In this article by the Associated Press found on the Star Tribune website, the lead to the story includes general details about the capture of the mistakenly freed convict, as well as details providing a bit of back story as to why he was free to begin with.
The lead begins with a bit of back story, incorporating the "who." The author describes that the convict was allowed to leave a jail that he technically did not need to be in two days ago. There is just enough detail in this part of the lead to fill the reader in on the previous part of this story, the fact that this convicted killer was just allowed to walk out of jail, but not bog down the lead with too much background information. This part of the lead also hooks me in as a reader, by providing just enough detail to avoid being vague, but at the same time make me want to keep reading.
The last part of the lead takes care of the what and where in a fairly straightforward manner. We know that the who (the convict) was captured again (what) in northern Illinois (where). The last W, the when, isn't as straightforward as the rest of the lead. We know that the recapture of the killer happened two days after he was mistakenly allowed to walk free, but this lead doesn't give a specific date or day of the week that this occurred. However, the lead does include that the man was recaptured while watching TV, a detail that can fall into the "when" category but mostly seems to be added to lighten the mood of the story, and reinforce the fact that the man didn't put up a chase and went willingly with police.
Over all, this lead does a good job at communicating details to establish that this is merely a new part in an ongoing story, while still (for the most part) giving the four W's in a straightforward manner that informs the reader, and hooks them in to wanting to read the rest of the story.