Joseph Tacopina: Where is the van der Sloot Love Now?

USLaw

Joe Tacopina

Who did Joran van der Sloot once publicly declare his affection for? In a 2007 GQ interview, van der Sloot sang hotshot lawyer Joseph Tacopina’s praises. “I love the guy,” he said. “If I do get any money from any of these civil suits, I plan to give it all to Joe.”

At the time, Tacopina was the media darling of criminal defense attorneys and was presumably threatening to pursue false prosecution or libel damages on behalf of Natalie Holloway’s suspected murderer. As he said of Van der Sloot, “Three countries have investigated this disappearance and three countries have not found one shred of evidence that points to Joran. This kid is a victim too. He is an 18-year-old kid and his life has basically been ruined.”

Given the mounting evidence pointing to the the murder of 21-year-old Stephany Flores in Peru, van der Sloot will not likely escape justice in his fourth country. Van der Sloot’s first Peruvian lawyer Maximo Altez will no longer have anything to do with him, quitting the case after receiving death threats. Where does this leave Tacopina back in New York?

While Van der Sloot was on the run from Peru, Tacopina stated that he had not heard from his client and seemed to support his innocence in the following statement made on June 2, “Joran van der Sloot has been falsely accused of murder once before. The fact is he wears a bull’s-eye on his back now and he is a quote-unquote usual suspect when it comes to allegations of foul play.” Other than this statement, Tacopina has been laying low. Out of the media spotlight and probably wondering if those potential civil suits were as a good gamble as Joran’s poker playing in Peru…

Filed Under Joseph Tacopina, Joran van der Sloot | (trackback)

Comments

7 Comments so far

John on June 20, 2010 3:14 am
Put me in a room with Greasy Taco and van der Slut and I promise I am the only one walking out!

Joseph Tacopina is a pig!
Martin on June 20, 2010 6:11 pm
Well John, violence again, typical loser rant. Someone is innocent until proven guilty! This atty is simply doing his job to make a living. Every individual has a right to defend himself.
clark on June 23, 2010 10:20 pm
Why did Tacopina have to remove himself from all of his federal cases in Manhattan around the time he started cooperating against Bernie Kerik? Why did Tacopina make negative statements against Vandersloot, when he no longer represented him? How did Tacopina resolve the investigation the United States Attorney was conducting into his conduct vis-a-vis Kerik after the government subpoenaed all of his financial records concerning his dealings with Kerik. Did he plead guilty to any type of crime? Did he cooperate in a federal criminal tax investigation into a prominent NYC attorney, who was his mentor and with whom he transacted business? Does Rafaello Follieri think Tacopina gave him up to the feds?
Why did tacopina go from loving vandersloot to saying he wouldn’t represent him?
Who has the answers?
JW on June 24, 2010 6:04 am
I think Clark has some good questions…some light needs to be shined for the good of the many….
Rick on July 5, 2010 1:32 pm 5a26
Well Martin you seem to wrong again. It may be like that in the U.S. but in Peru the justice system is based on the Napoleonic Code. Guilty until proven innocent. What will happen here is these lawyers will try to U.S. laws in Peru, and its not gonna happen.
The more van der Sloot makes the Judges mad the longer his sentence will be. Especially when he mocks the Peruvian Justice System.
Joe Tacopina will never help van der Sloot with no money. Remember lawyers are only in for the money. And Joe Tacopina’s price tag is way to high for van der Sloot.
JW on July 23, 2010 5:17 am
I do not think that the “price tag” has anything to do with it. Let’s just say if price was the sole issue, you would probbaly see a “defense fund” pop up disguised as something seemingly well intentioned but secretly managed by teh benfiting attorney. What a joke. Most attorney-client relationships supersede money interest alone and where a prior attorney-client privelege is in effects, certain rules of confidentiality should apply. I guess when an in-attorney has the right influence and threatens innocent victims with “libel” suits, a disgusting pervesion of the truth takes and where only money dictates what rules will be enforced….Ask the victim’s parents, ask Bernie…Where is the love?
tailor on August 8, 2010 9:03 am
Business must be bad. Tacopina is wearing a cheap-looking, ill-fitting suit, and his hair appears to be sweating profusely.