Advertisement

Archive for Friday, October 28, 2011

Kansas City lawyer leaves missing baby case

October 28, 2011

Advertisement

— The Kansas City lawyer for the family of a 10-month-old baby reported missing more than three weeks ago says she's no longer involved in the case.

Cyndy Short said in a brief statement Friday that she is not working as local counsel for the family of Lisa Irwin, whose parents reported her missing Oct. 4

The family's other attorney, Joe Tacopina of New York, did not immediately respond to phone or emails seeking comment about Short's involvement with the case.

Earlier Friday, police said Tacopina called investigators to say he wanted to reschedule a second round of questioning of the baby's older brothers until next week. Those interviews had been scheduled for Friday. Short earlier indicated those interviews would proceed.

Police say they have no suspects in Lisa's disappearance.

Comments

Bruce Bertsch 3 years, 1 month ago

But remember, they are fully cooperating with police....RIGHT!

ebyrdstarr 3 years, 1 month ago

How does in-fighting among the lawyers indicate that the family is not cooperating with police? Furthermore, I suspect when the police complain that this family isn't cooperating, what they're really saying is the family hasn't done our jobs for us and confessed.

Bruce Bertsch 3 years, 1 month ago

How about refusing to be interviewed separately? Until the police can eliminate them as suspects, they will remain as suspects and will not be privy to any of the searches or investigations. The NY attorney can't represent them in Missouri because he is not licensed to practice there.

ebyrdstarr 3 years, 1 month ago

So, again, the police equate refusing to cooperate with refusing to do everything exactly the way we want. There is no way I would go into an interview with police like this alone. I can't blame this couple for feeling the same. From day one, the police have been pretty open that their intention is to divide and conquer through police interrogation. I am perfectly ok with the family not bowing down to that strategy. And I don't consider it not cooperating. I seriously doubt that at this point, there is anything more the family can possibly say that could eliminate them as suspects.

BlackVelvet 3 years, 1 month ago

I always thought that, even though the police can be tricky, they can't prove you did something that you didn't do.

Cai 3 years, 1 month ago

they've been interviewed separately. Lots of times. And would be again. But at this point, they won't do it without the lawyer present.

Not sure how that bodes one way or another, but that IS their right.

ebyrdstarr 3 years, 1 month ago

BlackVelvet, you are aware that innocent people get convicted of crimes, aren't you? Perhaps you didn't know that about 25% of wrongful convictions involve false confessions. So, yes, actually, police do manage to come up with "proof" even against people who didn't do anything.

If the police had made it clear that they suspected me and intended to get me to admit it, no matter how innocent I was, there is no way I would speak to the police on their terms.

akt2 3 years, 1 month ago

What's the point of not allowing the siblings to be re-interviewed? Or of the parents not wanting to be interviewed seperately? It's unfortunate if someone did abduct their baby. Because of the parent's dysfunction and inability to focus on the child instead of themselves, in all probability they won't find her. It's been almost a month and the parents are still squabbling over who and when an interview will take place. Ridiculus. If your baby turns up missing on your alcohol induced clock, you get to bear some responsibility.

Glenda Breese 3 years, 1 month ago

The baby looks well cared for and happy in the photos,Might want to check their financial records..People do a lot of crazy chit for money! Mother drunk and passed out ,did some one else hand her off out the window?Look at daddy.

pace 3 years, 1 month ago

oldenoughbutno2, you seem to have some inside information. Were you involved , how.? Was it before or after? oldenoughbutno2 Did you make money or was it other compensation. You should come clean on this forum. What did you do, where did you get your information. I understand that people often try to direct the investigation away from themselves. Another question, oldenoughbutno2 why did you do it?

missmagoo 3 years, 1 month ago

Because this nut job (lawyer lady) said that through her research, interviewing the kids does them permanent harm. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. In other words, she's protecting her client because she knows she has something to hide :)

ebyrdstarr 3 years, 1 month ago

The Kansas City Star has an article in which they did their own research on this point. Experts in the field agree that repeated interviews of young children can do harm. Are you familiar with the day care cases from the 1980s? Well-meaning interviewers got hundreds of children all over the country to come up with crazy stories of sexual abuse in their day cares. People were convicted, sentenced to long periods of time in prison, and the kids involved are still convinced they were abused even though all of those cases have been thoroughly debunked.

Yes, children should be protected from too many interviews. (The two brothers have been interviewed already.)

Bobo Fleming 3 years, 1 month ago

One thing to remember- that eight year old wont always be eight and there is no statute of limitations murder. If the kid saw something or heard something at some point he will be able to tell it whether step mom likes it or not.

Sigmund 3 years, 1 month ago

akt2 (anonymous) says… "What's the point of not allowing the siblings to be re-interviewed?"

Children, regardless of age, can be manipulated to say whatever the interviewer desires, as all of the Satanic Ritual Abuse cases and many of child day care abuse cases of the 1990's clearly demonstrated. Interviewers with preexisting beliefs often significantly influence the eventual testimony of children. For instance, when interviewers do not get an answer supporting their view of the facts they often repeat the question implying that answer is not acceptable and offer bribes of toys or acceptance from the interviewer if they will tell the "truth."

Eventually the child learns that the answer they are giving is not the one the interviewer wants and begin to change their answers in an effort to please or receive a reward. This effect has been demonstrated both when intentional and unintentional on the part of the interviewer and is so powerful that the children can come to themselves the newly constructed story.

The police have already interviewed all the siblings and if they didn't get what they needed the first time the 2nd or 200th interview will be significantly different and closer to interviewers belief than the first, but not more credible.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.