Cyndy Short Press Conference~31 October 2011

[eileenhawkeye]

If the national media wasn't at the press conference, does that mean they aren't in town anymore? I can't see them choosing to stay outside the Irwin house instead of going to the PC.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

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.

BBM

The only way she could get in trouble for malpractice in that case would be if DB or JI told her they were guilty and the boys knew evidence to that fact.

 

[cowtowner]

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

You post sums up why I'd never want to be a defense attorney specifically and an attorney in general.

1) it's a really tough job and people's lives are on the line. If you screw up on a minor point early, someone can get the death penalty later and not deserve it -- I don't want that on my conscience.

2) People often forget you are not obligated to find the truth, you are OBLIGATED to defend your client and prove reasonable doubt. In fact, you can go to jail and lose your license to help the very people you are there to help just for doing what others think you "ought" to do.

Like it or not, but in the American judicial system, not only wasn't it her job to find Lisa, she could have been afoul of the law for doing it if it harmed her clients' defense.

 

[laytonian]

Pure speculation, but I believe the "ealthy benefactor" is ABC News.

Quote: "Tacopina, who says he is on the payroll of a wealthy benefactor who would prefer to remain anonymous, has been an almost daily fixture on ABC’s "Good Morning America," talking about the case. Short said she and 17 members of her team meanwhile logged more than 700 hours of volunteer time." Source: Boston Herald, 31 Oct 2011

ABC News has had exclusives on this case, from the start, including the first inside views of the home. Makes sense to me.

 

[Sherbie]

I keep seeing it said that Tacopina fired Short. What I got from her presser was that they butted heads over their differing approaches to the point that they couldn't work together and that the clients made the decision to stay with Joe. So saying JT fired CS may not be quite accurate. In other words, it may have been she who gave the ultimatum - him or me.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

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.

Bill Stanton stated it was a wealthy benefactor who hired him and he handed his phone with the wealthy benefactor on it to a reporter to talk to her and the reporter verifed it was a lady with a child too. I believe Bill also said it was a woman with a child.

Bill stated he met the person who is related to the family through the wealthy benefactor before the baby ever went missing.

 

[AlmostGone]

JT still has to hire someone locally, I wonder who's next.. I'm guessing they are on the hunt now...

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Pure speculation, but I believe the "ealthy benefactor" is ABC News.

Quote: "Tacopina, who says he is on the payroll of a wealthy benefactor who would prefer to remain anonymous, has been an almost daily fixture on ABC’s "Good Morning America," talking about the case. Short said she and 17 members of her team meanwhile logged more than 700 hours of volunteer time." Source: Boston Herald, 31 Oct 2011

ABC News has had exclusives on this case, from the start, including the first inside views of the home. Makes sense to me.

Bill has been on fox news with the judge in exclusives.

 

[Jade]

Is there evidence or data that establishes that holding up a baby's picture or referring to them by one pronoun vs. another pronoun vs. their name leads to better outcomes like finding the baby or the truth?

Or does the evidence merely suggest these particulars make those people not involved in the case feel better?

Honestly, we here in KC are not suffering from a lack of Baby Lisa photos, or use of her name. Seriously, she's everywhere -- thankfully.

Frankly, IMO, I prefer people in my community act like CS and actually worry more about matter-of-fact honesty that focuses our city on finding this little girl and worry less about a dog a pony show meant for pacifying the critics and national press -- that's the kind of thing JT can bill this "benefactor" for.

Now that I am past my vapors….having never been told to go home and leave it to the locals in a missing case…. well, except for the Anthony’s, I can reply.

What if an abductor took Lisa and left town? Wouldn’t that be the most likely in such a case?

That is why the Amber Alert system has saved children.

National exposure can and has made the difference in solving cases.

No matter how tired of it the locals are there are WSers that have stuck with it solved cases, found ids for the missing and submitted case changing information to LE.

The pictures can keep constant pressure on the abductor and/or those who have information.

The descriptors are the essence of a search for a live child.

How can the public be on the lookout if they don’t know if it is a baby or a child?
A baby needs items a child wouldn’t.

So say I notice that the neighbor has been taking diapers into a house that didn’t do so previously. Maybe I don’t follow the news much but I do have an idea a baby is missing and now someone is in need of diapers.

For messages to get across to a wide audience it is necessary to give that message repeatedly and accurately.

If it is good enough technique for advertisers to get attention then isn’t it worth it for Lisa?

all imo

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

JT still has to hire someone locally, I wonder who's next.. I'm guessing they are on the hunt now...

With regard to the search for new local Counsel, I posted this earlier today:

Guess we'll have to wait and see what local attorney will take JT up on an offer to join the "team"? Maybe part of CS's rationale for the presser was to prevent a KC colleague from taking the bait without knowing exactly what their role will be: Second fiddle.

 

[NancyA]

I guess it was this:




Where did she infer the parents made the wrong choice?

Where did she criticize the other lawyer?

I'm not asking these things to provoke a disagreement, I'm asking them in order to disambiguate what I'm reading here.

I watched a press conference and have re-read the words of an attorney who used no words of criticism and read no inference that the parent's have made a poor choice.

Sorry to take so long before replying, I'm at work and having to wait for my breaks to login in. I’m sorry if my post came across ambiguous, I guess sometimes I need a reminder that just because I understand what I meant to say as opposed to what I do/did say doesn’t mean everyone else will....:crazy: I should also apologise for not adding the IMOs.

I’ll attempt to clarify the sentence you partially bolded, see if the red italicised inclusions help.

"For her to come out openly criticising the other lawyer and [thereby IMO] more or less implying that the parents made the 'wrong' choice [when they chose him over her]....
Also I should note that I used the word ‘implying’ not ‘infer’ - it was not my intention to speculate what if anything CS might have inferred from DB and JI’s choice of JT over her only what I inferred from what she said which led me to believe she thinks she would have been the better choice for them.

As for where she criticised JT - it is plain to me throughout that she strongly disapproves of his manner of conducting this case – examples: her reference to him being in Rome while she was working on the ground, other comments about she prefers talking to ‘real people’ and her interest not being with the media, that it was ‘his decision’ that she no longer work with the family – now to you her choice of words suggests nothing beyond their literal meanings and I'm guilty of reading between the lines but I think with some justification so I guess we will continue to differ on this point.

 

[Sherbie]

I agree that getting a missing person's photo in the public arena at every opportunity is helpful. I don't believe, though, that CS's not showing or holding up a poster of Lisa indicates the depth of concern she has (or doesn't have).

LE hasn't shown Lisa's photo every time they spoke, have they? Sometimes we tend to read too much into actions or inaction and may attach incorrect motive or meaning to them. IMO.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

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.

Here it is right out of Bill Stanton's mouth.

BILL STANTON, PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR: Well, you know, it sounds so TV - - a mysterious wealthy benefactor and she`s been identified as a woman. And she is my friend, I know her.

BEHAR: Oh, you know who she is.

STANTON: Yes. I know who she is. I`m friends with her and coincidentally she is friends with a family member who I happen to know. I wouldn`t say we were necessarily friends but I was introduced to that person through her years ago.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7284552&postcount=738"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - bill stanton~independent investigator hired by anonymous man and woman benefactors[/ame]

 

[laytonian]

Now that I am past my vapors….having never been told to go home and leave it to the locals in a missing case…. well, except for the Anthony’s, I can reply.

What if an abductor took Lisa and left town? Wouldn’t that be the most likely in such a case?

That is why the Amber Alert system has saved children.

National exposure can and has made the difference in solving cases.

No matter how tired of it the locals are there are WSers that have stuck with it solved cases, found ids for the missing and submitted case changing information to LE.

The pictures can keep constant pressure on the abductor and/or those who have information.

The descriptors are the essence of a search for a live child.

How can the public be on the lookout if they don’t know if it is a baby or a child?
A baby needs items a child wouldn’t.

So say I notice that the neighbor has been taking diapers into a house that didn’t do so previously. Maybe I don’t follow the news much but I do have an idea a baby is missing and now someone is in need of diapers.

For messages to get across to a wide audience it is necessary to give that message repeatedly and accurately.

If it is good enough technique for advertisers to get attention then isn’t it worth it for Lisa?

all imo

Unfortunately, Baby Lisa isn't particularly identifiable. She's a "normal" looking child, who strongly resembles her parents. But there's hundreds of thousands of near-toddlers who look just like her.

If someone has her, and is carrying her around in public places, would she really be spotted -- especially if her hair was colored?

Frankly, abduction is the last thing on my list of possibilities UNLESS she crawled out of the house by herself ... and was picked up by someone who just happened to walk by. But that would just add to the long list of "coincidences" in this case.

 

[butwhatif?]

yes, I do...

She was also tactful, succinct, and pretty much answered all the questions that were asked at the end as well.

I don't think what she conveyed today could have been done via press release

furthermore it answered a lot of questions that I personally had regarding the circumstances of last week...

:twocents:

I haven't seen the PC yet, so I'm relying on what our members have posted about it until I have time to watch it myself.

From the other thread:

"Cyndy Short: I will continue to search for Baby Lisa

The local attorney, who is no longer counsel for the parents of missing Baby Lisa says in a statement released today (Sunday) that she will continue to search for the child as a concerned citizen. Cyndy Short announced Friday she was no longer the family's local attorney after reports surfaced that Short and lead attorney Joe Tacopina were butting heads after Tacopina tried to fire her. Short is holding a news conference about the search for Baby Lisa tomorrow morning. Bay<sic> Lisa has been missing nearly four weeks."

http://www.kmbz.com/Cyndy-Short--I-w...by-Li/11333882


So we already knew they were 'butting heads'.Already knew she was off the case professionally because of JT.

It may be interesting for peeps to know in more detail what happened between the atty's, but I thought the main focus of the PC was supposed to be about continuing to search for Lisa.

FGS! When is the focus going to be soley on Lisa instead of everyone else?

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

In case someone missed the conference:

http://www.kmbc.com/news/29637763/detail.html

I couldn't watch the video because of Flash Player f---ery, but I did see a most interesting link to the right of the main story..."man rescued after 9 hours in baby swing." I acknowledge that this could be a very serious situation, and I apologize if anyone is offended because I find it humorous. But I just couldn't keep it to myself. :angel:

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Here it is right out of Bill Stanton's mouth.

BILL STANTON, PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR: Well, you know, it sounds so TV - - a mysterious wealthy benefactor and she`s been identified as a woman. And she is my friend, I know her.

BEHAR: Oh, you know who she is.

STANTON: Yes. I know who she is. I`m friends with her and coincidentally she is friends with a family member who I happen to know. I wouldn`t say we were necessarily friends but I was introduced to that person through her years ago.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - bill stanton~independent investigator hired by anonymous man and woman benefactors

BBM. Spin-speak, double-talk, call it whatever you want. The benefactor is "friends with a family member"? Of BS? Or of DB or JI? Stanton is a fast spinner/talker just like Joe Tacopina, and one must listen very carefully to discern exactly what is being said... and that's usually clear as mud. jmo

 

[cowtowner]

Now that I am past my vapors&#8230;.having never been told to go home and leave it to the locals in a missing case&#8230;. well, except for the Anthony&#8217;s, I can reply.

Who said this?

What if an abductor took Lisa and left town? Wouldn&#8217;t that be the most likely in such a case?

Believe me, if I knew what was "most likely" in this case, I'd be working for the police helping to bring this little girl back to her parents.

That is why the Amber Alert system has saved children.

National exposure can and has made the difference in solving cases.

True, and one would be hard pressed to say that this case has not had national exposure.

No matter how tired of it the locals are there are WSers that have stuck with it solved cases, found ids for the missing and submitted case changing information to LE.

Who said the locals are tired of anything? I'm a local, I never said that. I don't know a KC resident who is tired of seeing people pursue this case. Please tell me where one local has said they are tired of anything; I'll be happy to set them straight.

The pictures can keep constant pressure on the abductor and/or those who have information. The descriptors are the essence of a search for a live child.

Agreed. Which is, I imagine, why the pictures of Lisa are on every masthead, banner, and story about this case.

How can the public be on the lookout if they don&#8217;t know if it is a baby or a child?
A baby needs items a child wouldn&#8217;t.

So say I notice that the neighbor has been taking diapers into a house that didn&#8217;t do so previously. Maybe I don&#8217;t follow the news much but I do have an idea a baby is missing and now someone is in need of diapers.

For messages to get across to a wide audience it is necessary to give that message repeatedly and accurately.

I do not understand how a lack of one picture or a different version of the noun (child vs, girl vs, baby) at this press conference undoes the three weeks of millions of impressions of the girls face, her name, her various clothing descriptions.

I watched the entire press conference, twice. Yet I still remember that when she was abducted Lisa Irwin had a cough and a bug bite under her left hear. That when abducted she was around 30" tall. That she'll be 1 year old on 11/11/11. That the house she was taken from is exactly 1.5 miles from a house where I built a swing set for another little girl who was Lisa's age this time last year. That she has blue eyes, a heart-shaped face, and I could draw her face from memory.

If it is good enough technique for advertisers to get attention then isn&#8217;t it worth it for Lisa?

all imo

I guess I wonder what would lead us to believe that her photo wasn't shown in the press conference because she's not "worth it?"

I don't think anyone views any of it in terms of a lack of "worth."

 

[Melanie]

I agree that getting a missing person's photo in the public arena at every opportunity is helpful. I don't believe, though, that CS's not showing or holding up a poster of Lisa indicates the depth of concern she has (or doesn't have).

LE hasn't shown Lisa's photo every time they spoke, have they? Sometimes we tend to read too much into actions or inaction and may attach incorrect motive or meaning to them. IMO.

I agree --

If one is to criticize CS for not showing or holding up a poster of Lisa, I guess we should lambast JT and Bill too. I've seen them on many a tv-channel without showing her piccie.

I've stayed off because I find that it's a "pick on CS thread". She said what she had to say, people obviously listened, and hopefully now the media can move on to bigger and better things - like finding baby Lisa. That's what it's all about isn't it?

MOO - thanks.

Mel

 

[Jade]

Who said this?



<snip>

Who said the locals are tired of anything? I'm a local, I never said that. I don't know a KC resident who is tired of seeing people pursue this case. Please tell me where one local has said they are tired of anything; I'll be happy to set them straight.

<snip>

Sorry that I got the wrong impressions from your posts.


imo