Jackson Jambalaya

"I have no recollection"....

thanks Hillary

LOL

I like the new Order...Judge Green goes into more detail in exactly what she means this go around.

This Order is not really that bad for the defense.

Under the terms of the Order, Stuart could simply show up, but decline to answer any questions. The Order even gives him the right to end the interview "at any time he no longer desires to continue the interview."

That part of the Order is a perfect interpretation of the law, in my opinion.

The only question now is whether he will be smart and keep his mouth shut.

Actually, he doesn't even have to show up if I'm not mistaken....just turn in his doctor's excuse by August 29th?

correction...August 31st.

Hmmmm

Isn't the judge backing off some on needing to review motions and filing in advance? Hasn't she rules more specifically now in that regard?

What are the odds during trial that the prosecution will have no choice but to treat Stuart as a hostile witness? I just don't see him talking or cooperating.

you think he'll blame it all on "a vast, right-wing conspiracy"?

Took it down as it was unsubstantiated rumor.

Curt,

Where does the law state that? You wouldn't know the ;aw if it came up and bit you in the butt.

Please give me a cite or statute or rule?

Oh...my guess is Stuart will be on far too many meds that day to risk him saying the wrong thing.

The DA might ought to have some investigators follow Stuart around and interview some of the folks with whom he's interacted over the last few months. I'll bet he's been to the bank and had a haircut for starters. Wonder how those folks " found " him to be?

Kingfish take a look. WAPT ripped off your work without attribution.

So even with 15 minutes of time, unless they waterboard him, he can just sit there and stare mutely at them? Or the table. Until his attorney, or he, or his physician say it's over? So what's the point?

Does this mean that UMC and his private MD must turn over the original medical record or just a copy?

All right you two shysters, you know why those two comments got deleted.

Keep it up and we will have a Thunderdome.

What difference does it make if UMC provides a copy or the original chart? What about the electronic medical record? All of them should contain identical notes, results and reports.

Legal eagles...I am puzzled as to why Stuart is non-cooperative with the investigation if his role is only that of victim...especially given the documented marital strife.

IF there was a pre-nup and the pre-marital assets were legally protected( as one would expect) are Stuart's pre-marital assets still at risk in a wrongful death civil suit? Is that a legal exception in a suit against Karen?

Or did assets accumulated during the marriage increase in a significant way so as to be a motivation?

Also, I know it's rather common practice as one can see in a MS Supreme Court decision mentioned in this case, for a spouse that owns a business to have all properties such as homes,vehicles of transportation, etc purchased by and owned by the business during a marriage. Therefore that spouse can avoid those assets being considered as marital property if there is a divorce and the business existed before the marriage. Anyone done a property search?

Is Stuart at financial " risk" if he simply tells the truth of what he remembers? Is that what is going on here?

If there is no financial motivation, then one must look to other reasons.

I am puzzled as to why Stuart is non-cooperative with the investigation if his role is only that of victim

Sheriff Campaign Contribution knows why.

come on- stop baiting us!

Not baiting. KF won't allow it to be said and the damn media in this town is asleep at the wheel. OR they don't want to investigate what they know because they are scared of Sheriff Campaign Contribution.

Put your thinking caps on and ponder these lyrics:

Let's start at the very beginning
A very good place to start
When you read you begin with ABC
When you sing you begin with do re mi

Very good reasons why I keep taking them down. One is the lawyers and goons retained by the family are monitoring websites and I don't want to give them any excuse to sue. I wouldn't put it past them to plant outrageous comments than take action on them.

Another reason is there is no evidence or proof nor have I heard even any rumor so it keeps coming down. If you really wanted to get it out so bad you can always email me, which you haven't done.

It isn't rumor. I'm sure you've heard it and if you have you know it is explosive. Understand why you are and why you must be cautious. The Irby goon squad knows what it is. (Hi Irby goon squad!) It will come out at Karen's trial if she doesn't cut a plea deal first. Stuart is non-cooperative for many reasons and this is a HUGE one. Right Sheriff? Will Karen be pressured to cut a deal to keep this out of the news? Which among our local media will have the courage to put in the effort and report it? You did wrong Karen but you need to protect yourself FIRST AND FOREMOST. The clue is in the lyrics.

Anon @ 9:08am: While I can't speak for Stuart's motivation to not cooperate with investigators, I can tell you that if the Government was trying to send a member of my family to prison for life, I'll be damned if I'd voluntarily help them do it.

Who knows, he may actually still love her, or simply not want to have to explain to the kids why he helped put Mommy in prison.

We may never know his reasons for not talking. It could be financial, as you suggested, or it could be love. Both seem to be powerful motivators.

I don't know if any of you caught this when you read the order issued by Judge Green, but the following appears on page two as footnote 2:

"It should be noted that Defense attorney for Karen Irby admits HE HAS HAD CONVERSATION WITH STUART IRBY, but denies that the conversion involved issues surrounding the criminal matter."

If Stuart Irby can't talk to the DA, how did he have a conversion with Joe Holloman? To me this is very telling as to Stuart's ability to be interviewed by the DA. It doesn't mean he can remember the events of night of the wreck, but it certainly means he's not as bad as his lawyer would like everyone to believe.

Finally, too many people know what happened before the wreck, and it's NO rumor. It is just a matter of time before it's everyone knows. There no way it can be kept quiet. No way.

If this goes to trial I wouldn't be surprised if there was a sudden retirement somewhere in Hinds County.

oh well, guess I will have to wait for the "breaking news." Not very good at this ABC, do re mi thing!
Stuart isn't a switch hitter is he? Sheriff? are U?

Curt,

Again you make baseless assertions. This is not a car wreck case but a serious murder prosecution. Please think before typing.

Anon@1:34pm:

The 9:08 comment referenced a possible financial motive for Stuart refusing to cooperate. I was simply suggesting a possible alternative motive as to why he did not wish to talk to investigators.

As I said before, we may never know why he isn't talking, and we're all reall just speculating here.

About the lyric clue.. I'm pretty sure I know the "rumor", but not sure it's that obvious in the lyric thing. The 10:34 comment, however, has lotsa gems. Anyhow, that info needs to come out already. (MEDIA, 4 words; in. vest. i. gate.) Have thought from the beginning, if 'it' could be proven, it CERTAINLY changes things.

But I understand why we shouldn't say anything. Just in case it's not true. (cough)

It's not obvious in the lyrics to me and I thought I was pretty up on the grapevine .

Can we drop more hints like " CCJ related", " automobile related", "prior contact with important persons" related ?

3:56 Looks like your cup has runneth over with hints. And you sound like a mole.

4:19 I wouldn't be the person to ask. Just reading between some lines. And my sources could be way off for all I know. I just think there's something deeper..

3:56 If we could find out if it relates to the eye witness from the sports bar on Old Canton Rd, that would be helpful. Would anyone like to help us out?

I live in Florida, but I have followed the Irby event since the beginning. I'm going to pee in my pants if a Jacksonian doesn't tell all soon. C'mon dudes, gimme sompin.

3:56 know about what would likely be on the video deposition( surprised it took this long for that name to surface) and CCJ video and still can't think why that would necessarily keep Stuart from cooperating. Lots of folks at CCJ that night so that stuff's on the grapevine.

IF it's what I think it is, it'd be a risky game to play.

Some might do well to remember those who commit perjury in a cover up can fare worse than those who commit the crime. And, anyone who would ask you to put yourself at risk that way doesn't give a rat's behind about what happens to you...only themselves. You are DONE once the jail cell door clangs...you're just another con with no credibility and no friends and promises no longer have to be kept.

A black car pulled over by JPD and the officer talking to a man.

the other day I was watching some kids play that guessing game. you know, where you would say YOU'RE GETTING WARMER. cute kids.

but I digress..

9:10 IF that account is accurate and it was the Irbys instead of another black car, then either the officer agreed to let Karen drive with a warning issued or else everyone at the accident scene is complicit in hiding the fact Stuart was driving. I can't believe the latter would be true.

Also, there are the CCJ tapes. IF Stuart initially got behind the wheel, that'd be obvious and not something one could hide.

One could argue that an officer should arrest every drunk driver on the spot, but as has been mentioned here,simple DUIs( no recklessness or accident involved) get off all the time and this would be a case of officer discretion having an unpredictable but tragic result. Indeed, it's been documented here that Karen got off with a slap on the wrist for a DUI in Rankin county.

While I would prefer ALL drivers suspected of driving drunk be arrested to create a record of offenses if nothing else, I can't get too worked up about an officer deciding that an arrest would be a Don Quixote waste of time better spent another way. And, I could understand that letting the wife drive if she says she's ok and is not obviously enebriated, would SEEM a low risk decision.

This would be a worthwhile discussion about JPD policy if it were the case, but I don't see any "smoking guns" here.

MIGHT, I suppose, make JPD liable in a civil case IF the policy doesn't allow for officer discretion or it could be shown the officer should have known the wife was not ok to drive.

So whatever the " hints" are about, I don't think this is it.

Let's try this...hypothetically...

Two people are in a car when an accident occurs. Either both remember what happens or else only one does.

If only one remembers they can tell the other what caused the accident.

What they tell can either be accurate and true or not. The one hearing wouldn't know.

The one hearing the cause may not like the explanation.

Or, if the one recieving the information does actually remember ( immediately or later), they might not like the version told.

And, the person with the story to tell tells two others while the second person in the accident is recovering...neither of those told can be certain the tale is true but have concerns if it is.

The one who remembers is persuaded that the true version is not helpful to anyone OR is delighted that the false version is believed.

When trial comes around, reasonable doubt is created because each of the people in the accident have a different version of what occurred that makes the other look at fault. The jury is left wondering who IS at fault or so it is hoped.

How's that KF?

wow- yes- let's suppose Stuart was driving- gets pulled over- obviously drunk- pulls the "I'm Mr Campaign Contributor"- so you better let us go home- Sure Mr. Money Bags- but let's be on the safe side- ha ha- and let the Mrs drive!!!!

3:01 So Karen Irby told the McCartys (husband and wife) "her version" of what happened while Stuart was still in a coma. Now that the DA has her version from the McCartys depositions, they are trying to get Stuart's version. Warm or cold?

Cold...I'd be surprised if the McCartys have anything to say about anything that happened once the Irbys left CCJ.

I have thought from the beginning that they were pulled over by JPD, as originally reported. He was driving when pulled over, they switched, and the officer told her to drive him home and she was mad as a hornet. If that is the case, JPD would also be at fault for the accident.

Based on her left side injuries, I am sure she was driving at the time of the accident.

I have always thought the Irbys were fighting in their car that night on Old Canton Road, and I mean physically fighting. Nothing else I can think of would cause her to lose complete control of her car and cross two lanes without even trying to brake. Maybe he even grabbed the steering wheel.

10:12 Crossing two or three lanes...in the sketches , it looks like three... at the angle drawn without braking has always, to my mind, been the most damning evidence released to the public.

I would wish the court to be certain that Stuart's best interests are being protected and he isn't in the hands of those who have their own agendas that could be in conflict.

IF the accident scene investigators got that right, then your explanation or a murder/suicide attempt are about the only explanations that make much sense. Those of us who have seen seizures find that explanation a very hard sell. And, is hard to imagine that simply passing out at the wheel would result in that angle either.

You'd have to be able to recreate a set of physically possible movements typical in seizures that would result in first, a dramatic increase in speed and secondly that angle of motion for the car by someone of Karen's size and strength all without warning signs. This part is all about science.

Nor could Stuart be involved in decision making from the moment of impact until he wakes up ( or sometime thereafter).

If he doesn't remember , then his attorney only has two sources of information about what happened...the investigation which seems to have decided Stuart is a victim , in which case his failure to cooperate is puzzling to some of us. Or, his attorney has information from the only other person who would know but whose interests COULD be in conflict and therefore MIGHT not be a reliable source.

If Stuart doesn't remember and is not competent to testify then it is troubling as one must then wonder who is making decisions on Stuart's behalf. Who legally has standing to do that so his interests are protected? If he is competent, if he is well enough to travel, dine out,take care of ordinary tasks, this strategy doesn't paint Stuart in a sympathetic light but makes him appear to have something to hide or a selfish agenda...also,puzzling.

But,none of this has anything to do with the Sheriff and the " hints". An officer stopping the car in advance just isn't that "explosive".

Well if it's not being stopped on the way home, is it something that happened that evening at CCJ? Warm or cold?

Ok, EVERYONE GET THIS STRAIGHT:

THE IRBY HOUSE IS NOT FOR SALE!!!!

Some idiot went to the CL website and posted some garbage about it being for sale and the dumbass even posted the MLS number. Problem is it was for a DIFFERENT HOUSE!!! So keep the garbage over at the CL. Its fitting for them.

just curious, why did the 3:56 post get erased?

Page 3 of the order.