[Qwerty]

"I think it was "basically a vehicle for [homosexual] propaganda masquerading as concern for ['hate crime'] victims. Nice example of using tragedy for political gain.""

It was particularly gruesome, and therefore the press decided it would sell. I have no part in what the national press decides to air, and so I can't really answer your charge that it was homosexual propaganda. I will say that they did not try to tacitly accuse all heterosexuals of being potential perpetrators of similar acts, as this article has tacitly attempted to accuse all homosexuals (the males, at least) of being capable of pedophilia.

[Yeti]

was particularly gruesome, and therefore the press decided it would sell.

Not compared to Jesse Dirkhsing. How did the press determine that one wasn't very newsworthy?