Posts Tagged ‘Cyndy’
Well my audience will just have to forgive me; but it is time to say what needs to be said. There are always a few “media vultures” out there in the world, and we can see at least one showing up every day here on the Lisa Irwin Case.
I have had a pretty busy week, working PAYING cases, so I have not had much time to blog about this case in the past five days. Not to brag, but last week was somewhere around a $10,000.00 week for me. It is always important to take care of your paying clients first, and then focus on the topic that interest you. I have had to focus on paying clients. Apparently not all Private Investigators have paying clients to focus on; so they can try to play “Commentator” on cases like the one we are discussing here. Tonight I want to talk about how a “mediocre at best” Private Investigator can harm a case like this, and how a good Private Investigator can help a case like this.
I suppose the first place to start is with the approach that should be taken when working any case as a Private Investigator. One of the most important things to remember is that when it comes to how a Private Investigator works a case, the approach in at least one aspect is much like how a Doctor approaches a patient’s care; First Do No Harm! Often times in the Private Investigation business it is just as important to know what NOT to do as it is to know what to do. If you are a Private Investigator, the “Do No Harm Approach” requires one to be honest with theirself. A good Private Investigator’s first question to himself or herself should be: “Am I qualified to handle this case”? Think of it like this, you would not perform heart surgery on a patient if you did not have the necessary skills, training, and credentials to do so; would you? And if all you have done as a Private Investigator is serve subpoenas and conduct some “cheating spouse surveillance”, what makes you think you are qualified to even give any intelligent commentary on a Child Abduction Case, much less participate in such a case? I take exception to how one of my colleagues seems to want to insert himself into this case and act as if he is some kind of authority on the Lisa Irwin Abduction. What he is doing is selfish, harmful, and has the potential to take away valuable media resources from where they need to be. I will first call your attention to a post made by Mr. Ronald Rugen on 10/25/2011 which is pictured below:
Kris Cantil is a highly experienced Criminal Defense Investigator from Utah, that has spend more time adjusting her make-up in a courthouse bathroom than Mr. Rugen has in a courthouse. She is well qualified to understand the intricacies of a criminal defense case, and to certainly understand what a criminal defense case is. Click on her name and you can see her qualifications. Kris Cantil works for Kane Consulting and her question to Mr.Rugen is important and “dead on”. Folks, the attorneys working for Lisa Irwin’s parents are NOT a “Defense Team” at this point in time, they are simply trying to keep the focus on looking for the person that abducted Lisa Irwin, going on the assertion that the child was in fact abducted. despite what the media wants to title the attorney or attorneys here; there can be no defense without a prosecution and there has not even been an arrest made yet much less a prosecution. The harm in making statements like this is that it gives the public the inaccurate illusion that the parents of Lisa Irwin are the culprits in her disappearance. Now while I am not ready to say that Lisa Irwin’s parents had nothing to do with her disappearance, I am certainly not willing to point the finger at them just yet. The fact is that there just is not enough evidence to make a determination either way at this point in time. Attorney Cyndy Short was right when she said that “this is how people get wrongfully convicted”, these types of presumptuous statements make the public think that there is something that they don’t know but the person making this statement knows that may indicate guilt, which in turn causes public pressure to be put on the Police, which in turn often times impedes their investigation. This can all have the effect of making people rush to judgment in a case where evidence needs to be dispassionately analyzed. These cases have to be worked with a high degree of objectivity, which apparently Mr. Rugen does not have:
it is not hard to see from reading Mr. Rugen’s comment above that by his own admission he has not been very objective in regards to this case. he has “jumped to conclusions”, and implied that Lisa Irwin’s parents had something to do with the disappearance of their child. This is NOT what a good Private Investigator would do. A good Private Investigator would check out everything, including the parents; but he or she would be objective and receptive to reasonable and logical scenarios so as to not easily dismiss something that might be the key to solving this case.
I have personally worked two (2) Child Abduction Cases, and successfully concluded each one within one (1) week. Now, I will admit that both of these cases were non-custodial parental abduction cases; one (1) from Los Angeles, California over seven years ago for an attorney named Shirlee Bliss and one (1) here locally where we recovered the child in Kansas City, MO for the father named Orlando Hayes. These cases are easier than a “Stranger Abduction Case”, none the less they do require objectivity, professionalism, and the ability to keep a “low profile”. My Lead Investigator, Karen Giboney has worked multiple non-custodial parental abductions and “stranger abduction cases” Someone should as Mr. Rugen how many of these cases he has worked?
The media can be a useful tool in helping to solve cases like this. The media gets the word out so that citizens can be on the look out for the child and so that if there is someone out there that knows something they will know who to call and talk to about it. It is self serving and selfish for a Private Investigator to try to inject himself into a case like this for the sake of trying to get some publicity and attention. Someone should ask Mr. Rugen who hired him to work on this case?
Folks, it is important that you don’t give this mediocre at best Private Investigator the attention he is seeking, and you stay focused on the important media aspects of this case. Follow what the media is reporting about possible sightings. Follow what the media is reporting about person’s of interest. Keep your eyes and ears open for information that may relate to those topics, instead of following an “armchair quarterback” that serves subpoenas for a living and has high aspirations of being some kind of a recognized news commentator on cases that he has no experience in what so ever. If I had experience that Mr. Rugen has in the Private Investigation Business, I’d stay out of the media and keep my opinions to myself for being afraid that those opinions might come back to haunt me later on. PICTURE that, if you will…….
Ricky B. Gurley.