Let us hope he wasn't teaching some poor children 'English Comprehension 101' for he seems to have his own problems understanding what people said, what they didn't say or what he thinks they said.

The first instance had to do with the defense attorney of David Westerfield in the Danielle van Dam trial.
Even though it was probably unethical and maybe even immoral, what Mr. defense attorney did was lay out a scenario for the jury that perhaps one of the 'seedy characters' who had access to the van Dam home may have abducted the little girl, raped and murdered her. This would perhaps be acceptable conduct for a defense attorney if he had not known that the defendant was guilty. The presumption of guilt at this point was that just days before they offered a plea bargain for a lesser sentence for a guilty plea.
The question here remains is that some defendants have been known to plead guilty to crimes they have not committed. How sure was the defense attorney here?

The second instance has to do with Poet Laureate Amiri Baraka.

The bozo is taking Brookdate Community College Professor Michael Broek to task
I don't agree with what the poet said, or rather what he insinuated, but in his poetry he asks:
"Who knew the World Trade Center was gonna get bombed?'',
'Who told 4,000 Israeli workers at the Twin Towers to stay home that day?',
'Why did Sharon stay away?''
'Why 5 Israelis filmed the explosion?'
Now the bozo accused the poet of lying, and Mr. Brok disputed that.
But did the poet lie? I don't believe so. It is all in the manner in which he poses the question. The tabloids do it all the time. 'Is Movie Star Any Name unfaihful to her husband?' they may blare out on the front page. Reading the story you will most likely find 'of course she isn't!'

So where Mr. Bozo is the lie?