Like stated higher up in the thread, non-testimonial proof is hard to come by in cases like this. Publishing a story with unnamed sources in such a case is very

Like stated higher up in the thread, non-testimonial proof is hard to come by in cases like this. Publishing a story with unnamed sources in such a case is very difficult to distinguish from a smear-campaign. Not only does naming sources give more credibility, it also doesn't rely fully on the credibility of journalists. You can only say "it's true, just trust me" without being able to back it up so many times. Testimony of anonymous sources are useful as corroboration, not as the main evidence. The sources here don't need to fear for their lives, nor are they able to produce documents to back up their claims. I do not wish to diminish the courage that was needed to go on the record here. In fact, this is even more risky because hard evidence is so hard to come by in cases like this.