LA Times gets 2nd Duke DNA story wrong.

At latimes.com there's a May 14 Los Angeles Times Print Edition: A Section story headlined:

No Match in 2nd Duke DNA Test, Defense Says

But don't believe that. The Times' headline is flat out false.

Defense attorneys for Duke lacrosse players have made clear since Friday, Apr. 12, that the 2nd round of Duke DNA testing did yield a positive DNA match.

This from an Associated Press account of the attorneys' Friday news conference:

Attorney Joseph Cheshire, who represents a team captain who has not been charged, said the tests showed genetic material from a "single male source" was found on a vaginal swab taken from the accuser, but that material did not match any of the players.[...]

The "single male source" who matched the genetic material found on the vaginal swab taken from the victim is named in the report on the second round of DNA tests, which were done at a private lab. Cheshire said the man "is known to the Durham police department" but he declined to give the man's name

On Saturday, May 13, ABC News headlined:

Duke Lacrosse DNA: Mystery Man Revealed

Accuser's Boyfriend is 'Single Source' of DNA on Vaginal Swab

Also on Saturday, defense attorneys conferenced by phone after which the Durham Herald Sun reported:

[A]ttorney Bill Thomas of Durham -- who represents an un-indicted lacrosse player -- said semen found in the dancer's body was "of recent origin" and had been deposited there "immediately prior to her being examined" in connection with the alleged rape.

With all that information, why couldn't the LA Times get the headline right?

Part of the answer may be that the LA Times' "story" which followed its false headline, though based on AP reports, made no mention of semen, a vaginal swap or the boyfriend.

Given everything the Times' failed to report, we can all understand why its editors wouldn't run a headline like:

"DNA lab says accuser & boyfriend a perfect match"

But why couldn't the Times have headlined something like:

"DNA results fail to clear Duke players."

Sure, that headline would be a cheap shot at the players and a big tilt in favor of the accuser, but at least it wouldn't be flat out wrong like today's LA Times' headline:

No Match in 2nd Duke DNA Test, Defense Says

I spent part of today trying to locate the email address of LA Times blog critic Patterico.

I don't doubt it's out there but I didn't find it. Can someone help?

Patterico is the perfect person to follow up on this latest example of LA Times "reporting."