If it was the most credible why did he have 3 completely different versions of what happened, had they been essentially the same with some minor deviations then fair enough you could attribute that to shock.
As far as bias and credibility is concerned you may find this interesting. If you look at the overall breakdown as opposed to political affiliation Fox News, CNN and the New York Times are all pretty much seen to be as credible as each other.
https://www.businessinsider.com/most-and-least-trusted-news-outlets-in-america-cnn-fox-news-new-york-times-2019-4?r=US&IR=TPartisan news media is a problem, one far more prevalent in America than over here. Hell if you want a good example then take a look at Rachel Maddow's deranged conspiracy tirade over the last couple of years or the New York Time's recent hypocritical argument that it's fine for their journalists to go trawling through someone's online history for anything controversial but that the public shouldn't be allowed to do the same thing with their journalists, Fox is right leaning but they have never claimed to be anything else. Years ago there was a line I heard on Babylon 5 that stuck with me 'Understanding is a 3 edged sword, your side, their side and the truth' It's why I end up going through such a wide range of American news sites from both sides of the spectrum. In this case the coverage of each of the news outlets had holes in them.
Regardless, there unarguable facts about the case are that he is a serial offender who has been repeatedly deported, he chose to be on that pier illegally and was in possession of the firearm that killed an innocent woman with a single bullet to the back. Whether or not it was a malicious act or down to gross negligence on his part by his actions he is still responsible for her death.