Do other people find this disturbing how this is spun:
****But Joseph Tacopina, a lawyer for student Joran Van der Sloot, said his client was not responsible for the Alabama teen-ager's death and that the tapes do not amount to a confession.
"There was no confession, no admission of a crime by Joran on any of these tapes, which is very telling," Tacopina said on ABC's "Good Morning America."****
Yes I know all about how has a right to a defense, but I see the attorney as an accomplice when he goes this far to distort and deny the truth. How a person can willfully say incriminating statements about himself and some slick suntanned attorney can say it is *not* what it is begets the question to me: when is an attorney become complicit in a cover-up?
Didn't the DA in the Duke case get taken to the cleaners by ignoring evidence?