THE CASE One man's battle to clear his name Judge grants two-week delay Guilt in rape case may hang on the tick, tick, tick of clock Man convicted of rape wins delay in sentencing Point/Counterpoint Recap: How an open-and-shut case became an extraordinary mystery story Looking back at Titus case

The following is a summary of key pieces of disputed evidence in the Steve Titus case, as pointed up by Titus, his attorneys, the prosecutor and The Times' own study of the case.

Point: Titus' 1981 Chevette similar to compact car described by the rape victim. Victim later identified Titus' car as the vehicle she was raped in.

Counterpoint: Sixty per cent of new cars on the road are compacts. Instead of showing her several cars, police took victim directly to Titus' Chevette.

Point: Numbers on Titus' temporary license sticker (661 677) similar to numbers seen by victim on rape vehicle (667— or 776—).

Counterpoint: Temporary licenses are issued from Olympia in chronological blocks. The first three numerals are likely to be similar for all new cars purchased in an area at about the same time.

Point: Titus picked by victim from a police montage of six subjects.

Counterpoint: Defense argued that montage was "suggestive."

Point: Titus failed a polygraph test prior to trial.

Counterpoint: Polygraph is disputed as an exacting instrument of truth, and not accepted as evidence in court in many states. (It was not used as prosecution evidence against Titus in court.) A friend also passed a lie-detector test that established an alibi for Titus.

Point: Titus identified by the victim in court.

Counterpoint: Victim earlier had seen Titus' photograph in the police montage. He was the only bearded man in the courtroom.

Point: A witness first told police the victim left her in a restaurant at 7 p.m. The victim initially told police she got into the rapist's car at 6:45 p.m. In court testimony, the witness changed her time to 6:20 p.m. and the victim changed her time to 6:30 p.m. Either of the original times effectively appears to rule out Titus as the rapist.

Counterpoint: Prosecutor contends victims and witnesses often have imprecise memory of times.

Point: The victim described seat covers in the rapist's car as being velvet-like. Titus' car had vinyl seats.

Counterpoint: Police said texture of upholstery in Titus' car has the appearance of velvet when viewed from outside the vehicle.

Point: Victim described rapist as 6 feet tall. Titus is 5-8, and 2 inches shorter than the victim, herself.

Counterpoint: Prosecutor said victim never saw the rapist standing and could have misjudged his size.

Point: Rapist described as wearing cream-colored suit and matching vest. Titus' father and brother testified he was wearing dark slacks and dark sweater when he left for his apartment 20 minutes before the victim said she entered rapist's car.

Counterpoint: No explanation from police or prosecutor.

Point: Victim said she saw a necklace or garters hanging from rear-view mirror of rape vehicle. Titus had an air freshener with a Playboy-bunny symbol hanging from his mirror.

Counterpoint: Police said after victim viewed Titus' car she decided what she saw could have been the air freshener.

Point: Michelin tire tracks found at the rape scene did not match tires on Titus' car. The Michelin XYZ steel-belted radial is standard on a number of imported cars similar in appearance to Titus' Chevette.

Counterpoint: At the last minute, police said tire tracks they photographed at the scene could not have come from the rapist's car, because, while the tracks "turned to the right," the rapist drove straight in and backed straight out.

Point: Laboratory analysis of microscopic evidence (fingerprints, hair samples and clothing fibers) found in Titus' car failed to show that the victim had been in the vehicle. A mustache hair or beard hair found on the victim's sweater did not match that of Titus.

Counterpoint: No explanation from police or the prosecutor.

Point: Long-distance records show that Titus made a telephone call from his apartment, 8 miles from the rape scene, at 7 p.m. To place the call at that time, he would have had to leave the rape scene no later than 6:45 p.m. After she was raped, the victim went to a house near the scene to seek help. The call to police from the house was logged at 7:22 p.m. That means it took the victim about 30 minutes to run 650 feet for help.