Friday, August 04, 2006

Cohen Tells Another Whopper

Andrew Cohen of the Washington Post asks his blog readers to consider what they would do if they were Judge Titus. In the course of this very misleading work of fiction, Mr. Cohen blatantly misinforms his readers that Judge Titus issued his 3.6 order several months ago. Cohen writes:

"Several months ago, you gently told the lawyers in the case to keep their mouths shut..."
Did he really just make that up? Does "gently" suddenly mean "never" in DC? Several months ago Titus was not even presiding over the case. At the very least, if you're going to manipulate us, Mr. Cohen, try to be a bit more creative about it. Had you inserted Judge Stephens, who was presiding over the case prior to July 1, into your invention perhaps you might have found someone willing to grab their ankles for you. In fact the order was issued only a few weeks ago when Judge Titus began presiding over the administrative settings.

Apparently, Mr. Cohen is either so poorly informed regarding this case that he did not know his lie was so transparent or he is blatantly attempting to manipulate his readers without regard to truth or transparency. He goes on to further perpetuate his fraud by claiming that the order issued at the last hearing was Titus’s second, more formal, statement on the matter.
"So on Monday, at a hearing in the case, you a little more formally and a little more forcefully reiterate your interest in having the attorneys shut up outside of court."
We have to ask why would Cohen invent such fiction? Why is it so important to Mr. Cohen that he manipulate the public at the expense of his own pretense of credibility?

He makes an argument for reprimanding the defense attorneys, based on these inventions, and bolsters his argument with more deception by not admitting that the objects of his deception were speaking to undo the damage done by Mr. Nifong’s prior 70+ interviews and the countless number of extrajudicial statements contained within those campaign-minded interviews. By neglecting to disclose that the attorneys were merely exercising the rights afforded them and their clients by rule 3.6 to counteract the damage done by Mr. Nifong, Mr. Cohen perpetrates a fraud on everyone who reads his words. We find it outrageous that Mr. Cohen takes such an overt path to deception. He just comes right out and issues a blatantly false statement and then proceeds to build an entire argument on his own fiction.

Equally outrageous is the more devious deception created by not addressing Mr. Nifong’s extra judicial statements. We are absolutely amazed that any discussion of rule 3.6 and the Duke case would pretend to ignore Mr. Nifong’s role in this part of the drama. Mr. Cohen’s discussion remains woefully incomplete and deceptive by means of this omission.

One might expect that the Post would be more concerned with seeking confirmation of the exact number of 3.6 AND 3.8 complaints filed with the North Carolina State Bar in regard to Mr. Nifong, the exact number of those complaints against Mr. Nifong that are currently being investigated and the faulty rationale behind Mr. Nifong’s defense of some of those complaints by attempting to make a distinction between pre and post indictment. While Mr. Cohen asks, "What will Titus do?" We prefer to ask, "What is the State Bar doing?"

Click here to tell Mr. Cohen his pants are on fire.


Anonymous said...

Andrew Cohen of the Washington Post asks his blog readers to consider what they would do if they were Judge Titus. I ask Andre Cohen what would he do if he were asked to speak the truth?

What is it Mr. Cohen you are getting in return for (purposely?) inaccurate statements?

How sad and yet I suppose you sleep well at night even after selling your integrity and soul.

Anonymous said...

What a freeking liar! What would Mr. Cohen's editor do?

ME said...

I tried to post my comment on Cohen's Washington Post page. It would not accept my post. I will try again. The following is my comment (first posted on the N&O Editor's Blog):

Mr. Cohen,

It is frightening that there could be such a disconnect between the truth and what you print above. I encourage you to refer to the following in order to be more educated on the topic to which you post:


As I was preparing this post (which at that time started below with BASIC CIVIL LIBERTIES) I came across the following Andrew Cohen post that is directly related to the content of my post below:

Cohen’s post is so full of blatant lies and misinformation that I will not try to deconstruct them here. Instead, I refer you to the LieStoppers “Cohen Tells Another Whopper” Aug 4 entry wherein LieStoppers addresses the Cohen nonsense:

Editor Sill, the Cohen piece is a direct consequence of the local media’s failure to print the truth!!


MaryinNJ, thank you and with regard to your comment at 7/31/06 at 13:10 above about the Judge Titus Order, I would like to revisit a subject that is near and dear to me – basic civil liberties.

Basic civil liberties include freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. There are also the rights to due process, to a fair trial, to privacy, and to self defense. (from Wikipedia)

On July 18th the N&O published two articles with regard to Judge Titus’ “sua sponte” ORDER REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 3.6 OF THE NORTH CAROLINA REVISED RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. The N&O referred to this Order as an “admonition” to participants in the Duke Lax Case. I followed the two N&O articles with commentary on this Blog (7/26/06 at 14:51, 7/25/06 at 18:32, 7/25/06 at 12:24, and 7/20/06 at 15:35) regarding pertinent facts and documents that I believed the N&O had failed to cover in those two articles and in the time subsequent to the two articles. Those wanting a more “in-depth” analysis of the following issues can refer to my four earlier posts noted above.


1) The N&O did not obtain and/or did not provide a link to the Judge Titus July 17th “sua sponte” Order (this despite it being a matter of public record). Michael Gaynor now reports that the mainstream media has not published the Titus “sua sponte” Order (see the links below).

2) The N&O did not report that Judge Titus failed to include NC Rule 3.8 in his Order. NC Rule 3.8 applies specifically to the conduct of the prosecutor (DA Nifong). Further, Rule 3.8 (f) goes directly to the substance of the ethical transgressions for which DA Nifong has been so widely criticized and may be part of the basis for DA Nifong to be censured by the NC State Bar.

The failure to include NC Rule 3.8 in the Order may be particularly relevant now that, within the past two days, there has apparently been information leaked to the press related to the DNA evidence collected at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. With the assumption such information leaks have occurred, there has been much speculation with regard to who may have leaked the information and for what purpose(s). With the assumption such information leaks have occurred, there has been further speculation with regard to whether or not the Court will seek to determine who leaked the information and for what purpose(s) (as any such leak may be in direct violation of the Judge Titus July 17th Order).

3) The N&O did not report that it was widely reported nearly three months ago that DA Nifong may have had an ethics complaint filed against him with the NC State Bar for public comments he made about rape allegations involving Duke Lax players. Those extrajudicial public comments made by DA Nifong were widely criticized by lawyers and legal experts across the country as having crossed ethical boundaries and potentially prejudicing jurors and consequently helping to set off a media maelstrom. (My how quickly some forget!) The State Bar cannot confirm or deny whether a complaint has been filed against DA Nifong.

4) The N&O did not report the fact that Judge Titus, with his Order, applied NC Rule 3.6 to potential “witnesses” in the Duke Lax Case (a). From this lay person’s point of view, the application of Rule 3.6 to non-lawyer non-professional “witnesses” is unprecedented. Further, the application of Rule 3.6 to non-lawyer non-professional “witnesses” may serve to deprive the defendants in the Duke Lax Case of their freedom of speech and their right to a fair trial as afforded to all of us under the First and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

5) The N&O did not obtain and/or did not provide a link to the Defense Attorneys’ Motion To Reconsider & Modify the Judge Titus Order (this despite it being a matter of public record).

6) The N&O did not report that the Defense Attorneys, in their Motion To Reconsider & Modify, asked the Court to: 1) properly include all rules of professional conduct related to extrajudicial lawyer conduct, specifically to include NC Rule 3.8, and 2) remove application of NC Rule 3.6 from all non-lawyer potential “witnesses” (a).

7) The N&O did not obtain and/or did not provide a link to an article authored by Attorney Bannon wherein he provides on-point analyses of NC Rule 3.6 and 3.8 as they relate to freedom of speech and right to fair trial issues discussed above and addressed by Defense Attorneys in their Motion To Reconsider & Modify (this despite it being a matter of public record).

8) The N&O failed to report (perhaps its most egregious omission) the deplorable courtroom behavior of DA Nifong during the July 17th hearing. Further, the N&O did not report that Judge Titus failed to reprimand DA Nifong for his deplorable courtroom behavior. This topic more thorough reported by The Herald Sun (see link below).

The N&O did not report on the facts and documents discussed above despite Editor Sill’s recent comments in support of the right to free speech.

(a) I used the words “N&O failed to report” above. After I wrote my earlier commentary, I learned the N&O did in fact “report” a few of the unreported facts, Order, Motion, documents, and other related issues that I discuss above. The N&O informed me it “reported” (and this is the only N&O report to date) of those facts, Order, Motion, documents, and other related issues WITH THE FOLLOWING SINGLE PARAGRAPH (this paragraph located within the body of an unrelated July 22 article):

From the July 22 N&O article: “Also Friday, attorneys for the three indicted lacrosse players asked the judge to allow members of the lacrosse team to speak to the media, especially about their assertion that no rape occurred at the March 13 party. The motion was in response to an order from Superior Court Judge Kenneth C. Titus earlier this week that required not only the lawyers and prosecutor but also witnesses in the case to follow a State Bar rule limiting what can be said to the news media about the case.”

Now that is what I call breathtaking brevity. Others might call it failure to report pertinent facts of the case.

I say again, Editor Sill, other N&O editors and reporters, it is still not too late to report on these matters.

Gaynor publishes the Judge Titus “sua sponte” Order and reports that Titus is unsurprisingly also up for reelection in November:

Gaynor reports that the mainstream media has not published the Titus “sua sponte” Order and reports on the Defense Motion To Reconsider & Modify:

Judge Titus July 17th, 2006


1. Counsel for the State of North Carolina and counsel for the defendants, the employees and agents of the State, the employees and agents of counsel for the defendants, and any witnesses for the State or the defendants, are hereby restrained and enjoined from communicating with the news media concerning the above-entitled criminal action except as specifically permitted by the provisions of Rule 3.6 of the North Carolina Revised Rules of Professional Conduct.

Defendant’s Attorneys Motion To Reconsider & Modify:

Attorney Bannon analyzes NC Rule 3.6 and 3.8 and freedom of speech and right to fair trial issues at:

NC Rule 3.6 and 3.8 at:

Reports of DA Nifong outrageous July 17 courtroom behavior:


c: Melanie Sill, Executive Editor
Andrew Cohen, Washington Post

Anonymous said...

I knew that someone made a complaint to the State Bar regarding Nifong, but I get from your article that it is multiple complaints! Maybe that explains Nifong's confession last week! Nice One Liestoppers!You scooped the local papers!

LieStoppers said...

Keep up the great work folks. Here are your reponses to Cohen so far. Well done all. Please, keep adding to the pile and we will forward to his editor and post here.

In this post you seem to suggest, sub silentio, that only the defense has been the source of leaks, rumor and smear. Have you been reading only half the coverage? As I read it, the prosecution and police seem also to have honed a skilled knack for leaking.

Posted by: Daniel Millstone | July 18, 2006 09:46 AM

I would say that my message has been received and that there is no further need to intervene. I would also note that the prosecution showed little restraint BEFORE they got into court. During the investigative phase of this case the prosecution particularly flammed general animosity against the entire Duke lacrosse team and led to protests outside their homes, ill treatment on campus and general scorn throughout their community.

I would say the more interesting behavior coming out of yesterdays hearings was the continued persecution of the entire Duke lacrosse team, including members not under indictment.

The prosecution yesterday asked for their personal phone numbers so that they can be called apparently whenever the jury might want to hear from them. This when trial remains at least 9 months away. Politely, of course, the prosecution says that this is not intended for use in investingating the individual lacrosse members.

However a second request contradicts this denial. The prosecution also asked for their student ID account numbers in order to trace their activities on the night in question. Presumably this broad request is so the prosecution is not blindsided by the continuing differences between actual facts and their alleging victim's memory.

Is this a broad fishing expedition in search of someone to charge who appears not to have an alibi? Or is this one tailored to "construct" the testimony of the alleging victim consistent with the facts?

Just as the racist fishing subpoena for DNA material against all white players on the team, which didn't turn up a suspect, this one is overbroad and fishy.

If I were the judge on the phone numbers: DENIED. Use your subpoena power to get them into court when you are ready for trial.

If I were the judge on the ID accounts: DENIED -- just subpoena, by name, the transaction records for the lacrosse team members who were at the PARTY and who are parties of interest; restrict the subpoena to arround and during the date and time of the alleged rape.

Posted by: Constituationalist | July 18, 2006 10:32 AM

This isn't a tit-for-tat game, "Constitutionalist," the question is who is going to supervise the trial, the judge or the lawyers. It should always be the judge. Judge Titus needs to slap the defense lawyers with sanctions and remind the prosecution that the same could happen to them.

Posted by: CowTown | July 18, 2006 12:05 PM

I don't think it matters much who says what anymore. Those guys have been indicted, tried, and found guilty in the court of public opinion to which there is no appeal. Witness the kid who tried to transfer to Syracuse.

I get the feeling that, as the saying goes, 'things are not what they seem' in Durham.

And be very careful who you invite to your party.

Posted by: cody mccall | July 18, 2006 08:32 PM

Your facts are so far off in this article that you and your paper should be embarrased. You really don't have any idea what you are talking about. Titus just got the case on Monday so he didn't issue any order months ago. More importantly, the rule he cited isn't a "gag" order and even you should know that. That rule also contains safe harbor provisions for defense to respond to prosecution statements. Why don't you mention that. What you should have reported on is the inflamatory statements made by Nifong during the hearing that the honorable judge let pass. Your reporting on this case has been some of the worst. Keep it up.

Posted by: Mark | July 20, 2006 03:57 AM

Further to my last message. You know, you really are a piece of work. The DA held over 70 press conferences and made so many inflammatory extrajudicial statements that it would be impossible to chronicle them all in less than a day. And you have the audacity to go after the defense attorneys in their attempts to level the playing field? Collin Finnerty's lawyers have said nothing, period. Selligman's lawyer Osborn has said nothing publically that I am aware of. Evans' lawyer Cheshire held a press conference when his client was indicted. Are the leaks and spin you are talking about the motions that the defense lawyers have filed in the case? Is that your idea of spin? What do you want them to do, just let their clients be convicted.
Why don't you write an article about the blatant unprofessionalism that was on display by Nifong in the courtroom on Monday and how the esteemed judge allowed it without rebuke. That is the story that the other media outlets have reported, why don't you try a new tact. Your present reporting is growing tiresome.

Posted by: Mark | July 20, 2006 04:22 AM

Cohen, heed the comments of the above posters and do some research before you open your biased, uneducated mouth next time.

Posted by: weezie | July 20, 2006 07:56 AM

I agree with the two posts above - you are just another example of someone making a premature and uninformed judgement regarding this case. It is unfortunate that the DA in the case is guilty of the same thing; his premature actions and words have irrepareably harmed the lives of so many people. And after your piece above yours have too.

Posted by: Samantha | July 20, 2006 02:42 PM

No discussion of Rules 3.6 and 3.8 is complete without mention that it is DA Mike Nifong who is currently under investigation by the State Bar for his extrajudicial statements. From the reading of your fictional account above, one might conclude that that charges had been leveled in the opposite direction. You ask what would Titus do? We ask what is the NC State Bar doing?

Posted by: Philip Wood | August 4, 2006 09:06 AM

Speaking of Rule 3.6, which of the following statements by Nifong are covered by the rule in question:

"There's a good chance if someone had spoken up and said, 'You can't do this,' it might not have happened,"

"It is a case that talks about what this community stands for,"

"The information that I have does lead me to conclude that a rape did occur. I'm making a statement to the Durham community and, as a citizen of Durham, I am making a statement for the Durham community. This is not the kind of activity we condone, and it must be dealt with quickly and harshly."

"I am convinced that there was a rape, yes, sir."

"My reading of the report of the emergency room nurse would indicate that some type of sexual assault did in fact take place," (Statement made before the report was even printed, btw)

"The circumstances of the rape indicated a deep racial motivation for some of the things that were done. It makes a crime that is by its nature one of the most offensive and invasive even more so."

"The victim was examined at Duke University Medical Center by a nurse who was specially trained in sexual assault cases. And the investigation at that time was certainly consistent with a sexual assault having taken place, as was the victim's demeanor at the time of the examination." (Statements contradict the reports he refers to.)

"The racial slurs involved are relevant to show the mindset ... involved in this particular attack. And, obviously, it made what is already an extremely reprehensible act even more reprehensible."

"There's been a feeling in the past that Duke students are treated differently by the court system. There was a feeling that Duke students' daddies could buy them expensive lawyers and that they knew the right people."

"Obviously, any delay would give an opportunity for somebody to clean up if they were inclined to do so, or felt there was something they didn't want left behind,"

"The circumstances of the rape indicated a deep racial motivation for some of the things that were done. It makes a crime that is by its nature one of the most offensive and invasive even more so."

"I would not be surprised if condoms were used. Probably an exotic dancer would not be your first choice for unprotected sex." (Complaining witness states in SANE exam no condoms were used)

"The reason that I took this case is because this case says something about Durham that I'm not going to let be said. I'm not going to allow Durham's view in the minds of the world to be a bunch of lacrosse players at Duke raping a black girl from Durham."

"My conviction that a sexual assault actually took place is based on the examination that was done at Duke hospital,"

"What does it mean that she was intoxicated? Just as an example--speaking hypothetically--if I had a witness who saw her right before this and she was not intoxicated, and then I had a witness who said that she was given a drink at the party and after taking a few sips of that drink acted in a particular way, that could be evidence of something other than intoxication, or at least other than voluntary intoxication, There are many explanations for someone appearing to be intoxicated,"

"It's not me that's trying this case in the media,"

Posted by: | August 4, 2006 09:25 AM

On the warrant for the non-testimonial identification Order which called for photos & DNA tests 3/23/06 we see this;

"Medical records and interviews that were obtained by a subpoena revealed the victim had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally. Furthermore, the SANE nurse stated the injuries and her behavior were consistent with a traumatic experience"

Yet we know that the SANE Exam was not printed out until 31 March and was not picked up until 5 April. They could not have had any medical reports from the hospital when this Order was submitted to Judge Stephens!

SANE Nurses are trained not to make statements like that. As part of their training is about evidence gathering and performing the exam according to medical and legal standards. According to this Order the SANE nurse stated, "the injuries and her behavior were consistent with a traumatic experience",over the phone no less!

If we are to believe those portions of the SANE Exam that have been stated in Defense Motions, the SANE Exam makes no conclusion about rape and finds no evidence of being raped, and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally. In fact the only DNA found in her, on her, or on her clothes in two sets of tests match her boyfriend!

We have a Order based on false statements by Police Inspector Himan & submitted by Asst DA Saacks signed by Judge Stephens.

Any Judge should have been outraged by the actions of the State and thrown out that Order long ago. Both Judge Stephens & Judge Titus have refused to hear the motions concerning this crucial matter and won't rule.

Now that's an outrage!

Posted by: Marco2006 | August 4, 2006 12:21 PM

Mr. Cohen:

I honestly missed your blog post when it came out a couple weeks ago. I saw it analyzed on the following blog:

I am simply dumbfounded that you are sticking to your position in support of the District Attorney and against the obviously innocent accused lacrosse players. Historian KC Johnson has speculated that your posture is driven by your failure to get information to cover the story at CBS, which stands in sharp contrast to the excellent reporting of NBC's Dan Abrams and Fox News' Megyn Kendall.

What amazes me is that you seem oblivious to how history is going to judge your comments. This is a case in which the prosecutor has maliciously railroaded innocent people for personal and political gain. Even in the extremely unlikely event that a rape occurred, the District Attorney clearly has one wrong person in Reade Seligmann. All of his activities are accounted for with electronic evidence. Yet the District Attorney continues to prosecute him and you appear to support this. Furthermore, you believe Reade Seligmann and his attorneys should be quiet about the fact that he is innocent. Apparently you believe the First Amendment only protects a criminal defendent's right to speak once the prosecution rests at trial. This notion is preposterous and truly frightening. It deeply troubles me that the Chief Legal Analyst at CBS News could hold such a view. It also deeply troubles me that the Washington Post would give someone holding this view an on-line forum to advance it.

I will be very curious to hear how you view comments when this fiasco is over. Until then, please at least try to support your arguments with relevant and accurate facts.

Posted by: Joel | August 4, 2006 03:42 PM

Your analysis is incomplete and inaccruate:
Judge Titus only became the prsiding judge on July 1.
No prior gag orders were issued.
You mention "months and months" of defense team press conferences and leaks without mentioning that Mr. Nifong's 70 press conferences and guest appearances on national programs outnumber by far the total of all press conferences by the entire defence, which includes three accused and tens of lawyers.
Your analysis does not appreciate that the defense has a right and an obligation to respond to Mr. Nifong's public statements including that he is confident a rape occurred. The defense has a right to say that they did not rape anyone. In your world, the defense would say nothing.
You neglect to indicate that the most damaging evidence to the prosecution known are records that are publically available since they are included as part of court motions. But wait, I'll bet you think filing a motion equals leaking.
Your article does not consider the fact that Mr. Nifong made many prejudicial statements, inaccurate statements, and inflamtory statements. He admitted that he went too far and underestimated the impact of his words. This would have been a nice opposing quote next the Mr. Cheshire's.
You don't hold Judge Titus responsible for not even reading the motions. If this case is so important and weighs so heavily "in his lap," he should have been prepared.
I'm really disappointed in the lack of depth, inaccuracies, and overall poor quality of this article.

Posted by: Post Subscriver | August 4, 2006 03:47 PM

How does it feel to be on the same level as Linwood Wilson? Nothing like fanning the flames of injustice with no facts to support your claims.

The false accuser is a mentally ill prostitute with a long history of telling outrageous lies. The perfect pawn for Nifong who needed a high profile case (by his making) to get the necessary exposure on television without having to pay for it.

Thank God for the creation of Liestoppers who will expose each and every erroneous statement made by those who defend this prostitute and Nifong.

Posted by: Wendy | August 4, 2006 04:18 PM

As amply pointed out by the above posters, Cohen you are a sadly misinformed on nearly every point.

That you have gotten nearly every fact in your article and now your blog post incorrect on the Duke case does not speak well for the rest of your work.

Did you ever practice law? Were you disbarred for malpractice?

Posted by: tapper | August 4, 2006 04:46 PM

IF I were the judge and IF those were the facts, what would I do? That's an interesting hypothetical. Of course, as you know, I'm not the judge. And as you should know, those aren't the facts either.

It appears, however, that you expect your readers to believe you've accurately portrayed the history of the case to this point and that's really disappointing. I'm sorry to say that I will have to take anything I hear from you on any case in the future with an enormous grain of salt. You have permanently damaged your credibility in my eyes and also, it seems, in the eyes of many others.

Others who have responded above have already pointed out your factual errors. I don't think there's any way you can back up your spin on this case. Most of the information we've seen from the defense (well, maybe not you, but those of us who have followed the case) has been in the form of exhibits attached to motions. For example, the driver's statement or the other dancer's statement. This isn't spin. Anyone can read those statements and draw their own conclusions about what the second dancer meant when she said the allegation of rape was "a crock".

Your hypothetical factual scenario bares so little resemblence to what has actually occurred it's laughable. Of course, you'd actually have had to follow the case and know something about it in order to know that.

Posted by: Greg | August 4, 2006 05:38 PM

I need to respond to your column even offering the remotest defense of the travesy in Durham. There is DNA all over the place, just no DNA that matches the alleged crime. Nothing from Reade or Colin or on the victim from any of the three. The testing is sensitive enough to track who lived there. There has not been one, not one, person who can explain this because it cannot be explained. It is impossible that with proper smapling and testing a thirty minute violent penetrating assualt would leave no dna anywhere. I challenge you, before you write one more column, to find one reputable expert to provide a theory that would explain this pattern. It is impossible. That is why when the prosecutor asked for DNA he said it would be conclusive.

As you know, in many of the cases where the person on death row is exonerated by DNA, the police and prosecutors are so blinded by hatred that they still think the person did it. But, you are a journalist, what is the theory you think applies.

And this is aside from the fact that the photos exonerate Reade completely and that every single independent expert has said that it is basically impossible to fake the date if you turn over the underlying device.

I will keep my e mail at this point, you can't meet the challenge.

Jeff Mayer

Duke Grad and proud of it.

Posted by: streeeetwise | August 4, 2006 06:27 PM

Mr. Cohen, this column is absolutely the stupidest thing that I have read about this case. Basically you start with a blatant lie and continue on your merry way with one lie after another. Your agenda is so transparent it is laughable.

For what it is worth Judge (and I use that term loosely in this case) Titus issued an unconstitutional order and he will get it properly handed back to him by a higher authority. That is, if he is allowed to stay on the case, which is in doubt at this point.

Posted by: Dennis | August 4, 2006 07:03 PM

You know, I was one of the first to expose Cohen's lies and spreading of misinformation way back when this foolish article of his first came out. Now I see liestoppers has jumped on board. Good thing, but it's too late.

Unbelievably, the editor of the Herald Sun, a Duke alum no less, has latched on to Cohen's misinformed and outrageously biased writings on his case, you know documents attached to motions and quotations thereof equals spin, and formed the Herald Sun's editorial position based at least in part on Cohen! A guy who doesn't even follow the case enough to know when the judge Titus took over the case!! Cohen would be laughable if not for the fact that some other equally misinformed people take his nonsense seriously.

Posted by: Mark | August 4, 2006 07:27 PM

Just as Al Sharpton lost all his credibility backing Tawana Brawley, you lose a little more credibility every time you write something in support of this hoax. Do you hear that sound? It's the laughter of people who no longer believe a word you write. How does it feel Al (oops, Andrew)?

Posted by: HiM | August 4, 2006 08:28 PM

Does this Andrew Cohen guy actually write in print in the WAPO?

Or is he just one of the WAPO's online fraudsters and liars like Ben Domenech?

Posted by: Redstate | August 4, 2006 10:50 PM

Sir, you have revealed yourself to be a liar and, if I may add, not a very good one. Shame on you.

Posted by: Cohen Lies Again | August 4, 2006 11:14 PM

Tony Soprano said...

I remember the Washington Post being absolutey outraged about Colin Finnerty's shadow boxing in Georgetown.

Washington Post reporters were furious that Finnerty acted in a "menacing manner" and was alleged to have used slurs on a Georgetown night out with his friends. They insisted Finnerty's character was revealed by the use of an alleged homosexual slur. They were sure that people that testified in favor of Finnerty were too well rehearsed. The detest dripped from the words they printed about Finnerty using alcohol that night. They reported what Finnerty and his friend wore to court - and they told their readers not to trust the appearance of these finely dressed men and suggested that it was all a show, and that they were really bad men. Their character revealed in its entirety - by a slur and a menacing manner.

Contrast that with how the Mega-paper treated the allegations of racial intimidation and assault in North Carolina by the Police force investigating Finnerty and his friends. In fact, two of the detectives on the Duke LAX case were reportedly present at the assault of a black cook at Midnight in a back parking lot of a bar. Five or Six of Durham's finest are alleged to have surrounded, beat and kicked the cook while yelling Ni**ger and Boy. It is unknown exactly what part each policemen had, if any, because the story has gone virtually unreported. There was no outrage from the Washington Post. There were no calls for an investigation. The alleged Ring-Leader of the entire event hasn't been identified nor charged.

Mike Nifong, the champion of African Americans in Durham, has NOT uttered a word about his own detectives present and possibly central to the racial attack. He hasn't condemned it. He hasn't denied it. He hasn't called for an investigation. He hasn't commented on the slurs and what they reveal about his own detectives and DPD members.

Nifong and the Washington Post have a lot in common it seems.

Certain alleged crimes elicit feigned moral indignation and outrage - others - are to be buried and forgotten.

LieStoppers said...

To add to the collection,

Breakfast for Cohen:

You encourage Nifong to join the Witness Protection Program. Perhaps he can find a witness there.

Posted by: gc | August 5, 2006 08:27 AM

Sir, your column is made up of "fantastic lies", as indicted lacrosse player Dave Evans discribed the false accusers lies. I have read and reread your column and there is not a shred of truth in it. Your column proves that the Washington Post has declined to the point that it is below the tabloids. Tell me when to believe anything it prints.

Posted by: Dennis | August 5, 2006 08:28 AM

Mr. Cohen:

Do you have a medical reason for your blatant display of misinformation regarding the DLX case? Does "The Washington Post" no longer have any standards?? I will never again accept a media report as accurate. The WP & WSJ were the last 2 credible sources left for me.

You are an embarrassment to your profession. The good news is you have lots of company. Like Mitch Albom's made up conversation with Mich. St. players during the 1995 NCAA championship game in St. Louis. It was a good read - well for fiction presented as non-fiction goes.

Charades to all!

Posted by: Penny P. | August 5, 2006 09:15 AM

Unbelievable, another case of 'dare I say jounalism' (Nifong on DPD experts) at its worst. Is there someway to send along all these comments to Mr. Cohen's boss/publisher?

Posted by: jmoo | August 5, 2006 10:04 AM

And another thing, nobody over the age of four likes to read crap written in the third person, you lazy hack.

Posted by: Weezie | August 5, 2006 11:44 AM

Anonymous said...

I agree 100% about the good effort to post responses to Andrew Cohen's schlock blog column. Excellent work, folks. I particularly liked the line of one of them asking Cohen to pretend he's a journalist.

Those folks just have to be embarrassed at how factually inaccurate and off-base his pieces on this subject have been. Seems the N&O finally gets it. Wonder what's taking Cohen and Co so long.