It is nice to see Broadsheet (and much of the media) start to back off its earlier coverage, but the mindset of "guilty" still pervades your comments. Legal experts do not simply "condemn" the photo lineup, they uniformly recognize it as unconstitutional. Not to mention that it violates written standards for photo lineups from every law enforcement agency, from the FBI to Durham itself. Your comments imply that it is an "ambiguous" issue, when it is not.

Further, the argument that Taylor's "own imagination of the alleged crime" should not "outweigh the opinions of experts when it comes to DNA evidence" implies that there is an expert who will opine that it is possible to have no DNA evidence under the circumstances (an alleged brutal rape involving three men, vaginal and anal penetration, and no condoms). There is no such expert, anywhere, who would be remotely credible. This is not an issue deserving of a "wait-and-see" the evidence before we jump to conclusions. "It" did not happen, could not have happened. That doesnt mean they (whoever "they" is) weren't cruel and disgusting towards her, if not racist. "They" may have even groped her (well, not the indicted kid who wasn't there). But she wasn't raped, as much as that may pain you to admit.

There is plenty of evidence that "means the woman is lying." While prosecutorial misconduct and distortion does not -- in the abstract -- mean the victim is lying, we are not confined to that analysis. The "misconduct" and "distortions" here involve attempting to cover-up her changed stories and the total inconsistency of her story and the physical evidence. Can you not bring yourself to admit that the woman's story itself is not credible? Go ahead, take that step, it will feel all wrong at first but your conscience will be much relieved.

In the end (if the case is not dismissed), it will be up to the jury to determine guilt or innocence. The JURY must presume innocence. The public, including the media, is certainly free to "pronounce" innocence when the facts demand it. The facts do now, and every commentator -- particularly those who "pronounced" guilty in the beginning -- should be "proncouncing" innocence now and demanding an end to this injustice.

One final comment, on the "race-sex-class" issue. And this may come as a suprise: Duke students are NOT -- even by simple majority -- either Northern or rich. And barely a majority are white. A large majority are southern, middle-class, on scholarship or grants, and there by their own hard work (and not insubstantial intelligence), not the wealth or privilege of their parents. There are certainly privileged kids there and Yankees too(gasp!), but the popular perception is simply false. I know that doesn't make the story nearly as interesting, but it would be nice to hear the truth about the school at least once in a while.

While I am not going to defend cricket itself, knowing next to nothing about it, I must commend to all the enjoybale pastime of cricket news. Its like Madlibs, only better. And real! In what other sport can you read an entire article, in English, and have absolutely no idea what they are talking about? Googly on stumps? Chinese cuts? Not to mention a typical score report: "India were 44-3 when Sachin Tendulkar fell third ball and despite Rahul Dravid's 60 they were all out for 185." Who is winning? The tension is palpable. Check out http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport.

You might want to check this out too, on the subject of McCain's "straight talk." From an AP story I just saw:

McCain, appearing on NBC's "Today" show Wednesday from Orlando, Fla., said the war "was badly mismanaged. But there are signs of progress everywhere. ... I am confident that given the opportunity, we can have success. The consequences of failure are catastrophic because if we come home, bin Laden and Zarqawi, they are going to follow us."

Really? bin Laden is in Iraq? And Zarqawi is going to come back from the dead?

This "telling statistic" drives me nuts. How come everyone, WSJ included, cites the most amount of corn planted since 1940's (in acres) as if that means we are just now producing the same amount of corn? The WSJ even goes on to say "that is the most amount of corn harvested since..." How about someone cite the yields (or expected yields) of corn? I am sure the amount of corn we produce (i.e. bushels harvested) is several times higher than the 1940's. There is the little something known as the green revolution that intervened in the meantime... you know, fertilizer, hybrid seeds, irrigation, etc.

The acreage of corn planted, standing alone, tells us absolutely nothing.

Could you perhaps institute a filter system so that readers could review the letters section without having to review certain posts? If I could, for instance, eliminate all posts by Garry Owen, or any post that responds to Garry Owen or mentions Garry Owen, I think my world would be a happier place. I could do the same for anonymous. As the system stands now, I often choose not to read the comments because I know they will be dominated by vitriol rather than intelligence, humor or insight.