The article says that "the initial police statement later that morning said: 'It was reported two men had been assaulted by an unknown man.'"
Literally true, but obviously very misleading, since the report of assault was by Henry's killer and his killer's family. And since it was in the morning, the police can't reasonably claim ignorance of the fact that Henry had been stabbed and that his killer had lied about the events of that night.
Unbelievably, the article says that the next update they planned to publish "would again imply that he was the initial aggressor."
So the police made him look like the aggressor by framing their statement with the murderer's lies. Which they knew were lies. Using the old trick of 'it was reported that'.
Their motive for doing so - and whether it was a deliberately misleading statement - is what I think needs to be addressed.