I haven't weighed in at all on this fascinating discussion to date. And, really, my own thoughts on this likely are imprinted with a wide spectrum of the comments and opinions that have already been expressed here. There probably is a case to be made that Lueke plead no contest to "cut his losses" so to speak...SilentPadna's take may be the closest to what I think happened, at least in Lueke's mind.
That said, Geoff Baker has very little, if anything, to apologize for in his reporting of this case. He's been upfront, extremely upfront, throughout.
So then I read this as being presented as "the facts":
Josh Lueke was ACCUSED of raping a drunken woman following a night of flirtation.
Josh Lueke plead no contest to avoid further jail time and a potentially painful trial.
And I see spin. The facts, as we know them are:
- Josh Lueke was ACCUSED of raping a drunken woman.
- Josh Lueke plead no contest.
That's it. The rest is spin, an attempt at interpreting what might have happened (maybe even what LIKELY happened, but that's in no way "fact"). Baker's been reporting the facts. He hasn't been spinning...the facts presented as baldly as they are lead one to a certain set of conclusions perhaps...and maybe you could say that's "spin" as well, but it hasn't stopped a lively discussion of those same facts here and in other places that leads elsewhere.