Why Did The Los Angeles Times Withhold A Key Story Point Until The Very End?

In the above linked story, a family accuses the Army of covering up their daughter's murder by saying it was a suicide, and they present some compelling evidence. The article also suggests there might be a pattern of covering up such murders.

Then, further into the article, the Army makes its case and it seems hard to reconcile the two points of view. Then at the end of the article, it turns out the family also hired their own private coroner and in paragraph 41 of 48 paragraphs - if you are one of the few who have made it that far - you will find his conclusion:

"I saw no evidence that it was not self-inflicted," Graham said.

Wow!

That is what the family's own privately hired coroner told them.

Now that is something if I had known earlier, I would have looked at everything else in the article ... a bit differently.

However - since their private coroner was still lacking some key evidence - his verdict is not a final answer to the story (and he does state that) - and there are other important issues the family does raise which still need to be addressed.

But by this point, I am just a little suspicious about everything I just read. When I read fictional murder mysteries, I always enjoy a good surprise twist at the end. But in news stories - not so much.