The Times piece on Nifong's latest manipulation of the evidence includes the accuser's new version of events, "according to a person close to the investigation who would only speak on condition of anonymity."
Fair use of anonymous sourcing. But Duff Wilson (of course!) then gives the source the cloak of anonymity to interpret the legal significance of the new version of events.
What rationale exists for the Times allowing anonymous legal analysis?
"With the absence of DNA and her not knowing what was going on, it’s the right thing to do and it probably makes the rest of the case stronger," the source said.