Has a Lawyer been hired? Yup** Joe Tacopina and unknown local female counsel

New Posts

angeleleven said:
JT will be on the Today Show this morning.
Click to expand...
I guess its time for the media blitz.

FOX National (Fox and Friends) just announced that Tacopina will join them next hour for an interview.
 
Donjeta said:
Is there a conflict of interests if he's representing both parents for now and if it comes to a situation where DB is charged for doing something to Lisa and and JT's defending her, and JI is the next of kin of the victim?


I think I sense a defense strategy building up. His participation was obviously in the works last week when it was announced that they were going to have two high-powered attorneys join the tea. Now he says he's been talking to the family for some time before this. But they announced his participation after the morning show blitz, so he can say he had nothing to do with it if it goes wrong... But I think he was in it, he is going to use it, and has already done so, to suggest that if a mother tells the truth about being wasted she wouldn't lie about killing her child, would she? (I think she would... drinking wine is not a crime that can get you life in prison...)
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think there would be a conflict of interest if the mom is the only one charged. JI would then become a witness in her case. They're not legally married so I don't believe there is anything that says he can't testify against her if he suddenly decides to do so but perhaps some of our legal professionals can comment on that.

If JT advised her to go public about the wine, IMO, it is the best defense so far. If it got me and perhaps others wondering if mom would say something like this maybe she is telling the truth. Why would she further incriminate herself if she harmed Lisa?

On the other hand, it does show a possible motive. Drunk = harming baby.

Tough case.
 
~n/t~ said:
I don't think the general public follow cases as closely as we do. If this case ever goes to trial, I'm not sure the jurors would connect JT to the NH case or MM case or AK case. If they did, I believe they have to reveal it as was done in the CA case but I'm not sure if the same applies in MO.

Personally, as much as I like JT, it would've wiser for her to get a female attorney, imo.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of JT, but I didn't follow the Holloway, McGuire, or Knox cases closely at all. IMO, unless you are a hardcore follower of those cases, you wouldn't know about him. And I would define hardcore follower as someone who seeks out information about a case instead of letting the info come to them through the media; so someone who sits at their computer googling about a case. My mom would say that she followed JBR, OJ, Caylee, and Laci but that just means that every time they're mentioned on TV, she'll sit and watch it; she's not googling the cases so she wouldn't know all the details but she could tell you the basic facts/players, timeline, etc.
 
Wise Old Owl said:
I guess its time for the media blitz.

FOX National (Fox and Friends) just announced that Tacopina will join them next hour for an interview.
Click to expand...

Lets see!

Today (NBC)
GMA (ABC)
Fox.

Yep national media blitz. moo :innocent:
 
~n/t~ said:
I'm not a lawyer but I don't think there would be a conflict of interest if the mom is the only one charged. JI would then become a witness in her case. They're not legally married so I don't believe there is anything that says he can't testify against her if he suddenly decides to do so but perhaps some of our legal professionals can comment on that.

If JT advised her to go public about the wine, IMO, it is the best defense so far. If it got me and perhaps others wondering if mom would say something like this maybe she is telling the truth. Why would she further incriminate herself if she harmed Lisa?

On the other hand, it does show a possible motive. Drunk = harming baby.

Tough case.
Click to expand...

As bizarre and shocking as yesterday was, if it was going to come out (and i think it would have), better coming from mom than from LE.

I am not so sure LE was thrilled she went public with it either.
 
Re: the GMA interview; Joe says "things" that were missing from the house. How cleaver is that to call cellphones "things". Although he is trying to make it seem there was more missing from the house.
 
nursebeeme said:
http://www.kmbc.com/video/29516240/detail.html

lawyer says there is no gaps in the timeline
Click to expand...

Right... it's all in the eye of the beholder. Lisa was put to bed at 7.30 or 6.40 or possibly 6.30 and mom checked on her at 10.30 or maybe not, mom is nit sure if she blacked out and doesn't really remember if she saw her baby and locked doors and turned the lights off when going to bed. It's all clear as mud.
 
True, it's a truly gapacious timeline. Could drive a grain truck through it.
 
Morning everyone :)

Just wondering if DB can be be charged with child neglect? The baby was under her care while she "supposedly" was under the influence...
I myself think the drinking drama was a set up, drunk, can't remember a thing. How convenient is that?

ETA...and she won't let the boys talk to police.....
 
I was in a waiting room this morning and caught JTs interview on one of the morning shows. Is the change in timeline stemming from mom's drinking? He said something like "it doesn't matter whether the child was last seen at 10 pm or 6:40 pm" when asked from the host why the timeline changed.

I thought that was odd. Unless you honestly were blacked out, wouldn't you remember seeing your child in the early evening versus when it was pitch black out? I used to be on the fence about involvement but I'm now leaning heavily on the side that at least mom knows what happened.

And at that point, wouldn't dad have been home as well?
 
coeurfragile said:
I was in a waiting room this morning and caught JTs interview on one of the morning shows. Is the change in timeline stemming from mom's drinking? He said something like "it doesn't matter whether the child was last seen at 10 pm or 6:40 pm" when asked from the host why the timeline changed.

I thought that was odd. Unless you honestly were blacked out, wouldn't you remember seeing your child in the early evening versus when it was pitch black out? I used to be on the fence about involvement but I'm now leaning heavily on the side that at least mom knows what happened.

And at that point, wouldn't dad have been home as well?
Click to expand...

How can he say it doesn't matter? I most certainly think it matters!
 
Laundry, anyone? Yesterday, Deborah got the "wash" started by owning up to the drinking. We witnessed the "rinse" cycle last night on HLN (maybe other coverage, too) where the new information in the case was dissected with many talking heads doing their part. Today, the family's high-powered attorney, Joe Tacopina, is doing the "spin" cycle, and he's definitely a master in that capacity.

Wash. Rinse. Spin. :sick:
 
Patty G said:
Re: the GMA interview; Joe says "things" that were missing from the house. How cleaver is that to call cellphones "things". Although he is trying to make it seem there was more missing from the house.
Click to expand...

For all we know, all of the sudden that will come out as another lie, there is more missing then they thought, I mean, how could they think straight with their baby missing. I wouldnt be surprised if something like that comes out. With this case, it seems we need to be ready for anything.
 
coeurfragile said:
I was in a waiting room this morning and caught JTs interview on one of the morning shows. Is the change in timeline stemming from mom's drinking? He said something like "it doesn't matter whether the child was last seen at 10 pm or 6:40 pm" when asked from the host why the timeline changed.

I thought that was odd. Unless you honestly were blacked out, wouldn't you remember seeing your child in the early evening versus when it was pitch black out? I used to be on the fence about involvement but I'm now leaning heavily on the side that at least mom knows what happened.

And at that point, wouldn't dad have been home as well?
Click to expand...

BBM. It doesn't matter if neither story is true... It doesn't matter if parent knows perfectly well that their child was last seen in an unnamed location at an unspecified time and hopes no one will set eyes on the remains ever again. If Lisa was killed at her home it's not particularly important what time it happened, it doesn't change the fact that she's dead.

The time of last contact does, however, matter a great deal if you are looking to locate an abducted child and are desirous of getting sightings of the child and abductor together or separately. The abductor could get far, far away with the child in three or four hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 164 more.
Total: 1,966 (members: 165, guests: 1,801)

Online statistics

Members online
165
Guests online
1,801
Total visitors
1,966
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,835
Messages
18,013,562
Members
229,526
Latest member
Nebbiolo
Back
Top