From the source
The Sydney Morning Herald (smh.com.au)...
Article: Allawi shot prisoners in cold blood: witnesses
5:59 AM: Iraqi leader shot inmates: witnesses
11:59 AM: Govt unable to substantiate claims
2:22 PM: No evidence to support claims: Government
2:29 PM: Rudd calls on Downer to clarify claims
5:54 PM: Govt questions Iraqi PM kill claims
6:00 PM: Government should clarify Allawi claims: Rudd
Article: Search begins for answers on Allawi 'executions'
10:09 AM: Allawi claims a matter for police: govt
10:19 AM: Allawi claims are matter for Iraqi police: Hill
Article: Red Cross urged to investigate Allawi claims
8:44 AM: Australian reporter defends Iraq story
3:29 PM: Minister to investigate Allawi execution claims
Article: Check on execution claims promised
Rumors are rampant in Iraq, so there are grave credibility issues here. A Sydney Morning Herald reporter broke this story, so it's appropriate that they follow. But if I were a U.S. editor/producer, I would have to regard this as second-hand (or even third-hand) information and would be very leery of passing it on without confirmation. At this point, I might run a story about the story itself -- something along the lines of, "Australian reporter stands by witnesses' allegations of Allawi executions" -- but I wouldn't give it much emphasis.