Cyndy Short Press Conference~31 October 2011

[Kat]

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/31/3240983/kc-lawyer-in-lisa-irwin-case-says.html

Posted on Tue, Nov. 01, 2011 12:05 AM

Pretty good article above. JMHO.

 

[Barsinister]

Not sure why female lawyer felt it necessary or appropriate to hold a presser. Professional in my opinion would have been to keep quiet and keep decorum. It was not about her - who cares how many hours she put in "free"? Sounds a little too weird in my opinion to feel that you "love" this couple you just met. Get over it.

 

[josh816]

Not sure why female lawyer felt it necessary or appropriate to hold a presser. Professional in my opinion would have been to keep quiet and keep decorum. It was not about her - who cares how many hours she put in "free"? Sounds a little too weird in my opinion to feel that you "love" this couple you just met. Get over it.

IMO, seems like Cindy Short has done more than anyone else on the "defense" to help find the baby. Worries me that she's the one they wanted to get rid of.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

The craziness of this whole thing is we now know more about a Private Investigator, a local attorney, an attorney whose headquarters appears to be in Rome ( note eyeroll), the hours said lawyers have put in the case, a homeless man and his girlfriend, neighbor and a wealthy benefactor, but very little about a missing baby named Lisa.

 

[DianaElaine]

Do you guys EVER sleep? :coffeews:

 

[NFYIAMY]

Can you tell us where you learned that the "benefactor" is a woman? Or is connected with the family?

I saw BS's interviews and don't recall him saying benefactor was connected with the family. He just said he was hired by a person who wanted to be anonymous and was previously unknown to the family.

Not sure how some stranger comes to want to cover up for the parents.

Just adding my 2 cents to this. I have neighbors (older folks who never had children) who REGULARLY will hear about an animal being abused and quickly offer up hundreds of dollars to care for the animal until it can be placed into a loving home. I've seen them do this numerous times over the years. They are in a financial position that, if they felt strongly about a missing baby, could easily feel a need to offer up an extremely large reward equal to what's being offered for Baby Lisa without a second thought. We also have a distant relative who could also easily offer up that kind of money if they so choose.

I couldn't do it. Not in my financial means by far. However - there actually are a LOT of people out there who could. Maybe hard to believe but true nonetheless.

Maybe there is some sinister connection (ABC, etc) - but just wanted to throw out there that it COULD be someone who just really felt connected to Baby Lisa when they heard the story. You just never know.

Just sayin'.

 

[NancyA]

Do you guys EVER sleep? :coffeews:

:floorlaugh: Was thinking the same thing and not for the first time, it's so inconsiderate to those of us who have no staying power and HAVE to go to bed sometimes only to come back to find a billion posts have sprung up in our absence and by the time we've read them all it's almost our bedtime again!

 

[Turnadot]

I can't speak for anyone else but it's a matter of professionalism to me or at least maintaining the appearance of professionalism. For her to come out openly criticising the other lawyerand more or less implying that the parents made the 'wrong' choice - well who exactly is that helping? Certainly not the family.

I have to say, I agree with this. At first I thought choosing JT over CS was a mistake, but now I'm thinking it was the right call. IDK, I just think her presser was unprofessional - I'm sure she's a great lawyer, but IMO, she was over her head and making blundering mistakes. JT pressed the red button - the family agreed. Nuff said. I'm glad they are staying with JT, no matter what I think if him on a personal level.

IMO

 

[Abby Normal]

IMO, seems like Cindy Short has done more than anyone else on the "defense" to help find the baby. Worries me that she's the one they wanted to get rid of.

What did she do to find baby Lisa? Not meaning that offensively, I'm just curious. Everything I've seen with her was touring the house, talking to media, defending the parents- all the stuff I'd expect from an attorney. I didn't recall any news of her following leads, searching, tipping locations to search, or anything that involved finding the baby. I might have missed it, I can barely keep up with this forum :crazy:

 

[Twelve of One]

What did she do to find baby Lisa? Not meaning that offensively, I'm just curious. Everything I've seen with her was touring the house, talking to media, defending the parents- all the stuff I'd expect from an attorney. I didn't recall any news of her following leads, searching, tipping locations to search, or anything that involved finding the baby. I might have missed it, I can barely keep up with this forum :crazy:

Wasn't it reported that she brought MT (motorcycle man) in to speak to LE as a witness?

 

[cityslick]

I have to say, I agree with this. At first I thought choosing JT over CS was a mistake, but now I'm thinking it was the right call. IDK, I just think her presser was unprofessional - I'm sure she's a great lawyer, but IMO, she was over her head and making blundering mistakes. JT pressed the red button - the family agreed. Nuff said. I'm glad they are staying with JT, no matter what I think if him on a personal level.

IMO

Have to agree here. The very fact that she called a presser to 'clear the air' when she's not even involved with the case professionally anymore seems awkward to me. And I can somehow believe the parents when they say she was fired for calling all these pressers and making statements on her own (remember the wording she used, the attorneys are exhausted and need a break). I think that statement broke the camels back and they had no choice to get rid of her.

 

[Kat]

I'm going to go back and try to review all the statements she's made to media.

See if I can see where she and JT might be heading in opposite directions with their statements. Because JMHO about this but this isn't about Lisa, this isn't about what DB and JI probably want this is might be about the strategy that JT has in place right now for this case and that CS may have not been going along with.

I have to think on this one for a while. JMHO

 

[SilkySifaka]

I'm going to go back and try to review all the statements she's made to media.

See if I can see where she and JT might be heading in opposite directions with their statements. Because JMHO about this but this isn't about Lisa, this isn't about what DB and JI probably want this is might be about the strategy that JT has in place right now for this case and that CS may have not been going along with.

I have to think on this one for a while. JMHO

Oh i think it definitely has to do with differing strategies but imo CS was not doing her clients any favors her last week. Cowtowner had a really good post on the strategy differences and he is a strong supporter of CS. I am a strong supporter of JT but we both agreed that the two differing pov's had an end result of thinking they were protecting their client.

I just find her behavior in that week and certainly her presser yesterday all a huge problem. I would have fired her in a heartbeat simply for undermining my strategy as lead attorney and my clients wishes. I believe the statement by the family as well. We all know that for whatever reason they were turned off by local media. I completely believe that right or wrong, CS was scheduling the pressers against their wishes or without asking.

You know even the website. She has decided to keep it up. Well good for her on one hand but it has made it pretty well impossible for the family and attorney's to do their own. WIthout looking petty or silly. That means that leads JT might want to work on are not going to go to him. She will filter them all and send ones SHE thinks are credible to LE. Well she doesn't have a client now so what she thinks may be of interest to LE doesn't mean there are not others that the family and attorney are interested in come in and they won't have access to.

IMO the professional thing to have done would be to sell/turn over or otherwise give the family or their attorney control of the website for tips and sightings etc. Some may say well..people are more comfortable with her..well they can always reach out to her individually if they want but she has taken an important tool away from the people she claims to "love" by keeping it herself. Then I think a discreet statement saying "We have agreed to part ways with no animosity, with the best interest of our (previous) clients at heart" would have done the job better than a presser that makes animosity clear.

JMO

 

[TxLady2]

I am going to bring this up again in response to your post....

I almost exclusively referred to my children as "the baby" or "my baby" when they were infants and toddlers. I rarely used their given names when discussing them with other people. And I can assure you that I was not "distant" from my children then, and I am not distant from them now. In fact, I am very close to all my children. And I still refer to them as "daughter, or "son" when talking about them to other people.
I don't think anyone can say with any degree of certainty that DB's choice of words means anything. If one of my children had been missing as an infant, I would be just as likely to say "the baby" as DB is, and I can also assure you that I would never harm a hair on my children's heads.
DB may have played a role in what happened to Baby Lisa, or she may be completely innocent. But I don't think anyone can tell anything at all from what she calls her child in public, because I would do the same thing.

DB is clearly distraught about her baby. That's really all we know for sure right now.

BBM: I did the same, as did most of my family, friends and casual acquaintances. It's very, very common around here. Of course, the rules might change if one of our children had gone missing, who knows? But it is certainly not distancing oneself from one's children to refer to them as "the baby", "the child", "my son" or "my daughter" when you are speaking about them to someone else or to each other. In fact, where I live, using pronouns or pet names indicates more love and closeness to the person than when using only their name.

To those who take offense to using anything other than the child's name, tell me this. When you are at work, do you always refer to your spouse by his/her name when you are tallking to your co-workers? Or do you say "my husband" or "my wife?" And at home, does your spouse call you "honey", "sweetheart", or "darling", or does he/she always call you by your name?
And do you think he/she is distancing him/herself by NOT saying your name? It's the same principle. These parents of missing children are not generally going to change their way of referring to their children, they are going to continue doing what they've always done. It's THEIR child, not OURS, so they have the right to call her whatever they want to, whether we like it or not. So to me, it is pointless to get all irate over something we have no control over. No offense to anyone who doesn't agree, it's JMO.