My link was to a story by an AP reporter which was carried by the Guardian - which has a more convenient and accessible website than many other papers. Essentially similar stories were carried by a wide range of papers and broadcast media.

The only thing that is clear is that the facts of what actually happened were very unclear, with a range of often contradictory press statements, and statements by people who were on the spot in different capacities, being reported.

That essentially was my point. Just because the people on "our side" say something, that doesn't mean it should automatically be given greater credence than different versions by people on "the other side" - regardless of which side is "ours" and which is "the other".