Excellent article by Page Rockwell. At

www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/sports/14cnd-duke.html

the NY Times reports that the Durham police *may* have conducted search of the lacrosse players' dorm rooms last night -- April 13.

The crime was reported to the police as having occurred on March 13. The search *may* have been executed 31 days -- four weeks and three days -- later. I wonder how the Durham police department explains this gap.

Another mystery is that on their home page --

www.durhampolice.com/

-- there is a list of latest news: 16 police-blotter-type items from Feb. 23 through Apr. 6 -- that does not mention the rape investigation at all (though a homicide investigation is on the list). I wonder how they explain this, too.

I didn't even notice a question, so it's amazing to me that Mr. Tennis could base a longish answer on no question (or maybe I just missed it).

In any case, the whole letter revolves about "dating", but this is nowhere defined. No hairsplitting here: isn't dating just spending time with someone so you can find out whether you want to spend more time with them, in the hopes of a romantic relationship?

How one could get anywhere near a romantic relationship without spending time with a possible partner is beyond my ken (or barbie).

I share Lynn Harris's loathing of pedophiliacs, including ones who might find the website mentioned to be arousing.

(It's not easy to believe anyone could find these pictures arousing, but let's suppose some do.)

It's important to ask what the alternative is. If pervs didn't have this relatively mild stuff to appease them -- it really is 12-year-old girls in skimpy bathing suits (or maybe some are as old as 14) -- what are the likely alternatives? My guess is that they'd either seek much stronger stuff, with the increased demand for it leading to increased production -- or else they might act on their perverted fantasies.

Both of these alternatives strike me as considerably worse than the availability of such photos as are found on the website, so perhaps it's best to let a sleeping lesser evil lie.

This article includes a little about the "second stripper's" comments:

Also going on the record this week was Kim Roberts, whom the AP identifies as the "second stripper" at the lacrosse team party at the time of the alleged incident. Roberts commented on the case, and then various attorneys commented on her comments.

"I was not in the bathroom when it happened, so I can't say a rape occurred -- and I never will," Roberts told the AP. But, she added, "In all honesty, I think they're guilty. And I can't say which ones are guilty. Somebody did something besides underage drinking. That's my honest-to-God impression." She also confirmed that the two women initially left the party "after one of the players threatened to sodomize them with a broomstick," the AP says. Defense attorneys in the case countered that Roberts initially told them she didn't believe that a rape had occurred, was probably being paid to reverse her opinion, and anyway may just be trying to "gain favorable treatment" in an unrelated criminal case against her.

I honestly do not know what to make of Ms. Roberts's comments, whether or not to believe them. But just for the sake of truth in journalism, I would like to add two relevant facts:

1. Shortly after the rape report, Ms. Roberts expressed her doubt that a rape of the other stripper had occurred. (She and the other stripper had left the party together.)

2. Ms. Roberts is in a position to exchange testimony for less harsh treatment, since she is facing serious charges (for the alleged embezzlement of $25,000 from a company she once worked for).

These facts certainly do not lead me to any foregone conclusion about the reported rape, but anyone trying to understand this case should be aware of them.

We who try to have a reality-based world view tend to dismiss euphemisms.

But is there any sense at all in which the girlfriend's suggesting that the boyfriend has a "mental illness" will help him? I don't think so.

Even if the word "depression" causes the boyfriend to turn a blind mind to his problem . . . getting him to see he has a problem needing attention is the goal here, not forcing him to confront a threatening reality.

The girlfriend should call it whatever he would prefer to hear -- as long as it avoids triggering his powerful defense mechanism.

Instead of her trying to convince her boyfriend that he has "mental illness", it would be far easier for her to convince him that she feels the coupleship has a problem warranting couples' counseling. This may avoid leading the boyfriend to feel there's anything "wrong with him".