Peru - Stephany Flores, 21, murdered in Lima hotel room, 30 May 2010 #21

[Lola]

I still allow for the possibility that this is total newspaper spin, bad translation or wishful thinking on Maximo Altez' part, but if Tacopina gets involved, his remarks about how the media affected Joran could be shot to shreds if there truly is info on that laptop about what happened to Natalee.

At one point, Greta also said she was inclined to believe Joran..she's wised up since then.

 

[Nova]

That's just it. They think they are not. Joe Tacopina is a fine example.

I know who JT is, of course, but I don't know his work well enough to defend him or not.

But we should keep in mind that defense attorneys have an ethical obligation to advocate on behalf of their clients, that is to argue the existing evidence in the form most advantageous to their clients.

They don't have the luxury you and I have of indulging our gut reactions or our outrage over harm done to victims.

Like it or not, that is how the system works in the U.S. (and at least some other jurisdictions).

Of course, when a defense attorney becomes a celebrity in his own right (such as JT), that may affect his or her behavior.

And also of course, there are unethical defense attorneys. But there are plenty of unethical prosecutors as well.

 

[Nova]

as you can see that the conversation up thread was in regard to profiting from crimes and that peru is like the u.s. in that the convicted are not allowed to profit from crimes committed ie books & interviews etc. which is why i said that i dont think he should have access to media for million dollar interviews right now before his trial. sorry if i wasnt clear on that.

No need to apologize. I thought you were perfectly clear.

My point was just that until there is a conviction, we don't have a "criminal" who can be barred from profiting from his crime.

I don't want JVDS profiting from murder. On the other hand, a high profile case costs hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to defend. Where else does a defendant get that kind of money if not from the media?

 

[Nova]

Personal feelings may have to be set aside. But mounting a vigorous defense of one's client is the primary principle governing defense attorneys. I know quite a few of the latter and I promise you the last thing they think they are doing is "letting go" of their principles.



I don't believe Joe is letting go of his principles. I don't think he had any to begin with. He is not an attorney zealously representing his client (required). He's an attorney running around *seeking out* high profile cases solely to line his pockets. He seems especially interested if the crime is heinous, which of course leads to more publicity for him. This hardly qualifies as someone "just doing their job," "doing their job well" or even defending injustices around the globe.

And for these reasons, I couldn't be happier that Joe is getting involved in this case. He will not get JVS off, or even get him a light sentence, which should harm, not help, his reputation.

Just to be clear, my original statement in support of defense attorneys was in response to a general statement about defense attorneys having to "let go of their principles." I believe that statement was a misunderstanding of the principles that guide defenders, and you yourself have said much the same (though more articulately) in your own posts.

As for JT, I have no opinion, except I found him personally obnoxious on the occasions I have seen him on TV. Obnoxiousness, of course, may or may not be a detriment to a successful defense.

And, yes, of course, there are attorneys (prosecutors and defenders alike) who are media *advertiser censored*.

 

[Nova]

Then he should have to wait to until after the trial, if not found guilty then he could profit.JMO

And then who pays for his defense? I can't speak for Peru, but we are none too generous with public defenders (expert witnesses for the defense, etc.) in this country.

 

[Nova]

I don't know but I think that is a huge mistake to not have one lawyer that knows peru's laws.

I think it's very unlikely--nay, make that virtually impossible--that JVDR's defense team won't include a Peruvian lawyer.

 

[Nova]

Know that "alleged" arose from our *concept* of innocent until proven guilty. And that concept arose to stave off lynching mobs so that *truly innocent* people (or questionably guilty people) had a chance to prove themselves innocent before being killed (forever foreclosing any benefit to being proven innocent!)

But concept and reality are not one in the same. Nor was "innocent until proven guilty" meant to be used *against* "innocent society." To wit: JVS, and all others like him, are behind bars at this very moment just like people that have already *been proven guilty* in spite of the fact that they are currently "innocent" under the law, are they not? How is that happening if the rule of law is that they are innocent?

Hint: Because there are other "rules of law" in society, and in most Constitutions. In fact these other rules reign so supreme in comparison, they are not only in the main body of our Constitution (as opposed to the amendments where "innocent until proven guilty" is located), they are in the very first sentence of our Constitution!

JVS is guilty of murder, and decent society has a superior RIGHT not to be harmed by the likes of him. JVS has not been proven *in a court of law*, but that does not mean that he has not been proven guilty by the amount of evidence (he has!), which is why he is in prison. Being proven guilty in a court of law is a legal formality, and has *nothing* to do with whether or not he *IS* guilty.

O.J. was not any less "guilty" of murder because the prosecution could not prove to *that jury* under the "beyond the reasonable doubt" standard that he killed two people (although another jury DID find him guilty of murder under the lesser standard of preponderance, although, that jury could do math and probably would have found him guilty under the BARD standard).

Does that help see the other side? I hope so because I have to get back to work (big grin). I'm going to be up to 2 a.m. as it is.

Thanks for all your great posts, Cottages.

Sometime when you get a minute, maybe you could explain how "innocent until proven guilty" applies to the government's treatment of the accused. It doesn't prohibit me as a private citizen from forming an opinion based on the available evidence. (This confusion comes up a lot in these discussions.)

 

[Whome?]

And then who pays for his defense? I can't speak for Peru, but we are none too generous with public defenders (expert witnesses for the defense, etc.) in this country.

IMHO,If you can't afford to pay for
high price atty's,then don't do the
crime. There are thousands of people
in the court system today,who do not
have the benefit of "selling their story,
or making TV deals". The playing field
should be the same for all defendants.

As far as monies spent by the prosecution
I believe in a court of law,the burden of
proof is on the prosecution to prove it's
case,hence the need for more money.

I don't want to see any one accused of
a heinous crime, to have the ability
to sell stories,to pay for their defense
I don't think it's right.

Did the perpetrator worry about the
victim's rights when committing the
crime,what about THEM they did not
ask to be killed etc. Sorry to rant
but I have no sympathy for the likes
of the Jorans or Casey's of the world.

JMHO :sick::sick::snooty:

 

[marikesh]

I know who JT is, of course, but I don't know his work well enough to defend him or not.

But we should keep in mind that defense attorneys have an ethical obligation to advocate on behalf of their clients, that is to argue the existing evidence in the form most advantageous to their clients.

They don't have the luxury you and I have of indulging our gut reactions or our outrage over harm done to victims.

Like it or not, that is how the system works in the U.S. (and at least some other jurisdictions).

Of course, when a defense attorney becomes a celebrity in his own right (such as JT), that may affect his or her behavior.

And also of course, there are unethical defense attorneys. But there are plenty of unethical prosecutors as well.

And Judges.
I understand what you are saying, but old beliefs for me are hard to break.

 

[marikesh]

Explains about the higher court.

Joran van der Sloot and the Inter-American Court

http://tinyurl.com/36q9juv

 

[FLNY]

This just out....according to RadarOnLine:

"Michael Jackson’s famed lawyer Joe Tacopina is NOT representing Joran van der Sloot once again, RadarOnline.com has learned.

Reports had surfaced that Tacopina - who represented van de Sloot in the Natalee Holloway disappearance case - was now part of his legal team challenging his murder charge of Peruvian student Stephany Flores Ramirez.

But a spokesperson for the New York-based attorney told RadarOnline.com: 'Joe Tacopina is not back on the Joran van der Sloot case - in fact he was never on it.' ”

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2010/07/michael-jacksons-attorney-not-defending-van-der-sloot

I had been wondering why this original story was never picked up by the US media....it was only in the Peruvian news. Guess we'll have to wait until Friday to see if, in fact, he shows up in Peru!!

 

[Niner]

So is Friday when Joran goes back to 'court'??
Thanks all for the links to the different stories!! :dance:

 

[suzihawk]

This just out....according to RadarOnLine:

"Michael Jackson’s famed lawyer Joe Tacopina is NOT representing Joran van der Sloot once again, RadarOnline.com has learned.

Thanks, FLNY! It sure is difficult to get any credible information in this case. Even this article is in error in so far as Joe Tacopina was never one of Michael Jackson's lawyers but rather represented an associate of Michael Jackson.

 

[FLNY]

Seems to be true that Tacopina is NOT on the case:

"Sunday morning, Peruvian newspapers reported that Joran Van der Sloot now has three lawyers, two of whom are not Peruvian, and all three will be going to Peru on Friday. The articles named New York attorney Joe Tacopina as one of the lawyers.

...Joe is not going to Peru this Friday. Nor does he have plans to go to Peru any time soon. How do I know? I asked him yesterday and he told me."

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/7/6/14548/94500

I wonder if this is where RadarOnLine picked up the story. I also wonder if Tacopina is just playing with semantics here....saying he is not going to Peru does not necessarily mean that he is not acting as a consultant on this case...IMHO. :waitasec:

Also, take this for what it's worth, but one of the comments (6th comment down) on the Peru news article about 2 foreign lawyers states:

"Foreign lawyers , if not registered in the Bar Association of Peru , can not practice in our country , much less assume the defense of a detainee ........ come on visits, but are not entitled to confer with his client at any time , as does a registered lawyer."

http://translate.google.com/transla...bogados-extranjeros-joran-llegan-este-viernes

Could be why Tacopina is assisting from afar??!!?? :waitasec: MOO

 

[nervous_nellie]

i just walked in and dont have a link -- but i thought it was said yesterday that it was the same firm as tacopina? not technically jt himself?? will try to find the post...and i could be mistaken also... :/

 

[suzihawk]

Good to see he's still able to support his team while in Castro Castro.

http://translate.google.com/transla...06416/joran-le-hara-barra-holanda&sl=es&tl=en

 

[hollyblue]

Reading comment #29 in the below article, we may see his trial on the tube. Anyone think that is a real possiblity?

http://translate.google.com/transla...bogados-extranjeros-joran-llegan-este-viernes

 

[FLNY]

Good to see he's still able to support his team while in Castro Castro.

http://translate.google.com/transla...06416/joran-le-hara-barra-holanda&sl=es&tl=en

So glad he's getting some much needed R&R in Castro Castro....even alleged murderers are allowed to have a little fun....NOT!! :banghead::banghead:

Have you noticed that the "mayor of Coronel Portillo, Luis Valdez" seems to keep popping in and out of the picture? Some articles say JVDS is only accompanied by the assassin in the private cell area...but then this mayor guy gets added in every now and then by other media reports!!??!!##^@&.

Is there anything at all we are certain of in this case??? It's driving me nuts!! :crosseyed:

MOO

 

[FLNY]

Reading comment #29 in the below article, we may see his trial on the tube. Anyone think that is a real possiblity?

http://translate.google.com/transla...bogados-extranjeros-joran-llegan-este-viernes

IIRC, I had read that the trial will be public....and I also saw an article re: the trial of an ex-president of Peru having been televised....so, as with everything else with this case, who knows!!! :banghead:

 

[Cottages]

Thanks for all your great posts, Cottages.
Sometime when you get a minute, maybe you could explain how "innocent until proven guilty" applies to the government's treatment of the accused. It doesn't prohibit me as a private citizen from forming an opinion based on the available evidence. (This confusion comes up a lot in these discussions.)

That is a GREAT question, and I will give it my best shot when I have time [to write a dissertation and then edit it down, because for some reason that's the only way I know how to write, apparently ;-].