4 Guatemalans Die
Four imprisoned Guatemalan policemen were killed Sunday during a rebellion by inmates, days after the officers were arrested in connection with the deaths of three Salvadoran politicians, the police said. The four killed included Luis Herrera, head of the Guatemalan National Police organized crime unit, and three of his officers. On Feb. 19, Herrera and his officers abducted and killed Eduarado D'Aubuisson--the son of the former Salvadoran right-wing leader Roberto D'Aubuisson--two other Salvadoran officials and their driver. Their bodies were set on fire while they were still alive and was found along a road 20 miles from Guatemala City. The accused officers were taken to prison, occupied mostly by members of the dangerous Mara Salavtrucha gang, after their lawyer said their lives were in danger at the detention center in Guatemala City.
The New York Times article posted their version of the story once the accused officers were murdered on Feb.26. The Washington Post posted their version once the politicians were murdered and the accused officers arrested on Feb 22. The New York Times has the most current information. The Washington Post did not post another story about the accused officers being murdered. I think it's important for a newspaper to do a follow-up story, especially when the story made headlines and the second half is newsworthy.
The Washington Post version of the story was very confusing. Reporter Juan Carlos LLorca had help from Associated Press Writer Diego Mendez. I think LLcorca puts too much information into the article that was not necessary. He writes that about D'Aubisson's late father and his history with politics and crime and how he died. He used a really poor quote as well, from Interior Minister Carol Vielman, "We could give 10 different hypothesis but that would not be anything definite." I think that this quote is useless, it doesn't provide the reader with anything about the investigations and is redundant. His lead is okay. I guess it gets the job done, but it's really boring. He also uses a lot of names which is overwhelming because he connects each name with their association. It's necessary to make that association but I think he could have written it much tighter.
It was probably easier for the New York Times to write about the aftermath of the murders because they know all the facts and they don't have to explain every detail. The story was a lot easier to read and clearer on people's association to one another. The NYT also used a pretty lame quote, national police spokeswoman Maria Jose Fernadez said, "It's confirmed; they killed the four of them." Of-course it's confirmed! Why would the reader be reading the article if it wasn't confirmed and if it wasn't confirmed the reader would have known that in the lead.