In today’s Times, Richard Perez-Pena continúes his vendetta against Patrick Witt.

The story, headlined “Rhodes Trust Gives Account of Yale Quarterbacks Candidacy,” seems intended to bolster Perez-Pena’s original allegation that Witt withdrew his Rhodes application because of a sexual assault complaint that had been filed against him, not because he chose to play in The Game, as Witt stated at the time.

It fails to do so, and in fact only raises new questions about Perez-Pena’s own ethics.

The crux of the story is that Elliot Gerson, the American representative of the Rhodes Trust, has released a timeline of events that differs from Witt’s account.

Witt says he learned that he needed Yale to re-endorse his candidacy on the evening of November 9th or the morning of November 10th. Gerson’s account says it was actually November 8th.

.. the timeline offered by Rhodes officials, and confirmed Friday by a Yale spokesman, differs from Witt’s account. Witt was informed Nov. 8 of the need for a re-endorsement to proceed, according to the timeline.

Let us assume—and it is an assumption—that Gerson’t account is correct. (It’s quite weird to me that that Yale spokesman isn’t identified. After all, an anonymous spokesman is an oxymoron.)

Sounds bad for Witt, right?

Well, let’s remember what Perez-Pena’s original article alleged: That Witt orchestrated a publicity scheme to make himself look like a nobly conflicted scholar-athlete, when in fact he was all along going to withdraw because of the assault complaint.

But Witt has said that he told others of his decision to play in The Game before he was informed that he’d need another letter, and through his spokesman, he stands by that account.

This is all pretty confusing-what happened when and why? How many different stories are there? I’m confused myself, and I’ve probably spent more time than most people thinking about it. Perez-Pena can’t explain it, and he’s practically staking his career on it. At this point, he’s just throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping something will stick.

But that confusion is actually quite important to getting a more plausible understanding of what likely happened. Because if we can’t figure out exactly what happened when with all the benefit of hindsight, imagine what it must have been like for Witt at the time.

The kid’s part of a media circus—apparently of Yale’s making, not his—that’s been going for a week and a half or so by this point. He’s got pressure about the scholarship, and pressure from football. He wants to win The Game—he’s Yale’s great QB hope after four years of losses—and he wants to turn pro as well.

And of course he’s got the burden of having had this sexual assault complaint filed against him—and possibly the burden of having acted reprehensibly. (As well as the possibility of having been falsely accused, and everything in between.)

He’s got phone calls and emails flying back and forth. He’s got a press conference scheduled by the university on the day he finds out that his Rhodes candidacy has been suspended, put on hold, whatever you want to call it. (Though we don’t know if Witt found this out before or after the press conference—and that would be a nice thing to know.)

And—let’s remember—he’s 22 years old at the time.

Which is more likely—that in the midst of all this turmoil, Witt had not only the calculation and clearness of mind, but also the self-aggrandizing hunger, to plot a self-aggrandizing media stunt, as Perez-Pena charges?

(When, let’s face it, he’d already been getting good press for a week?)

Or is it more likely that the situation was just all FUBAR, and Witt struggled through as best he could, and the trouble that we’re now having in putting the whole thing together is reflective of the chaotic state of affairs at the time?

There’s no scandal here. I don’t think there’s even a story here. Perez-Pena is imputing malign motive to a kid caught in what must have been a surreal situation, and he just doesn’t have the goods.

It’s high time for the Times to remove Perez-Pena from this story. He’s clearly got a personal stake in it now—defending his own reputation from a torrent of well-justified criticism—and his articles are now more about himself than they are about Witt.

A number of commentators have compared the Times’ handling of this to its appalling journalism during the Duke rape case. There’s some truth there. But I’m just as reminded of the Judith Miller situation….

This post has gone on a bit longer than intended, so in the a post that’s about to come, I want to raise some questions about the role of Elliot Gerson in promoting this story.