Cyndy Short Press Conference~31 October 2011

[Donjeta]

Amazing how much you and I think alike, Donjeta. I was just about to type these exact thoughts.

JT clearly sets up an escape route in this interview, so that later, when he's questioned about why he said he'd allow the interviews, and then reneged, he can say, "I never said the boys would be interviewed, what I said was..."

His outs include but are not limited to, "I didn't say WHEN we would agree to an interview", and, "I said all the necessary interviews will take place but we decided that this is not necessary."

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Respectfully, I really don't see what the issue is with calling Lisa a little girl or a child. I would refer to her as a little girl - she looks so big, and she's almost a year old. Personally, I don't refer to children as babies unless they are newborn. And also - Lisa is a child.

Frankly, I don't understand quibbling over such minor terminology as this.

BBM: Respectfully, I do not believe anyone is "quibbling" over terminology ... I believe EVERYONE is entitled to thier opinion ... and IMO "words" chosen usually "speak for themselves" ...

I believe in "listening" to the words a person uses. And IMO, the "words", "names", etc. a person uses can speak VOLUMES -- especially in a high profile case like this ...

Keep in mind ... Deborah hardly ever used Lisa's "name" either in any of her interviews ... and IMO that clearly shows DISTANCE !

Just ask any statement analysis expert ...

IMO ... Ms Short was there to explain what happened between her and JT ... and that has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE PARENTS !

IMO ... CS and JT are NOT concerned about finding Baby Lisa ... they are "experienced criminal defense attorneys" and are only concerned about "their" "fame and fortune" ...

MOO MOO and another MOO !

 

[SilkySifaka]

I think I'd want him if I were guilty. Maybe not even then, though:

http://20poundsofheadlines.wordpres...of-joe-tacopina-headline-the-devils-advocate/

JT takes the cases no one else wants, the lost causes. He doesn't care if they are guilty or not, he does work hard to get them off. But, for a fee. He charges $750.00 an hour.

Now, here's the thing, we know he can't be getting paid for this case. So why has he taken it? Publicity. And I don't think very highly paid, high profile, flashy lawyers who have shown they have no scruples and who are suddenly taking a well-known case for free, necessarily have their client's best interests at heart. They may swoop in for a bit to make sure their name is attached to the case, and then swoop out. At his level, it doesn't matter if he does a great job for them or not. And at his level, some of these guys tend to let their fame go to their heads. It becomes all about them, not the case or the clients. That's dangerous. :twocents:

I believe he is getting paid for this case though. Just not by the parents. Which is where things may go south if the parents are charged...if its the media or the benefactor and either change their mind about paying.

 

[Aedrys]

Well, at least she had the decency to clarify what happened. It's refreshing to me because I spent three years of hearing Casey's parents and defense whine to the media about how innocent she was, and how everyone was against her, and how the whole case was a huge conspiracy by everyone to frame Casey in every way possible. There was a revolving door of lawyers too, most of the time with little to no explanation of what was going on and why. All we could do was speculate. At least in this case we have an attorney willing to explain what is going on and why she's not there anymore.

I have so much more respect for her for doing this press conference. It shows me that behind the scenes things haven't been so pretty with her and JT, and unfortunately, the parents have been wooed and awed by JT over CS. They are going to regret this someday. I really feel, even though I didn't agree with everything CS said, that she really had their interests and Lisa in her heart way more than JT ever will.

It's sad to say, but I really feel like DB and JI are looking more for a defense than their missing daughter. Why get rid of a good attorney for the flashy, fame mongering one? That just makes no sense to me unless they want to cover up, stall, deny, and hope they that don't get caught for what happened to Lisa at their hands. Honestly, I hope I'm wrong, but with each day, this is becoming more and more apparent to me, IMO.

And as for calling Lisa that little girl and so on, I know coming from the CA case, the lawyers did everything in their power to dehumanize Caylee, and that included NEVER calling her by name. I don't think that's what is going on here yet (Casey was charged early on, and these parents have yet to be charged), but I know still stings to me to hear Lisa not called by her name. I just wanted to offer a bit of different perspective on that.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Do you think no one knew who baby Lisa was? The fact that she didn't hold up a picture means people wouldn't know who she was talking about, or she didn't really care about Lisa without a picture? If she held up a picture that proves that she cares for her?

It really seems nit picky to me in light of everything to attack her for using the word child instead of infant, or little girl instead of baby. They all mean the same thing really.

JMHO

MOOOOOO ...

BBM: Respectfully, I disagree ... I believe the family and their lawyers and their PI should have respect and call her by her name when speaking to the media ...

AND ... it is my opinion that today's "presser" was for Ms. Short -- NOT Baby Lisa ...

Ms. Short represents the PARENTS ... and that speaks VOLUMES IMO ...

Ms. Short "herself" is the one who says she is going to continue to search for Baby Lisa ...

It would have been nice if she would have had a picture up during her presser and gave up some of "her" time for the missing baby ...

But she didn't ...

MOO MOO and another MOO !

 

[SyraKelly]

Does anyone know if JT has ever tried a DP case?

 

[cowtowner]

Gtana, he is known for victims advocacy as well. In fact he has been involved with a few high profile cases in that capacity for families. (and I mean families where there was no doubt they were innocent)

He is very very good at what he does and yes that is why LE go to him when they are in trouble. It is easy to just think publicity hound but he has no real need for extra publicity, he is known around the country and by many around Europe too where he takes cases.

I think he took this one because he saw the parents were being targeted and believed they were not involved. Whether he will stay if there is a trial is a different scenario, he may not be willing to do pro bono work in that case (if he is now) given the extra work or he might.

He likes to win and does win. Not every case but a good number, enough to give him the reputation he has which is if you need a defense attorney he is a good one to have. He has to my frustration won a couple of LE ones which I wish he hadn't lol - his client in the abner louima case for example.

Then again top flight defense attorneys have egos as big as Texas. So yes there is that part of it, but I don't see him taking cases where he doesn't care. He has no need for it, he can pick and choose. Plus those alpha male egos do not taking losing lightly at any time

I have to agree. As much as I've panned JT and BS as egomaniacs, it's sort of like complaining that a Fighter Pilot has too big an ego.

I've come to think about the CS/JT situation like this:

A defense attorney has an oath-taken, legal obligation to provide their client with the most vigorous defense possible. To do whatever they can to defend them.

In this case, assuming you believe JI and DB were not involved, it seems like the best defense is this: the best way to prove Jeremy and Debbie aren't involved is to find Lisa and the people who took her. Short of some proof that they conspired, finding the girl and/or those guilty of taking her gets your clients off the hook.

Now, if I were developing a defense strategy, I would be obligated to pursue two paths:

PATH 1 - find the guilty party and exonerate my client. But if that path doesn't work I have to ALSO, concurrently, prepare for

PATH 2 - get my client off in a jury trial. This means punching holes in the prosecution all along the way including poor investigation, alternate theories of what happened, not allowing my clients to participate in their prosecution, etc..

From what I've seen of the two attorneys it looks like CS wanted to focus more on Path 1 and JT wanted to focus more on Path 2. I'm sure legal scholars can point to areas where it's possible those two paths can come into odds with one another or undercut one another.

But if I was JI or DB, I'd want CS focusing on #1 and JT on #2. I don't think they realized that though.

 

[EarlyT79]

JMO but if finding Lisa is so important to her she could have recommended that the boys get to answer some questions. But she said if she got her way it would never happen.

I don't live in that area nor have I heard of the lawyer before but I think it's strange she didn't recommended the boys talking to LE.
Doesn't she want Lisa found? :waitasec:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

The national media was not at the PC. The local media covered it. The same local media that is running every single tidbit with the girl's picture in the masthead.

:waitasec: Are you saying that the NATIONAL MEDIA was NOT present at today's presser ?

I am VERY SURPRISED by this ... FOX and HLN have been covering this story, as well as GMA and Today Show ...

Oh ... are you local, and did you get to attend today's presser ?

TIA !

MOO ...

 

[Dr.Fessel]

CS was never there for Lisa and I really doubt she will change horses now. She was there for DB and JI because she thought the cops were railroading them.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

CS was never there for Lisa and I really doubt she will change horses now. She was there for DB and JI because she thought the cops were railroading them.

:rocker: EXACTLY !!!

:waitasec: And I would NOT be SURPRISED if Ms Short jumps back on the DB and JI "bandwagon" down the road ...

MOO ...

 

[cowtowner]

MOOOOOO ...

BBM: Respectfully, I disagree ... I believe the family and their lawyers and their PI should have respect and call her by her name when speaking to the media ...

So it is your sincere opinion that Cyndi Short does not act like a person who respects the missing baby and her family? Really? (I just realized *I* didn't call her by her name, is it your opinion that am I disrespectful too?)

AND ... it is my opinion that today's "presser" was for Ms. Short -- NOT Baby Lisa ...

Ms. Short represents the PARENTS ... and that speaks VOLUMES IMO ...

Yes, it speaks volumes that she understands her legal obligation is to the client that has retained her. Full stop. It's not some character flaw - it's the law. She can not only be disbarred, but she can be found in contempt if - as the DEFENSE attorney - she fails to represent HER CLIENTS.

Ms. Short "herself" is the one who says she is going to continue to search for Baby Lisa ...

It would have been nice if she would have had a picture up during her presser and gave up some of "her" time for the missing baby ...

Nice? Sure. However, IMO if being nice were a requirement for proof that one wants to find this baby, a LOT of people (including some on this forum) don't meet the cut.

What proof is there that she's not giving up her time to help find the missing baby?

 

[cowtowner]

CS was never there for Lisa and I really doubt she will change horses now. She was there for DB and JI because she thought the cops were railroading them.

respectfully, the law requires her to act on behalf of her client and, as harsh as it sounds, Lisa has never been her client, JI and DB were her client.

Now that they are not her client, she is free to act however she likes within the law.

 

[cowtowner]

:waitasec: Are you saying that the NATIONAL MEDIA was NOT present at today's presser ?

I am VERY SURPRISED by this ... FOX and HLN have been covering this story, as well as GMA and Today Show ...

Oh ... are you local, and did you get to attend today's presser ?

TIA !

MOO ...

I watched and heard all the questions. Fox and HLN have been fed from the local/regional media stations. All questions were asked by local/regional TV and radio personalities. The local affiliates fed the PC to the national feed.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

I have to agree. As much as I've panned JT and BS as egomaniacs, it's sort of like complaining that a Fighter Pilot has too big an ego.

I've come to think about the CS/JT situation like this:

A defense attorney has an oath-taken, legal obligation to provide their client with the most vigorous defense possible. To do whatever they can to defend them.

In this case, assuming you believe JI and DB were not involved, it seems like the best defense is this: the best way to prove Jeremy and Debbie aren't involved is to find Lisa and the people who took her. Short of some proof that they conspired, finding the girl and/or those guilty of taking her gets your clients off the hook.

Now, if I were developing a defense strategy, I would be obligated to pursue two paths:

PATH 1 - find the guilty party and exonerate my client. But if that path doesn't work I have to ALSO, concurrently, prepare for

PATH 2 - get my client off in a jury trial. This means punching holes in the prosecution all along the way including poor investigation, alternate theories of what happened, not allowing my clients to participate in their prosecution, etc..

From what I've seen of the two attorneys it looks like CS wanted to focus more on Path 1 and JT wanted to focus more on Path 2. I'm sure legal scholars can point to areas where it's possible those two paths can come into odds with one another or undercut one another.

But if I was JI or DB, I'd want CS focusing on #1 and JT on #2. I don't think they realized that though.

I agree with what you say about the lawyers but not sure why or where Bill Stanton comes into the picture having anything to do with either lawyer.

Stanton was hired by a wealthy benefactor connected to the family somehow. He was hired to find Lisa period.

It troubles me that Bill Stanton says the parents are innocent when he has never stepped foot into the crime scene until today.

He has continually lied on tv about the facts of the case too. Since he is still on the case it makes me think this wealthy benefactor is not interested in the truth and finding Lisa, she is trying to cover up for a member of the family.

 

[SilkySifaka]

I have to agree. As much as I've panned JT and BS as egomaniacs, it's sort of like complaining that a Fighter Pilot has too big an ego.

I've come to think about the CS/JT situation like this:

A defense attorney has an oath-taken, legal obligation to provide their client with the most vigorous defense possible. To do whatever they can to defend them.

In this case, assuming you believe JI and DB were not involved, it seems like the best defense is this: the best way to prove Jeremy and Debbie aren't involved is to find Lisa and the people who took her. Short of some proof that they conspired, finding the girl and/or those guilty of taking her gets your clients off the hook.

Now, if I were developing a defense strategy, I would be obligated to pursue two paths:

PATH 1 - find the guilty party and exonerate my client. But if that path doesn't work I have to ALSO, concurrently, prepare for

PATH 2 - get my client off in a jury trial. This means punching holes in the prosecution all along the way including poor investigation, alternate theories of what happened, not allowing my clients to participate in their prosecution, etc..

From what I've seen of the two attorneys it looks like CS wanted to focus more on Path 1 and JT wanted to focus more on Path 2. I'm sure legal scholars can point to areas where it's possible those two paths can come into odds with one another or undercut one another.

But if I was JI or DB, I'd want CS focusing on #1 and JT on #2. I don't think they realized that though.

I agree with you about the paths and really Path 2 is in most cases easier to do than path 1. Simply because the FBI and LE have far more resources available to them. JT doesn't get to see/test/touch forensics unless his clients are charged by which point its a bit late to find the 'real perp'. An acquittal works, finding the real perp is a lot harder.

As you say though both paths have value. I think 2 has the most chance of success and since his job is to help his clients that has to be a consideration. 1 would be good if you stone cold know your clients are innocent from evidence. Then you won't be in a catch 22. I just don't think its possible to know that to the degree of certainty needed...iow that you dont lead yourself back to your own client. Belief works with both paths but 1 its possible to smack you in the face.

However yes, perhaps both would have worked, i just am not sure they could work together (the paths, not attorneys lol)

I will say this. However much I pan CS, I think both attorneys were doing what they believe is in the best interests of their client. Unfortunately the two didn't match

 

[cowtowner]

I don't live in that area nor have I heard of the lawyer before but I think it's strange she didn't recommended the boys talking to LE.
Doesn't she want Lisa found? :waitasec:

Please see my post #307. It all depends on what path is chosen. This could be one of the areas where the two strategies adversely impact one another.

As a defense attorney, her legal obligation is to defend her clients JI and DB -- her legal obligation is not necessarily to find the little girl. If the parents end up getting charged and she did something that could have jeopardized their defense (like letting their sons testify) it could be considered malpractice.

We all need to compartmentalize the prosecution separately from the investigation. If CS, who certainly learned more than any of us knows about this case, decided that the boys can't offer anything to help find the little girl (say, because they were asleep) then it could harm her case more to let them testify.

 

[AnaTeresa]

That's true, but IF Short does believe DB and JI are innocent, then her statement about not wanting the boys interviewed becomes more puzzling. Overall, I like her and wish she was still on the case, but I sure cannot figure her out.

 

[EarlyT79]

CS was never there for Lisa and I really doubt she will change horses now. She was there for DB and JI because she thought the cops were railroading them.

Not a popular opinion Dr. Fessel, I don't think CS was ever there for Lisa either.

 

[cowtowner]

I agree with what you say about the lawyers but not sure why or where Bill Stanton comes into the picture having anything to do with either lawyer.

Stanton was hired by a wealthy benefactor connected to the family somehow. He was hired to find Lisa period.

It troubles me that Bill Stanton says the parents are innocent when he has never stepped foot into the crime scene until today.

He has continually lied on tv about the facts of the case too. Since he is still on the case it makes me think this wealthy benefactor is not interested in the truth and finding Lisa, she is trying to cover up for a member of the family.

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.