The Washington Post does a take two. A day after they ran the stupid Andrew Cohen column they give Ruth Marcus a chance to get it right. Ms. Marcus mostly gets the big picture right, but in the end she still wimps out. This case is more than discomforting and "troubling." She now thinks there is "reasonable doubt" at Duke:
At the start, I presumed they were guilty. The rape charges against three members of the Duke lacrosse team sounded like a plausible case of Jocks Gone Wild....source:
But the more evidence that has emerged in the case, the more it appears that there is way more than reasonable doubt that the three accused committed rape...
the confluence of Nifong's political interests and the prosecution is itself another reason for discomfort. He brought the first charges just before a primary in which the black vote played a key role...
In an odd way, I hope Nifong's proved right, because the alternative -- that he began with a dubious case and stuck with it as it became shakier -- is so troubling. As it stands now, the case isn't expected to go to trial until spring 2007. That seems like an awfully long time to wait to find out.
Reasonable Doubt at Duke [Washingtonpost.com, June 28, 2006]
Other Duke case news/links:
Ex-Duke Lacrosse Player Convicted On Noise Charge [nbc17.com, June 27, 2006]
Catherine Crier Live on Court TV with Lester Munson, Sports Illustrated, June 27th [discussion on courttv.com]
The Duke Case: The Damage and the Real Villains [Michael J. Gaynor | TheConservativeVoice.com, June 27, 2006]
Follow The Duke Rape Case Evidence, CleO [Michael J. Gaynor | PostChronicle.com, June 27, 2006]