Jackson Jambalaya

I know...that is driving me crazy too. It is like they have cotton stuffed in their ears.

No they are just making a TV version of the Clarion-Ledger story. That is what they do everyday==read the paper and decide which columns should become the TV stories.

You shouldn't be surprised about WAPT. This is the same TV station that takes unverified, and unsubstantiated, Twitter messages then broadcasts a story based only on those messages over the public airwaves as news. Like the JFP, over at WAPT they don't know what they don't know.

I really like WAPT. No, I am not retarded.

Their coverage of this story has been pretty good but damn, get it right.

Actually they are probabaly right, technically. Yes, the petition will be dismissed unless good cause can be shown for lack of service. But at this point, there is no indication that Karen or any other party has made a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds of lack of service, and there is no indication that the court sua sponte dismissed the petition for lack of service. So, technically, it is probably still lingering. Of course if Karen were now to be served with it, it would of course be dismissed for being untimely served.

Its not pending anymore. I thought so until a lawyer pointed out that the dismissal is automatic and the plaintiff has to show why it shouldn't be dismissed.

Kingfish:

Don't get me wrong because I agree with just about everything you are saying about the C - L and C 16; but, a complaint is "pending" until it is actually "dismissed." There are lots of things either the plaintiff or the defendant could do to breathe life into this complaint and use it to obtain a divorce.

"Pending" it is......

While I think she needs to serve life in prison for killing those two doctors, I also think you're right KF in that the Irby's are hanging her out to dry.

Sometimes golddigging doesn't pay. This may be one of those times.

And I really do feel sorry for her. I blame her upbringing. Girls only learn what they're taught about money. She's probably always been told her worth (ane everyone elses for that matter) was the sum total of her material belongings.

Funny how when I wrote it was pending a few weeks ago the lawyers came on here correcting me and telling me it had expired.

I don't know if the Irbys are hanging her out to dry, but I don't see the family mounting an especially vigorous defense on her behalf - one that would take this thing all the way to trial.

Not only is there the possibility of too much dirty laundry being aired, but look what Karen Irby has cost the family already: debilitating and likely lifelong physical injuries to her husband, degradation of the family's good name, and exposure to civil litigation that is potentially ruinous to a portion of the Irby fortune.

I may be wrong, but I sense that the family lawyers will try to cut the best deal they can for Karen short of a trial.

I think you are correct in that effectively,,,, its expired.

I've beent told Holloman don't like to go to trial and is known for settling or getting plea bargains.

I said on the other thread,,,

Don't you think all Karen has to say is that Stuart had passed out, or he was choking or she thought he was over dosed or that she thought he was having a heart attack and that she was rushing him to the ER. ???

Leave her family out of this. They are hurt and devastated by this tragedy.
As far as The Irby's "hanging her out to dry", seems their true colors will come out if they do. It does seem from what I have read on this site and others that there were already a few skeletons in the closet before she came along.
None of us know the truth behind their personal lives, nor do we need to. She is the Mother of one of his children and I certainly hope the family will help her in any and every way they can. Would you abandon your wife or family member, even under these circumstances? I would hope not.

You can say anything you want. Now go prove it.

You meaning a defendant.

I can tell a cop all day long I was speeding because I have to go to the bathroom but it never works.

I didnt think the defendant had to prove anything.

He or she does after the burden is shifted.

Whoa, Kingfish. What does that mean?

"I can tell a cop all day long I was speeding because I have to go to the bathroom but it never works."

yeah, but you dont have a
$700.00 per hr lawyer making your case.

Maybe if you got a Twitter account and put the information into a 140 tweet then the numbskulls at WAPT would be able to get a clue.

The general consensus among many Jackson voters I've spoken with is the following:

Due to the direct "preferential" handling of this case - McMillan's endorsement of Crisler will put Harvey back in office.

That my friends, is the bottom line.

Are you really bashing on 16 after all the stories they've done on the Irby investigation. Get real.

Lets get this on Larry King or Nancy Grace and see what happens!

Oh yeah! Nancy Grace...Nancy Grace! Nancy will have a field day with this case.

I'll shoot the bitch if she shows up here.

Oh Kingfish! You don't mean that! She's my hero ;)

Dead serious.

And after you do, Kingfish, I'll nominate you for 'Humanitarian of the Year'!

What I find more amazing is that Grace draws enough audience to justify keeping her on the air. If people weren't tuning in she would have been gone long ago. The production costs for programs like that are also low.

WJTV just reported that the Irbys have been legally separated since January but living under the same roof.

True?

There IS no legal separation in Mississippi and the ONLY thing in the file is a petition and THAT IS IT!!!!

Nancy Grace? I just threw up a little in my mouth.

The Irbys are not separated or divorcing. Move on people!

The term "legal separation" most certainly exists in Mississippi and is used to define the date the marriage was irretrievably broken for purposes of grounds and condonation issues. There is also the term separate maintenance which deals with financial issues mostly and can be a public filing or private agreement between the parties.

Anon at 8:33-I think you're thinking of our next door state.

show me a statute or case law.

The problem with a defense based on what Karen was thinking at the time of the accident is that it requires Karen to testify. The same is problematic for many of the other defense theories presented on the blogs where no independent evidence of a seizure, car malfunction etc. exists.
Of course, good defense attorneys can slip in rather a lot in their summaries and questions if the judge isn't in control of the court room.