At the moment the Smoking Gun link within the Tacitus link does not appear to be working. Probably it will be back. The equivocal - in the Elizabethan sense - phraseology is exquisite. The equivocator, Walsh, points journalists to a public source of information, so the words that deceive are not even the equivocator's own. An extra layer of padding against the charge of lying. Beelzebub himself would blush to think of taking that little Gricean cherub of communication - 'be relevant' - behind the shed and beating it so mercilessly. (I can just see the innocent defense. 'But really, we thought you journalists would be interested to know that a different person with the same name has a criminal record.')
I will be curious to hear how this plays out legally, now that the victim (twice-over, sounds like it) is suing. Can the likes of Walsh be held accountable for deceit like this, or is the trick good enough to get you off the legal hook?