You don't have to learn something from an article for it to be worthy of existence. From my perspective, this piece aimed to delve you into the world and events of Skinner and Co, and in that way it succeeded. Is everyone's testimonies intrinsically untrustworthy? Perhaps. But even though they all differ, they all skirt around events that actually happened. It's not like everything in this article is one giant falsification. These things, some of them absolute heinous things, occurred. So what if everyone involved recounts a different story? It's a key, unavoidable part to the whole retelling. This article didn't seek or claim to give you answers or point you towards some truth from all this crazy world. It is what it is.
I guess what I was getting at is that I find the article to be sensationalistic, and I didn't think it had much merit apart from its shocking source material. It's almost as if the authors revel in the fact that the narrators are unreliable, because they can retell the same gruesome story multiple times with new lurid details each time. We learn nothing about the real people behind the case, nor about their operation, because they're all lying about each other and themselves. All we get are fantastical stories about how wild their parties were, and how brilliant Skinner is. This information is useless, especially when it feels so disingenuous as this did. It didn't ring true to me, and I felt like I had wasted my time by the end of it.