The article can say anything it wants.
Let's do two logical exercises:
(1) When a murderer is arrested for raping and killing the inhabitants of a house he broke into, he can either (a) admit that he planned to kill them all along or (b) he can say that he only planned to rob them and the murder and rape was an accident, or perhaps the situation just got out of hand.
Option (a) would mean that he was confessing to premeditated murder, a death penalty offense. Option (b) would mean that he was confessing to second degree murder, which would spare him the death penalty.
Just because a murderer is smart enough to choose option (b) as his story when there is enough evidence to put a needle in his arm doesn't mean he's telling the truth.
Logical exercise (2):
The murderers were personally known by face, name and place of employment to the murder victims. The victims were Marines who served in the same unit with one of the victims and were known socially to both of them.
Is it logical to believe that these murderers intended to break into a home owned by people who knew them, while those same people were home, and only wanted to rob them - knowing full well that their victims could have the police waiting outside their own homes to arrest them before they got back from the robbery?
No, they committed crimes against these people because they intended that there would be no witnesses left alive to identify them.
Moreover, why would four young, strong, well-trained men in need of loot break into the home of a man who made the exact same modest salary taht they did?
Wouldn't robbing a wealthy person's house be a more logical move?
Using your arguments still doesn’t say this was a racially motivated crime. They were murderous nuts by any argument and could have killed any race. Black on black crimes are far higher than any other.