Jackson Jambalaya

I guess almost killing him would qualify as cruel and inhumane.

'Fish, I don't think many people knew about this one at all. No telling what else is out there to dispel the fairy tale in the Clarion Ledger.

Perhaps they will make the list of intriguing people over at the Fondren Bugle....

Good luck. His first divorce is sealed.

Took it down. Sorry. Had to. You understand. However, I'm not surprised.

I'll be honest, reading CB last night was pretty sad and I hope he improves from what I read.

One question. If I read this right, its just still floating out there, right?

If you're talking about the post on CB, it was deleted about an hour after it appeared. And yes, I agree, after reading last night's journal entry it does not sound good. I do understand why you took it down. That's okay.

The Final Victim

I am speculating that after the crash the Irby attorneys encouraged Karen to have "no memory" of the horrific crash. (That is logical and often the case.) During the last week of April, before a Grand Jury, her memory might come back. She could seek to diminish her responsibility by claiming (falsely?) that Stuart hit her as she drove, causing the wreck. Poor Stuart would be defensless against such a claim, and would become the final victim of Karen Irby.

Or that they were fighting, Stuart reached for the wheel, put his foot on the accelerator, and Karen had no control of the car.

Just you wait, she'll get out of it. She always does..............

She can make up any story, she still has to prove it and the speed and toxicology reports will be hard to overcome.

KF @514. That ain't happening.

Physics. Its all about physics.


And biochemistry. ugh, just saying that word gives me nightmares about oxidative phosphorylation and krebs cycles.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, this one should be dismissed for failure to serve process within 120 days.

True enough. Was too lazy to look it up and I have the book sitting right here.

Do we know whether he failed to serve process, Kingfish? Did you look at the file?

What I posted is the entire file.

Read the first paragraph of my post.

Kingfish,

Did you ever think the CL might have written that story on their own just to keep the "pot stirred"? Now you are "stirring" even more. Let the judicial system do their work. You even said you didn't feel this was a coverup. Give the two of them a chance to heal and see where life takes them. Anyone that has ever been married has ups and downs and face it the CL sure as heck didn't talk to the Irby's. Please everyone, give it a rest!

I didn't feel this was a coverrup, I didn't think this was a coverup. Learn the difference.

The CL wasn't trying to stir anything, alot of people, myself included, think that piece was a spin job.


As for a coverrup, I don't think JPD is engaged in one but that doesn't mean other stuff like that CL story isn't going on either.

JPD is gonna have egg on its face. Incompetence does not equal coverup. Just alot of egg.

Sorry, forgot you guys don't feel.

4:22 VERY GOOD POST

most intelligent !

4:17 wrote: "Or that they were fighting, Stuart reached for the wheel, put his foot on the accelerator, and Karen had no control of the car."

That crossed my mind, too, but that Mercedes has bucket seats with a wide console. It would be very difficult for someone to twist around to get their leg over and put their foot on the gas pedal.
I suppose a hand could firmly press on the leg or knee of the driver forcing the foot further down on the accelerator. ???

PEOPLE, GIVE IT A REST!!!

The C-L wrote that story to get massive hits to their website. They accomplished that goal in spades. Ronnie Agnew is giddy. Pettus was the sacrificial lamb.

11:12:

For some reason I keep picturing Rock Hudson trying to move around in Doris Day's car in Pillowtalk.

Leg swinging outside of the car door, keeping time with the musical score. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

The sad story continues. One Jayne Westbrook, whose husband David is apparently Stuart Irby's physician, has posted a note on the CaringBridge site today. While is it heartening to hear that Stuart is improving, what strikes me as horrible is the violation of Mr. Irby's right to privacy. Dr. Westbrook appears to have violated the HIPAA regulations by sharing stories about his patient with his wife who then posted them on a public forum.

Now read the CaringBridge and think if you were a Pogue family member. Such joy that the spouse of the man who killed your family member is recovering. Real sensitive touch, Jayne Westbrook.

"what strikes me as horrible is the violation of Mr. Irby's right to privacy. Dr. Westbrook appears to have violated the HIPAA regulations by sharing stories about his patient with his wife who then posted them on a public forum."

do you really think Stuart would sue Dr Westbrook and his wife over this 'violation' ???

you ought to be a lawyer.

I did like the bachelor pad he had.

How on Earth do you get a HIPAA violation out of what was posted? Sitting outside on a Spring day singing Jesus Loves Me has nothing to do with his treatment or what is affecting Mr. Irby medically. In no way does it violate his privacy, as it was clearly done in public view. That comment is ridiculous.

In the divorce between Karen and previous husband Mr. Bounds apparently she received the house -in looking at the address - go to the homestead exemption page and she is filing as Karen Bounds - is that legal?

She got the house. It depends on whether they are filing homestead on her current home and if her name is on that deed. Just checked, her name isn't on the one in Hinds County so probably legal.

Mr. I was not stupid. He owned the house before they got married and I'm sure he was smart enough to not put her name on the title.

There is no divorce in progress.

No kidding. Read the comments.

Oops...should have read more closely...overlooked the Bounds part...Mondays.........

But thanks for jumping on my error so quickly...Johnny on the spot! ;-)

Actually you know what?

That divorce might be active still.

The commentor is right, there is a 120 day limit BUT the rules of civil procedure say it is dismissed upon the court's intiative with notice to the defendant. Rule 4-h.

Since the court never entered a dismissal, its still sitting there active if I'm reading this right. Now Ms. Irby could probably request it be dismissed but right now, its not dismissed if I'm reading the rules properly.

"Rule 4(h) provides that service upon a defendant must be made within 120 days after
the filing of the complaint or the cause will be dismissed without prejudice as to that
defendant unless good cause can be shown as to why service could not be made."

My rulebook a couple of years older. Changed the wording a little but you get the gist.

Another scoop for the Kingfish! Congrats on breaking this story.

Took that one down as I know the story from multiple sources.

At least get the number right.

And I will say this, if I was married and decided to go spend $200,$400, or even $1,000, I would think that I would check with my wife first before I spent that much money.

Multiple souces? That must mean you heard multiple versions which might mean multiple chairs!

Who is counting chairs while a blaze is raging? I suppose more than one chair would be a safe guess, ya reckon?

But who cares about the number? What matters is self-control or control in general.

It would be more sensible to simply return the chair(s), unless they were on sale, then I doubt they could be returned.
If that is the case, I suppose torching it(them) would be the best decision.

DO NOT SPEND MY MONEY W/O ASKING FIRST!
Who are you calling? Put down that phone!!

So lets put your logic to the test.

Suppose we were married (assuming you are a female of course) and you spend $20,000 without talking to me about it first.

Now would I have a right to be just a little bit upset, regardless of how wealthy we were?

Yes, but if that amount of money were the issue, then why waste it again by fire?

Nose/face situation, it appears. No one won, not even the poor chair(s).

Chair abuse doesn't look good to prying eyes and ears.

Sometime playa got to set some rulez and show some mad skillz and let 'em know what don't fly. Nowutamsayin?

I don't know how to talk like that, but I heah wut ya sayin', ya know? Yazzsuh!
Rulez rule!

You people must really lead boring lives if you have to depend on the Irby's for your source of, I don't know, is it gossip or is it entertainment? It takes two people to have a relationship in case you haven't heard! I'll bet if you look hard enough you could find someone else dealing with a tragedy in the Jackson area to entertain yourselves with. Many of you have admitted you don't even know the Irby's. Go spread your "fodder" in someone else's yard for a while.

While folks are waiting to hear from law enforcement as to the charges, if any, that will be brought about from the wreck, speculation will continue.

Hearsay, fact and innuendo always abound in situations such as this tragedy. I do not believe anyone is entertained by the circumstances.

Kingfish has done a good job of controlling his blog.

Until the public is satisfied that all has been done that could be done to bring this matter to justice, no one will let it rest.

THe problem is JPD has always had a closed mouth policy on everything.

I remember that idiot over at the city, Monica Joiner, the attorney, replying in her explanation for refusing me the George bell III police incident reports the case was an investigation even though Georgie was convicted and in prison at least six months.

Such crap means people don't trust them nor believe their vague non denials or refusals to release information. When you don't trust the public, they don't trust you.

So IS the George Bell III case still under investigation? Do you think the city will ever release the NON- redacted copy of the report?

If not, then why? What is behind the generous redaction that could interfere with the "investigation"?

McMillin = Control Trip

WAPT reports that Stephanie Parker Weaver was afforded a "field release" when arrested this weekend. She was not booked into the jail nor required to post a bond.

$23,600 gets you better. It allows your matter to meander leisurely through the system to a direct roll of the grand jury dice. You don't need the favor of a field release because you're never arrested in the first place.

Comment on HIPAA.

To respond to critics of my posting. No, I don't think Mr. Irby will sue his doctor. No, I don't think there is anything wrong with a kumbaya moment singing praises to Jesus or to A Giant Worm In The Sky. What I wrote was something that should very much concern you if you have Dr. Westbrook as your physician. Be forewarned: He will blab all about you to his wife (who has no right to know) and she will blab it all over town on a public forum.

WAPT: "Stephanie Parker Weaver was charged with disorderly conduct, disobeying a police officer and resisting arrest, she said. Police didn’t say what led to the charges, but Weaver said she was “wrongfully arrested.”
Imagine that!
McMillin sure is generous with some folks...

I feel sorry for the poor officer that saw the need to arrest her. Ol' SP-W will get her close friend Melton to move that officer down to the lowest detail -- probably assigned to remove all the political signs all over town.

Shame he didn't divorce her. The doctors would still be alive and this posting wouldn't exist.

She would have returned to being a nobody.

If only, Stuart, if only.

Such pitiful, petty people. Maybe a jilted girlfriend? Shame on you!

Serial horndoggery creates debris. Managing the debris isn't always easy. Sometimes it sticks to you and you can't get it off. Ware v. Ware does not portray Stuart as a cautious man.

Zapped those two posts for a couple of reasons. Yes I know the docket list is online but just reading that list alone is rather misleading.

I also don't want to go into any discussion of her divorce right now because at this time, it doesn't have any bearing on this case or discussion.

Thank you, Kingfish. The C-L would let it stay for web hits.

Zapping URLs to public data? Looks like you are playing to the crowd. What bearing does a potential Irby divorce have on this tragic accident?

I only published this post because of the CL spin job. Not playing to the crowd but countering some propoganda as I don't think it was sloppy reporting.

As for zapping a link, yeah, they got to me. Right.

Just a time and place for everything and I just don't think this post is the time and place for it.

I get it. You are only a little pregnant.

If the Irby's were getting a divorce, I don't think they would be out and about having dinner with other couples at the JCC like they were on the night of the accident.
Most people who are getting a divorce aren't out and about together for social reasons....
Stuart apparently enjoyed being with Karen or he would have stayed home that night.

March 26, 9:12.... Apparently you have either A) Never been married and unhappy, B) Never been in the 'social set', or C) Have no clue. YES they would have been out having dinner with other couples at JCC whether they were planning a divorce or not. There are some things a man has to do when he is married and hasn't quite figured out how to get out of it. I'd figure someone like the Karen I've heard of, both on these boards and from people who knew her, would insist on being taken out in public...the better to scout the next one in line when this one does figure out how to get unhooked.

9:12--For your post, I vote: C) Have no clue.

I guess I am the one without a clue...LOL

I meant to direct that to 2:48, not 9:12.

Better get my caffeine.

For 2:48..For the record I have been divorced, I am very happy and re-married with 2 children.
So,I am not clueless. I hv also been in the social set and was even a Jackson debutante. My point here is that Stuart filed for a divorce according to this blog site but DID NOT go through with it. Stuart is a grown man and knows how to get a divorce.
I don't know Karen but for people to judge their marriage and plaster it all over these blogs is wrong! The people who are doing this need to think of the baby they have together and the damage it can do to him in the years to come. It's one thing to think something and another to post it. Their marriage has nothing to do with the accident.
You need to get some class and think of their children and the scars they will be left with b/c of Karen's actions. I'm not excusing her and I think justice will be served, but let their marriage issues go...
Usually the people who are so critical of other people's marriages are truly the ones who have the messed up marriages.

No editorial comment or opinion was offered by me about their marraige. I stated quite clearly my reasons for posting this. If I wanted to really be a jerk there are other cases I could've posted but I didn't do so.

However, your issue is with the Clarion-Ledger. If the CL is going to act as it did two Sunday's ago, then it is fair game to call out the reporting when it missed obvious public facts.

As for that kid, you should worry more about a four year old that might need speech therapy or have problems with his teeth developing properly because his mother was lazy and let him keep a pacifier in his mouth. That was in the CL story too.

Kingfish, I understand where you're coming from and I am upset with the CL about the articles that they have published about the accident.
But, at the end of the day, what goes on behind closed doors at the Irby's home, should really not be important.
Two people are dead, Stuart's brain may never be the same again and he has 3 children, 2 grown ones who are capable of reading all of this.
That is what saddens me. Here their dad is struggling to survive and everyone is bashing his marriage to Karen. Stuart made a choice to stay with her. Maybe it wasn't for forever, but it is what it is and it's horrible to have society finding pleasure in judging and criticizing their marriage. When you post divorce papers, it feeds the fire.
The senior Irby's, Bitsy and Stuart were wonderful people and I know they would be heartbroken if they were alive today to be reading all of this.
I no longer live in Jackson but I do look at the blogs b/c I want to follow up with what happens to Karen. The famililes of the deceased, deserve justice. That's what the focus should be on in my opinion. Hopefully in time they will get that justice they so truly deserve!

For 8:37... You must be a mind reader as I never posted anything directly about their marriage. I was making a statement that YES, He would be out in public with her even if he were planning an exit from the marriage. As I'm sure most know, Yes, he is a grown man and knows how to get a divorce but.... It does take some timing and planning when there is as much at stake as there is in his and Karen's I'm sure. I personally have no idea whether he was planning going thru with a divorce or not and personally do not care one way or the other. I was just making the statement that you do things you have to do and I feel pretty certain taking Karen out to eat at JCC was one of those things regardless of the situation in their marriage. Therefore, the statement I was replying too made no sense to me and that was the reason for my reply. OK, I've went thur this 1, 2, 3 for you so maybe you can keep up with what I said and why I said it. And as far as the 'children' reading this, if I had to guess I'd figure his 2 grown children could fill us ALL in on a ton so my point wouldn't matter to them one way or the other. And if a 3-4 year old could read this he would certainly take his own passy out of his mouth to save his teeth/speech later on....

anon at 10:39

Mr. Irby is going to be ok. Its going to take some time but he is definitely going to survive and won't be a vegetable either. I would not be surprised if he is walking around by now. He is NOT fighting for his life.

As for the state of their marraige that day, I don't think its really relevant to any discussion about the wreck at this time. The divorce was filed, never followed through on, so obviously something positive happened. And its really none of our business. Just tell the CL to quit printing spin jobs and I won't have to make posts like these to slap them down.

New CB posting. Cautious optimism.

I appreciate your sense of fairness,Kingfish, but I do think it's not just a matter of the CL puff piece that should motivate you. It's a matter of speaking to cultural values and society's interest as well.
When one's prior conduct has required our courts to become involved, it speaks to judgment and personal conduct...both of which are at issue. It also is of concern to citizens who would rather court time be better utilized than with adults who can't behave maturely and resolve their own problems.
To drive while intoxicated or at a high rate of speed is not a " mistake", it's a criminal act. To suggest it's a mistake, as some bloggers have, trivializes it.
It is not the critics who have responsibility for the effects on the children and loved ones.The tragedy was not of the critics' making.
Indeed, society has a responsibility to those children to object to bad parental conduct. Those children were put at risk by their parents if neither parent understood that one of them should have been able to get home to the children safely that night. Are we helping the children to overlook of their parents' conduct simply because they are " prominent"? What kind of message does that send to ALL our children?
The hypocrisy of those I know who otherwise politically espouse " family values" / Christian values and yet defend the conduct of Karen and Stuart that night is what I'm finding rather hard to swallow. They've not contained moral outrage when it's someone they don't know personally.
You can't complain that society is going to Hell in a hand basket and then condone the same behavior in someone you know.

I don't think many people knew about this one at all.

Personal Injury Attorney Houston