Wrong lawyer is representing baby Lisa Irwin's parents
Barb ShellyKansas City lawyer Cyndy Short said today that she continues to believe that 11-month-old Lisa Irwin was “stolen from her home.” And she shed some light on why she is no longer representing the baby’s parents, Jeremy Irwin and Deborah Bradley.
At a news conference outside of her Kansas City law office, Short said she and New York lawyer Joe Tacopina “were not able to work as a team.”
“Our goals and our approach were so different that one of us had to go, and it was me,” Short said. “I think Mr. Tacopina thought I would be less aggressive, maybe, less involved.”
It sounds as though Tacopina wanted a local co-counsel who would basically be on call if needed, certainly not a highly competent lawyer who actually wanted to get the case resolved. If so, Short was definitely the wrong co-counsel for “Hollywood Joe.” She works her cases hard. In the 10 days she was involved in the Irwin case, she organized a team of 17 volunteers to participate in community efforts to find Lisa and to support the family.
“I did it to stand up for Jeremy and Deborah and avoid a wrongful arrest and conviction,” Short said. “I saw a family that needed help and services in order to cope with immense stress.”
Short said she basically told the parents they would have to chose between her and Tacopina and “they chose Joe.”
I will say this again — that was a mistake. Tacopina and his sidekick, not-so-private investigator Bill Stanton, are in this to grandstand on national newscasts and enhance their reputations as celebrity ambulance chasers.
Short, who was working pro bono, was in it to help the family. She said she’ll continue trying to find a resolution to the case, though not in a legal capacity.
In explaining the differences between herself and Tacopina, Short had one line that kind of says it all: “I was here for 10 days working on the case and he was in Rome.”
Michael Kobe
1 year, 6 months agoI am sure Cindy and Barb are both outstanding individuals who are motivated for the best interests of baby Lisa. Cindy is a great attorney and Barb a great journalist. Their actions in this matter are unclear. Why hold a news conference to say what Cindy offered? Is holding the news conference to explain why Cindy is no long representing the family in the best interests of the missing child and family? How is Cindy organizing a volunteer search group of benefit to the police search? Are they able to do more than the police? Why is the choice of the family’s attorney drawing criticism from Barb? Shouldn’t the family be allowed to make their choice for representation without public objection? How does finding fault with the family’s choice of representation help find the missing child? It is Barb who wondered aloud what the chances were that the information offered by the mother could have come together at the time the child was reported missing. Now, Barb is the one who doesn’t like the family’s choice for an attorney. If Cindy truly had the best interest of the missing child and the family why would she, according to her account, not have been the good team player needed at this crucial time? Why would Barb find fault with the family’s decision to dismiss Cindy if she couldn’t be the team player the family and other attorney wanted her to be? If the family wanted Tacopina, then wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the family and the missing child to be the best team player? As stated by Cindy, one had to go and it was Cindy. This case is like the Kansas City School District in that it no longer is about the children (or missing child) but, rather, about the adults managing the matters. I don’t see how holding the news conference helps find the child, assists in the police investigation, helps the family deal with the stress, or gets to the truth of what happened. I can see where it would help Cindy and Barb.
Mark Peavy
1 year, 6 months agoFrom today’s article: “She (i.e., Short) said it was his (i.e., Tacopina’s) decision, not hers, to cancel a media tour of the couple’s home, and to delay another interview with Lisa’s brothers.” This suggests she was willing to go along with the boys being re-interviewed.
But, this is from an article a few days ago: “Short told The Star that she didn’t want the boys interviewed again, for their own sake and for the sake of the case.”
So which is it? Was she for or against the boys being re-interviewed, and what precisely did she mean by “for the sake of the case?” It would be informative if a reporter or columnist from The Star could find out.
Jack Smith
1 year, 6 months agoQuestion: YOUR BABY HAS JUST BEEN KIDNAPPED! You seek assistance and are presented with two different options: 1. A local attorney who has a high degree of care for you and your rights. She shows a great deal of compassion for your predicament, and is very concerned about your baby and wants to do everything possible to use the media and find her. Her legal reputation is stellar, she is easy to talk to, friendly, and has compiled a staff of seventeen just for this case. She has even offerred to do all of this for free. Above all else, she feels you are INNOCENT and wants to help you find your baby. 2. An out-of-state attorney has offered his services as well. He is considered the most hated lawyer in New York. He has a 40 foot yacht, a Mazerati, 5,000 dollar suits and has gotten killers off like Joran Vandersloot, to name just one example. He is a media whore and basically a scumbag. He has spent the majority of time in Rome since on the case to search for your baby, and given numerous interviews to national media and appears to be after as much face time as he can get. He from all appearances appears to be handling your case as if your were GUILTY, and preparing for your defense to get you off murder charges. Which do you choose?
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Lisa-Irwin/290185081005988
Sindy Maldonado
1 year, 6 months agoWell, Im with Jack and he just about explains things to Michael. I keep saying it “actions speak louder than words” and the actions of these parents and how they make decisions should be enough to understand where they want this situation of their missing baby to go. These parents can relate with their lawyer; just like he is not there, neither are they. They have made no great effort to get involved with the investigation and from their actions seem to be preparing to be accused. All this time watsted waiting for the real finger of the law to come down on them. They continued on as if nothing had happened; going from picking up the boys at school and coming back to Walrond house. They never stepped foot back in their own home since their baby went amist! Actions speaks here! It screams it all….
Sindy Maldonado
1 year, 6 months agoSo, Barb you did a fine job reporting here. It is your constitutional right! AMEN. Truth be told.Its is really a pleasure to read an articule with sense! Simple. It is what it is and nothing more. Why is it so hard to see what is right before your eyes. You have made the events come forth and why others are actually debating this is beyond me. Micheal asks why did Ms. Short need to make any comments at all…well, because the public wanted to know, inquiring minds wanted to know. Why did Mr. Bradley agree to do TV and magazine interviews? Why hasnt she been seen out there supporting those that are supporting her; why does she continue to support others that have done zero in finding her baby…yet, are there actually in the event to support HER.
Kevin A Evans
1 year, 6 months agoIr just keeps getting weirder:
http://moravings.blogspot.com/2011/10/irwin-saga-gets-ever-weirder.html
Shanna Sissom
1 year, 6 months agoWhoever is the unknown person who has a “relationship” with the parents is paying Tacopina, whereas Short was working for free. Surely whoever is paying the NYC lawyer, for whatever that reason really is, had some role in deciding which attorney leaves, and who stays. I think if we were to find out who this person paying him is, some light would be shed. Sad time in KCMO, but this Texan is checking in with the Star every day. Let’s hope Lisa is found safe.
Steve Herman
1 year, 6 months agoPersonally, I don’t care what Barb says or who chose to go with Tacopina or why. I don’t like Tacopina. My impression is that he is a bs’er, a snake and basically someone you wouldn’t trust. You can hear it in his voice. I think he makes the Irwins look very bad and guilty.
Jus my opinion but I am a pretty good judge of character.
Lori Gegner Sand
1 year, 6 months agoto M Peavy: Read again - Cyndy said she did not advise the parents to let the kids be interviewed. She also said it was Taco’s decision to delay the interview - which means it could take place - which Cyndy said she is against. Sheesh - what don’t you get!
The other thing is, people, that you are assuming that Deborah, Jeremy, Taco and Cyndy are the only characters in this story. BUT who is that guy that has been lurking in the background at all the family’s interviews, liivining with Deb and Jeremy, shooing Tina Porter away, and spriting the family away in the late evening - Mike LeRette - Deb’s cousin. It would be very naieve to assunme that he is not exerting a lot of influence … what is HIS motive for all of this. It sure hasn’t been to assist with all the dissension and find Baby Lisa!