There's no question that members of last year's Duke University lacrosse team showed poor judgment in staging a rowdy spring break party that featured two dancers hired from escort services. But serious doubts continue to grow about the case that Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong has brought against three of the players who are accused of raping and assaulting one of the dancers.

Reports in The N&O concerning contradictory accounts by the alleged victim and flaws in how the case has been investigated have raised questions about Nifong's decision to press ahead with the prosecution. The latest such report cited court testimony Friday by Brian Meehan, director of a Burlington laboratory, to the effect that Nifong knew that DNA tests on evidence gathered from the accuser's body and underwear failed to implicate any of the Duke athletes.

Meehan said under Nifong's questioning that no one had asked him to conceal the lack of evidence from the players when other findings were released from the DNA testing that was performed last spring.

Yet Meehan didn't have to be asked to conceal anything if he and Nifong already had agreed that only certain information would be released, as Meehan claimed that they had. It was only in September, in response to requests by the defendants' lawyers, that the full report from Meehan's firm was made available to the lawyers.

Under state law, prosecutors are required to turn over to defense attorneys evidence favorable to the accused, who in this case are former Duke lacrosse players David Evans of Maryland, Colin Finnerty of New York and Reade Seligmann of New Jersey.

Biological evidence from the woman who says she was raped was retrieved within hours of the alleged assault at the team party. Nifong then obtained DNA samples from team members, asserting that the evidence would be pivotal. He went on to obtain indictments of Finnerty and Seligmann on charges of rape, kidnapping and sexual assault, even though state tests of those samples showed no connection between the defendants and the accuser.

In view of that, it's not unreasonable to wonder if Nifong arranged for the more sensitive tests offered by Meehan's lab in an attempt to bolster his prosecution. The results clearly didn't help, yet he went on to gain the indictment of Evans and otherwise has plowed ahead.

Meehan maintained in court that the test results showing no DNA from any of the defendants were withheld out of some concern for their privacy. Nifong also said they were "trying to avoid dragging any names through the mud." but certainly the trio's greater interest has been in having their names cleared.

Meanwhile, notes from Durham investigators show that the woman changed her story repeatedly during interviews with detectives. And detectives violated the department's own photo line-up policy when they had the woman identify the three players. What is the basis for Nifong's sustained belief that sexual crimes were committed by the three?

Nifong has enjoyed the benefit of the doubt from many members of the public over this case. But the more information that comes to light, the more questionable his conduct and judgment appear.