Why are the culprits in the story referred to as "actors"?
I used to edit The Tartan.
(Note: I really despise the use of the word "actors" in the article, though. It's less wordy than "alleged theives" or whatever, but it could also have been omitted entirely. "The two actors" ---> "The two" etc.)
You can say "in my opinion, A is a murderer" -- but the only time you should be making a statement of fact on A's guilt is after it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
To do otherwise is to dishonestly masquerade your opinion as fact and to expose yourself to a nice fat libel lawsuit along the way.
Many times, the law isn't concerned with what you did but why you did it. I could shoot someone in the middle of the street in front of 200 people, however he might have just tried to sink me with a knife to get my wallet. It's the jury's job to decide whether I'm guilty on all the evidence, not on what a newspaper publishes.
This is why in Crown countries the government frequently has the ability to put a press-embargo on a case until after conviction.