Investigative Journalist? (Not!)

What a big surprise to learn that writing in the "true crime" genre is not the same as writing in the memoir/non-fiction genre! One would think I would have known that but, as usual, I let my romantic notions get in the way of reality.
Facts are facts and truth is truth; therefore, writing true crime is just like writing other non-fiction. What a mistaken assumption that was (is) on my part. What I discovered and continue to discover is that when fear and mistrust enter in, the normal good nature and sound judgement of human beings become clouded with suspicion and wariness.
I am not a trained investigative journalist, the Mike Wallace type that exposes fraud and lies and corruption. If someone tells me something, I tend to believe it. Writing about the Stacey Burns case has taught me some hard lessons, which is a good thing because a hard lesson learned is not forgotten. Perhaps the most significant lesson, so far, is that people who expose themselves by speaking out tend to absorb the most criticism, often being the target of accusations that are not always based on fact but on emotion.
There can be only one truth. There are not degrees of truth, as in, "his statement contained a degree of truth."
If his statement had just a degree of truth, wouldn't that necessarily mean that it also had a degree of untruth?
We know there is only one truth about what happened to Stacey Burns and her killer knows that truth.
I'm not an investigative journalist but I'm trying like so many others to discover that one truth through writing this book.
Duker