Today’s story in the New York Times on the Durham district attorney case buries the lede, admitting late in the article that the case is a mess:

Mr. Nifong has been under attack for months by the defense and supporters of the lacrosse players for aggressively pursuing a case based almost entirely on the account of the accuser, which he acknowledges he has heard only from police reports and written statements, and not directly by speaking to her.

The flaws and gaps in the evidence have mounted. No DNA from the defendants was found on the dancer. At least one of the accused appears to have a strong alibi. A second woman hired to strip at the party has said she saw no evidence of an attack. And the array of photographs that led to the identification of the three defendants was not presented according to federal, state and local police guidelines for lineups.

This is what is called a “rowback”, a story that implicitly acknowledges mistakes in previous reporting without admitting those mistakes explicitly. The Times reporter, Duff Wilson, has become notorious for his prosecution-friendly reporting, which includes an August front-page story defending the case despite a tidal wave of evidence casting doubt on the accuser’s version of events. The story was embarrassing enough that Times insiders slammed it anonymously. Apparently, Wilson has had a change of heart. But you have to read to the 12th paragraph of a story buried inside the paper to find out. As Slate’s Jack Shafer has argued, we need a better mechanism to alert readers that previous coverage was flawed.