Cohen Retracts After Being Busted!

Just a brief note to say, "Well Done!", to all who helped discredit Andrew Cohen. While he admits to his factual incorrectness he appears to try to deflect responsibility. Should we let him off the hook with this half apology? Nah... Go get him folks...

Cohen Admits He Was Busted!

A thank you to NK and NDLAX84, for the heads up on the "apology" by Cohen, and to ME for the following submission:

ME said...

"LieStopper Readers,

With a post today at the N&O The Editor's Blog, I pointed readers to current Duke Lax case letters to the editor in the Herald-Sun and the N&O. A couple of the letters have a touch of humor. I reprint below for you:

PUBLIC OPINION

It’s always interesting to gauge public opinion on all things Duke Lax case related by review of letters to the editor. Of course, since the good citizens of Durham apparently can’t find the N&O offices way over here in Raleigh, it’s best to look at the letters in the Herald-Sun.

In the online edition of the H-S today we have an on-point missive penned by widely quoted historian and blogger KC Johnson. Mr. Johnson castigates DA Nifong for his repeated failures to fulfill his responsibilities as the Durham “minister of justice.”

Mr. Johnson reminds readers of DA Nifong’s most recent misspeak with: “Your Aug. 1 editorial commended D.A. Mike Nifong for stating, "I have not backed off from my initial assessment of the case." This remark deserves scorn, not praise.” Johnson continues: “First of all, Nifong's claim is untrue. He went public with his initial assessment of the case on March 27. He deemed DNA evidence so vital that he secured a court order to obtain samples from 46 white lacrosse players, promising that negative tests would "immediately rule out any innocent persons." But after the tests produced no matches, Nifong changed his assessment entirely, expressing comfort with the "good old-fashioned way" of witness testimony without DNA corroboration.”

Also, another writer pens a letter titled “Brodhead Has Refused To Accept Responsibility.” That pretty much say it all but the letter did include this: “He [Broadhead] could have deliberately preserved his options as events unfolded until there was more certainty. Instead, he bought into District Attorney Mike Nifong's self-serving story and yielded to the exaggerated cry of a strident minority of the faculty that this team was out of control. In a knee-jerk rush to judgment, he suspended player Ryan McFayden, canceled the season and fired Coach Mike Pressler, clearly choosing political expediency over reasoned adjudication.”And a reader reminds us of that “incident in Raleigh” when discussing incidents of Durham police brutality.

Another reader says that despite so many articles and opinions that Durham Police Chief Chalmers is invisible, the reader knows that can’t be true because the reader actually experienced a Chief Chalmers sighting.

And finally at the H-S, a writer extends kudos to Durham Animal Control board member Mike Nifong. I guess that writer hasn’t heard about animal lover Nifong’s most recent hissy fit and his threat to quit the Animal Control board. (Possible??)

Animal Control board member Nifong’s most recent hissy fit did not pass unnoticed by a letter writer to the N&O editor however, where the writer says: “Maturity Required-- The article you published about Mike Nifong's potential resignation from the Animal Control Committee confirms that Nifong lacks the maturity to hold a public office with as much influence as district attorney.”

All this and more now at:

Herald Sun Letters/

News and Observer

ME

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.