Diario Editorial: Tacopina and his ‘model’ client (Joran Van der Sloot). Why does the MSM Always give Tacopina the last word?

Diario; May 1, 2006: E desaroyo contemporaneo di Aruba

Seems that war may have been declared between Attorney Joe Tacopina and Jossy Mansur. The contentious nature of the conversation when these two have been on cable media has been interesting.

Jossy Mansur has taken off the gloves and with the following comment, really has put one of Joran Van der Sloot’s greatest excuse lines in its proper context.

I don’t frequent the market where you can buy cheap phrases such as ‘he left her alone on the beach’ or ‘the girl wasn’t feeling well and wanted to be alone’. One wouldn’t even leave a dog on its own under these conditions; remember that it was a human being!

One thing is for certain, Tacopina may want to reconsider going after an individual like Jossy. Especially, when Jossy Mansur has the home island advantage. Tacopina’s actions may play in NYC; however, I am certain Jossy Mansur is not intimidated and has sparred with much worse and tougher individuals than Joe Tacopina in his lifetime.

Tacopina must be used to American scare-tactics against people who stand in his way to impose the ‘sanctity’ of his client, but he is completely mistaken about me! He does not intimidate me and he’s not going to muzzle my mouth either. What I know to be the truth about the case, I will continue to put forward, whether he likes it or not.

I guess when the complicit American media uses favoritism in always giving Joe Tacopina the last word, the owner of a newspaper always has his editorial page to fight back. Jossy Mansur brings up a point regarding Joe Tacopina and the MSM that has been obvious to many. What gives FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and Court TV? What gives with this blatant nonsense of giving Tacopina the last word on ever TV appearance? What gives that you will not put Tacopina on a show up against someone in a give and take exchange of ideas to debate a topic rather than being complicit in a defense attorney’s spin?

What I don’t like about the interviews I have done on some channels is that they ALWAYS give Tacopina the last word. Why? How come I never get this opportunity and it is in this column that I have to rebut? I respect Tacopina’s duty to defend his client; I have consideration for his intent to whitewash, but not at my expense.

This has not only happened to Jossy Mansur and others, but to myself as well. Please tell me that a high priced NYC attorney is afraid to discuss the issues with individuals who have followed the Natalee Holloway disappearance case in detail? Or is it that possibly Tacopina will not do these shows, unless he has the last word and other conditions are followed?

Joe Tacopina has a job to do and that is to defend his client. He has a legal obligation to provide his client with a competent defense. He is being paid to do this. It is not a benevolent act of kindness, this is what a defense attorney does. Fee for service. That is why I take with a grain of salt and have no belief that he wishes the nightmare to end for the Holloway and Twitty’s. Because for Tacopina to say he wants his adversary (the Twitty’s & Holloway’s are suing his client in civil court) to benefit in any manner could be in direct conflict to his client’s innocence or guilt as many believe Joran Van der Sloot is directly responsible or has information into Natalee’s disappearance.

What is rather amazing is the threats that have been made of law suits to try and intimidate. However, Joe Tacopina accused Jossy Mansur of “leaking documents“ and “fabricating’ witnesses (the dump witness, the gardener).” With the bizarre nature that this case has taken on it would be par for the course if Jossy sued Tacopina in Aruba for slander. As Jossy stated in his editorial:

Now Tacopina wants to use his other tactic, that of ‘intimidation’, threatening that he will sue all those who ‘speak badly’ of his client! Well, let him prepare as many cases as he wants, they will not force us to ‘speak well’ of his client in the least.

Why would this not shock anyone? What really is the difference seeing that accusations are being thrown out by Tacopina against an individual who according the the courts has done nothing wrong and is not a suspect.

Personally, it appears that much of this is a ploy by Joe Tacopina to divert attention away from people discussing his client, Joran Van der Sloot, who is still considered the primary suspect of the three suspects in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Three suspects who still to this day cannot get there stories straight. Why would three people who were last seen with Natalee Holloway not be able to get their stories straight, since innocent people have no need to lie?

Editorial: Tacopina and his ‘model’ client (Jossy Mansur) Full translation

Yesterday, I heard Tacopina again on Court TV, and it seems to me that instead of telling his client to speak the truth, it seems like his client educated him on how to tell lies. It’s not my intention to maintain a personal debate with that lawyer, but to correct what he incorrectly says. I have nothing personal in this matter, this is a case that has to be solved on the basis of the truth of what happened with Natalee.

Tacopina accused me of ‘leaking’ the documents, as if he turned into a gypsy who in his crystal ball can look into the past, present and future. No, Tacopina, at DIARIO we were the last to receive the ton of documents we are now analyzing. He also accused me of ‘fabricating’ witnesses (the dump witness, the gardener), while it was an American former secret service agent who discovered them and brought them to police, not me! His three lies (only yesterday!) were that I have something personal against Paulus, because of his involvement (?) in the case of some family member of mine. Nothing could be further from the truth, because when the case broke, I was not aware of Paulus’s activities; not me, nor the majority of the Aruban people.

I understand why Tacopina has to try to divert attention from his client and focus only on what’s good about him (of course he has good things and bad things). That Joran is a good student? Without a doubt. That he’s a good athlete? Completely correct. That he would not go as far as to do anything bad? False! That he is a good kid, a role model? False!

Tacopina must be used to American scare-tactics against people who stand in his way to impose the ‘sanctity’ of his client, but he is completely mistaken about me! He does not intimidate me and he’s not going to muzzle my mouth either.

(The rest of the translation at Getagrip)

Leave a Reply