chase) to come up with this story.

It must be hard work when there are so many details that have to be omitted.

UPDATE: Please bear in mind that I subscribe to the Philadelphia Inquirer, and this post is based on the long article which appears on today's front page. Commenter Bradley Filkes points out that the Inquirer web site also links another AP story posted today which includes details about Carranza's illegal status and his being freed on bail. While I'm glad it's posted at the web site, that story is not in today's Inquirer.

MORE: Checking the Inquirer hard copy since Carranza's arrest Thursday, I found one report mentioning his illegal status and the pending charges, which appeared on page B-2 (minus the picture) in Saturday's Local News:

The latest arrest was announced several hours after another person charged in the crime, Jose Carranza, 28, pleaded not guilty to the charges against him, which, besides first-degree murder, include the attempted murder of a fourth student and robbery. It was his first court appearance since he surrendered Thursday to Mayor Cory A. Booker.

His plea came as prosecutors tried to explain why the illegal immigrant from Peru was granted bail earlier this year when charged with assault and child rape.

[...]

Dow would not answer questions about how Carranza was released on bail on previous charges this year, despite his immigration status.

But a cousin of one victim questioned why that happened.

"I believe in a higher power, but I can't help but think that had [authorities] done their job in the beginning, this might not have happened," said Latasia Harvey, 22.

Carranza was indicted by grand juries in New Jersey twice this year - in April on aggravated assault and weapons charges, and in July on 31 counts that included aggravated sexual assault of a child under 13 and endangering the welfare of a child he had a duty to supervise.

He was released on $50,000 bail on the assault case, which stemmed from a barroom fight, and $150,000 bail on the sexual-assault indictment, which charged that the abuse began in 2003 when the girl was 4 and continued to this year.

In the Oct. 1, 2006, brawl at a bar in West Orange, he faces four counts of aggravated assault and weapons charges.

In an interview on CNN, Dow said the "uproar" over Carranza's immigration status was "going to have to wait for another day."

"We realize that's an issue out here in our criminal justice system, and we are addressing it," Dow added.

"Our focus hasn't been his immigration status," McTigue said.

I think it's odd this was buried in local news, because Newark is next to New York, and events there are not considered local news here. But why would they report the most important details in Saturday's local news, then omit them from today's front page story? (It's not as if they didn't know.)

I think it's quite obvious that between Saturday and today it was decided -- somewhere -- to put a very different spin on what would appear in the front page, supposedly "full" version. Most Philadelphians who are not Internet savvy and don't read New York or Newark newspapers would be unaware of the most important details of the story.

It's worth pointing out that to some, Carranza's illegal status is only a "secondary issue":

What I don't understand is why the commentary is not raising questions about violence, about access to guns, and about how brutal indifference to human life has become a part of our culture.

A recently published letter signed by experts in criminal justice - from sociologists to law enforcement professionals - strongly states the findings of many studies that immigrants, regardless of their legal status, are no more likely to break the law than U.S.-born individuals.

UPDATE: Thank you, Glenn Reynolds, for the link!

UPDATE (08/14/07): In a writeup similar in tone to the one in the Inquirer, the New York Times mentions Carranza's pending charges, but says nothing about his illegal status:

The police say the primary suspects are Jose Lachira Carranza, 28, who was out on $150,000 bail despite pending indictments on a charge of raping a 5-year-old, and one of aggravated assault in a bar fight; and Rodolfo Godinez, 24, convicted of theft in 2003. (Mr. Carranza pleaded not guilty on Friday; Mr. Godinez is at large.)

MORE: the Times reported Carranza's illegal status earlier, then left it out of later reports.

I don't understand the argument that this is irrelevant (or "secondary"). If placing an immigration hold on this dangerous psychopath would have saved these victims' lives, his illegal status becomes a central issue in the case.

Here's an interesting tidbit from the earlier Times report:

Local authorities are not required to report the immigration status of people they arrest. Some municipalities, like Suffolk County on Long Island, have made aggressive efforts to do so as part of a crackdown on illegal immigrants, while others consider themselves "sanctuary cities" and avoid such questions, in part because of concerns that it could have a chilling effect on immigrants' relationship with the police.

UPDATE (08/14/07): Much to its credit, the Inquirer has a fine article by Tom Hester, Jr. -- (titled "Newark Killings Enter Immigration Debate") at its web site which stresses the importance of this case to the national immigration debate.

Considering the criticism of some of the commenters below (and the fact that the Hester piece is dated August 13, 2007, the same day as the front page piece), I thought I would go through both yesterday's and today's editions of the Inquirer.

It simply is not there.

Had I found it anywhere in the paper -- even in buried form -- I would now note that fact, as I did with Saturday's piece. Although my disagreement involved yesterday's front page article, I should have been more meticulous and gone through the hard copy, and reread and noted Saturday's Local News story, which is my fault.

But should I apologize for "missing" the many linked AP reports which never appear in the paper? My complaint was with what I saw yesterday, and what I don't think should have been omitted.

I think the Inquirer is at fault for not printing the stories which appear at its web site. This can create confusion, as it did with the commenter who said that I missed "over a dozen" stories.

What I said above -- "Not that anyone in Philadelphia would know anything about it from reading the Inquirer" -- applies in spades -- and not just to the IHT story, but to the story by Tom Hester, Jr.

There's plenty of stuff at the Inquirer's web site (there always is; they do a fine job), and once again, I did not mean convey the impression that there wasn't.