Congratulations to one or two of you for bringing up the subject of juvenile prejudice without a hint of irony at your own prejudice against the reporter. Did you assume that the writer of the article is a liar either way? I'd be prepared to wager that the writer (who, stone me, might actually have researched the article) is more aware of the facts than most of the readers whose sum total of knowledge about the incident has come straight from his work (and even then only after it's been pinched and pasted here). Sounds like vested interests all round.
