Jackson Jambalaya

There is a difference between the marital privilege and marital competence.

I am more sure than ever that Karen Irby is on her own to get out of the mess she created.

there is some conflict between the rule on privilege and that of competency, but the case law controls. the state can force [in theory] a married victim to testify against an offending spouse.

the real point is that the DA now has documentation that Mr. Irby doesn't "remember" what happened and isn't likely to pop in at her trial with a defense for her.

Justin just won't let it go. The point is the issue of marital status can't be used to keep the state from compelling Mr. Irby's testimony and the Court dealt rather nicely with the rule Mr. Justin likes to wave all over the place.

"marital competence"?!?

After all , this is the state with the highest rates of illegitimacy and divorce ;-)

...but what is Jusin's point now?

There is certainly an argument to be made that Stuart often worked to demonstrate his extra-marital competence. Or lack thereof.

Just noticed something sorta funny. The article on Stuart Irby not testifying has suddenly disappeared from the Clarion Ledger website. It was on the front page a hour or so ago, and now I cannot find it anywhere. The only way you can find it is to search "Stuart Irby." I wish someone else would look, but I sure can't find it.

I really do not think it has anything to do with legal maneuvering. He had a head injury that prevents him from recalling what happened that night period.
This is very very common following a traumatic head injury. He is not holding out. It has nothing to do with his current state. He SIMPLY does not know what happened plain and simple. Do your homework on post traumatic head injury with a GCS of 3. HE DOES NOT KNOW!. All of the compelling in the world cannot change that and I believe that is what Judge Green is going by..

The Ledger has it down with the local news items.....

4:08. I thought I was going nutts. I guess I was. I found the article. Many thanks.

The Kingfish is a coward. His blog is too large for him to remain anonymous. Only cowards and snipers shoot bullets from hidden positions.

Anonymous 4:37
And yet you post anonymously

4:37 Hmmmm, and your name is?

He isn't anonymous numbskull. He's never hidden his identity. Pull your head out.

4:37 Must be a friend of the Irbys and Sheriff Campaign Contribution.
Are you paid too?

Must be one of the Steadivest peeps, you know, the ones that decided to defend Robbie and George Bell last week.

4:07 What are you referring to? What did he snipe? and when?
You totally lost me on that rant of yours.. What was it that tipped your scale? Could it have been an earlier post?

Oops, I meant 4:37 not 4:07

I think you have a couple of the hating YallP and JFP liberal refugees posting here too KF.

Kingfish posts as anonymous to stir the pot. I'm sure that is what he is referring to.

Just like he's lying about someone defending George Bell. After searching that name from the comments and not finding anyone defending George Bell, much less last week, my guess is that Kingfish will now cover up another one of his lies by saying the comment was removed.

Soap Opera Kingfish.
Mississippi's own Jerry Springer.

7:01. Look. This is America. No one is making you read this blog. If you don't like it move on, and if you are being paid to read it, you must not be making enough. Just go back over to Eastover or downtown and just ask for a big raise.

7:01 you piece of trash, here ya go:

Anonymous said...

Keep what up? Keep pointing out your hypocritical standpoint of removing posts that don't fit your preconceived storyline but leaving those that contribute to the tabloid-esqe manner of your wanna-be reporting? Those such as the one you just posted yourself?

Perhaps we can refer back to your innuendo in the Bell case, or maybe all of the "rumors" you keep in the Irby case, some of which you contributed personally to.


September 7, 2009 4:33 PM

Hmmm...KF that posts reads like something from the JFP.

That post...

4:37 - what is your effin problem? If you don't like what is posted - don't read it. Simple. Go somewhere else.

Perhaps we can refer back to your innuendo in the Bell case,

is not

decided to defend Robbie and George Bell last week

Scumbag liar is what Kingfish is and doesn't even try to hide it.

Scumbag liar that posts as anonymous on his own blog because he's took chickenshit to post some of the stuff he says under his real name.

The reality is that IF Karen had been charged with something, even reckless driving, as others have been ( the medical cost excuse is nonsense as she would have still posted bond)...and IF her bond had included revoking her license and substance testing...and IF there hadn't been the PUFF piece in the CL...and IF Stuart had cooperated if only to make a formal declaration signed by that he doesn't remember or TRIED to negotiate some sort of medically approved interview ( after all, someone had to ask him about that night to know he has " retrograde amnesia" ), there wouldn't BE any public " reactions" to this story or speculations about why the justice system hasn't functioned as we've seen it function in the past.

If there hadn't been illogical excuses offerred for the events that night, no one would have to counter those excuses.

Also, some of us ARE familiar with the Glasgow Scale as we've had close friends in comas from accidents or war. Our friends were in comas lasting much longer with numbers as high as Stuart's ( one over four months)...their comas were long enough to cause atrophy that required surgery to correct later.
And, what we learned is that the Glasgow Scale has limitations. It does not predict with certainty what the long term effects WILL be. There is much about the brain that is unknown. That retrograde amnesia CAN occur does not mean that it WILL occur. It can be temporary when it does occur. The accident can be remembered but not other things from the past ie it can be spotty. My friends doctors ( and one accident was just five years ago and the MEDICAL doctors were at nationally known hospitals) couldn't predict how much damage would occur or in what ways damage might manifest or if such damage would be permanent. They prepared my friends' family for the worst and let them know the best was possible.

And, with Robbie Bell, again we witness a chain of events that is atypical, involve a disbarred lawyer and judge later charged with corruption, and so again questions are raised about the justice system.

In THIS country, citizens are suppose to be treated equally before the law. And, when that doesn't happen, one would be naive indeed not to expect a reaction.

We have not only a right, but a responsibility as citizens to understand what and why so that if we should demand changes or vote people out of office, we can act.

8:44 - What exactly did he lie about? I would certainly like to know.

Also, what's your identity? Let me guess, Robbie?

Several things worked up the public over this case.

1. Mac's failure to arrest her early on and his explanations on why he refused to do so were simply unbelievable.

2. Charles and Stuart Irby were Mac's largest donors.

3. This case took place soon after the Bell case and its pretty obvious JPD was hiding a few things after the raw police reports for the Bell case were obtained.

4. The puff piece in the Clarion-Ledger that ignored two domestic violence arrests and an alienation of affection lawsuit against Stuart Irby that he settled. Not to mention the article only posted a family pic of the Irby family online and ignored the deceased.

As Karen and Stuart were both incapacitated at the time, that means the likely suspect in the family who was coordinating everything from handling their case to picking a lawyer to dealing with law enforcement to keeping the Caring Bridge website open to the public when there was a private option for true friends and family was probably Charles Irby.

Dear 8:44 (and 7:01), insinuating that there was "innuendo" in the Bell case sure sounded like defending. I know that's how I took it when I read it originally.
And 'chickenshit'..? I don't see your average guy going up against the town wealthy, crazy, and sleazy(Steadivest) like he does. And if you don't know who he is and think tries very hard to hide it you haven't been paying attention. Even if he chooses to stay mostly anonymous for entertainment sake, so the f what. Why don't you go bless out Ann Landers. Hey you do know that's not her real name, right? What an evil bitch.

And this thread's about Irby testimony. Not your hissy fit platform. So stay on topic, Mr/Ms CHICKENSHIT "anonymous". (My personal email's in my link if you'd like to follow up.)

Yes,KF and the only medical information unsealed aside from the report by Dr. Evans is from what Charles wrote on Caring Bridge.

The public is asked to assume 1) Charles well understood what the doctors said to him and was thus accurate in his reporting 2) that he was not selective in providing information 3) the information wasn't reviewed by attorneys in advance( this would be responsible under the circumstances to me) and/or 4) Charles had no motivation or rationalization ( consciously or subconsciously) for posting other than to inform (it would be quite human to want to protect his family members).

So the public is asked to assume ( by McMillin,lawyers,the CL as well)quite alot that flies in the face of their personal knowledge or experience or expectations. Never works out well for those seeking such assumptions.

Sorta like the husband caught by his wife bedding his mistress saying, " Who you gonna believe? me or your lying eyes?"

I have heard that Stuart does remember just doesn't recall as fast as HE would like.

I still want to know what happened before the wreck or even a few days before.

Let's not forget the Belhaven conversation. He does recall and does have memories. Wonder if he remembers why he was wanting a divorce???? Things can't be rosy at home...crazy before.....crazier now?

things are better at home than one might imagine. the pre-wreck plans seem to be different from the post-wreck plans.

4:48pm

I also heard that they were very happy at home and that he was being very good to her.

Eliminating the anonymous posting option would do wonders for this place.

Gee wouldn't that be fine. Then Kingfish could morph into an asshole like Ladd and Lange.

I'm trying to catch up on the Irby story. Some recent posts and comments on Jackson Jambalaya have suggested at least three interesting ideas: (1) that Stuart Irby may having been driving the car himself--and "under the influence"--when he and his wife Karen first left the Country Club, (2) that the police stopped Stuart because of his condition but didn't charge him with DUI, and (3) that Karen was then asked to drive so she got behind the wheel. Is there anybody who reads this web site that can attest to any of those ideas being fact as opposed to speculation? I mean, is there anyone who actually personally witnessed any of those things? Or is there at least anyone who is reasonably certain that one or more of those ideas are true because they heard about them directly from eye witnesses (or ear witnesses) to them? Or are those ideas just speculation at this point based on the fact that the law firm for the victims' families subpoenaed all the police communications records for the several hours around the time of the accident? If the latter is true, couldn't there be some other explanation why the lawyers wanted the police communications records? I'm just wanting to know what exactly is known to be fact at this point and what is still just speculation. Thanks.

10:54. I have only read what you read, but the speculation that Stuart was driving when they left the CCJ came out awhile back and a long time before anyone knew the lawyers for the family wanted the police communication records. You have to think either the security cameras at the CCJ or witness saw them leave so someone knows the truth.

I'm just wanting to know what exactly is known to be fact at this point and what is still just speculation.

Here is what I suggest. Go back to the very beginning and read ALL of the Jackson Jambalaya coverage of this tragic accident. Then draw your own conclusions.

10:54 there were early reports of a witness at the Time Out sports bar on Old Canton Rd ( a block or so from the Old Canton entrance to the CCJ neighborhood} who reported seeing a car that fit the description of the Irby car pulled over by JPD at that location.

I'm not very good at distances and I've not measured, but my guess is the sports bar is a little less than a third of the way from the parking lot of CCJ to the accident scene.

Another ( different) witness saw a police car turn off of Old Canton Rd a long block or so further toward the scene.

I'm unclear whether it is the second witness who also saw the Irby car driving at high speed or yet a third witness.

Those eye witness accounts were reported and JPD denied them as accurate. If memory serves, they acknowledge the police car turning off onto Atkins Blvd (I believe it was..street names aren't my strong point either), but said it was unrelated to the Irby accident.

Another thing that gives this speculation some legs is the common knowledge that there is almost always a police car in evidence in the parking lot of CCJ. This has been a practice for quite some time after a rash of cars parked there were robbed of contents. So, that a police officer would have suspected the driver of the Irby car might be impaired and followed that car to ascertain the condition of the driver and that the distance to the sports bar would be sufficient to make that assessment, and then pull off to another call, is not a scenario that seems far fetched.

It becomes a matter of reconciling eye witness reports with events when the JPD denial was less than specific. If Precinct 4 JPD logs for that night have been made available to the press, I am unaware of that, but that would quickly dispell rumors about the activities of officers in that area that night.

I do not know if the sports bar witness saw the Irby car stopped, a similar car ( police logs would be helpful there) or is not credible for some reason.

The second witness' testimony has not been disputed nor has witness of the car speeding.

Whether this is mere " speculation", conspiratorial thinking, or citizen concern for justice based on insufficiently explained facts and distrust of JPD is for you to decide.

As for me, I don't think it's significant other than to illustrate a decision often made by police officers in this instance was a very bad decision with a tragic conclusion...IF the Irbys were stopped.

Those eye witness accounts were reported and JPD denied them as accurate.

If you'll recall, JPD not only denied these various accounts but did so vigorously and quite quickly after the accident. The sheer reflexivity was that of an organization with something to hide.

10:59 your reaction is understandable.

I never personally heard ( could have missed) the rejection of the reported sports bar witness' observations or that no such witness had come forward and that the reporter was unable substantiate the report made.

I did hear what was an acknowledgement of a JPD vehicle in the vicinity and that the police vehicle was turning off Old Canton to respond to another call .That was made rather quickly.

It would have been better if JPD's spokesperson had said, " We interviewed the witness and found his description didn't match that of the Irby car" or "the time frame was not consistent with that of the accident" or " the witness couldn't provide enough detail as to be useful in a criminal investigation ."

Nor did they say " We have established from our logs and the evidence available that the officer turning off could not have seen or been seen by Mrs. Irby" or "We can't confirm from our logs that Mrs Irby could have seen the officer and the officer reports that he did not see or notice the Irby vehicle" .

A bit of time and a little specificity would have helped the public feel that the witnesses' statements were taken seriously and investigated rather than dismissed out of hand.

However, I suspect it's likely this has to do with a lack skills and training in how to effectively inform the public and media without endangering an investigation.

BUT, since I have no idea when JPD got the CCJ video which, with the 911 call, would be important in establishing a time line, I can't know if witnesses matter or not.

I've thought from the beginning that a timeline will be very important evidence to both the prosecution and defense...especially with the claim of a seizure lurking out there. So...

Out of curiosity, I've timed the distance from CCJ's parking lot to the seen of the accident( a frequent trip for me) a couple of times. Both times( afternoons so hardly definitive), there has been traffic and once I had little to no stop light time . I kept the speed limit both times.My clock was just the ordinary car digital so where I started and ended in the minute is unknown to me. Also, the stop light was already red on one trip and I can't know if it just changed or not.

I point out those things to admit up front that this was hardly good scientific testing but rather " ball park".

The times were 7 and 10 minutes . That is a rather small time frame even with the certainty it could take longer or more likely , less time depending on traffic, stop lights and speed.

If the Irby car was stopped by JPD, that would be a much longer time frame so it seems to me, that would be rather easy to establish.

If there was a seizure, the time line would speak to the onset and length of time since the speed at impact is established.

The ability of the Mercedes to go from 0-100 is known. The distance is known. The timing of the stop lights is known. The speed limit is known. The time the Irbys exit the parking lot should be known. The time of impact should be known...all within a very few minutes or seconds. The math shouldn't be that difficult for a good mathematician to establish a range and that range will be small.

So, both the prosecution and defense will have to be prepared for their theories of events to fit the timeline math.

If the prosecution can't explain the timeline, they give the defense an advantage as the defense have theory room. If the timeline is short , say 3 minutes, the defense has a big problem to overcome.

However, I suspect it's likely this has to do with a lack skills and training in how to effectively inform the public and media without endangering an investigation.

You are naive.

That was one of the most insightful comments I have seen in a while. I would add, at what point did she start to accelerate to and reach ~100 mph. That actually will condense the timeline from a spatial standpoint - there is only so much space between CCJ and the place of the wreck, this would further condense the timeline as well.

From CCJ to Chatham Lane = 3.24 miles = 17,101 feet(Google)
- assumes average speed from A to B
- assumes average calculation takes into account lights (not scientific)

@ 25 average MPH 7.77 minutes
@ 45 average MPH 4.32 minutes
@ 60 average MPH 3.24 minutes
@ 75 average MPH 2.60 minutes

From Time Out to Chatham Lane = 2.2 miles = 11,616 feet

@90 MPH 1.47 minutes
@100 MPH 1.32 minutes

From Colonial CC to Chatham Lane = 1.3 miles = 6,864 feet

@90 MPH .86 minutes
@100 MPH .78 minutes

Finally, has anyone noticed the repaving of Old Canton Rd. recently???

Friends of mine who own Mercedes have also told me in that car it is real easy to go fast without realizing it as the ride is vewy vewy smoove.

What was make and model of car? Need it for further calculations.

Just drove the distance btw jcc and place of wreck a few times and get 4:39 average with lights, traffic

also noticed camera at each exit of JCC

And the speed was accelarate as fast as possible and maintain 45 mph every time

The repaving is just south of Colonial Circle and ends just around Heatherwood...

A bit strange as the entire road is a roller coaster.

Many thanks to those who have posted various info after my comment on Friday the 11th at 10:54 p.m. I didn't know all that info about the other witnesses. I had previously heard there were one or two witnesses who saw the car speeding down Old Canton, but I hadn't heard (or at least hadn't noticed) the info about the witness at the Time Out sports bar who reporting seeing a car of that description that had been pulled over by JPD on Old Canton.

I only discovered this Jackson Jambalaya web site this summer, and once I did I began to go back and read the earlier Irby stories even as I was reading the new ones, but I haven't had a chance to read everything yet. According to my count, "Kingfish" has posted over thirty "entries" on the Irby story and each one of them has had numerous comments, so it's been a little daunting trying to catch up. I'm working on it though. Keep the facts coming in. Thanks again.

and what 12:30 pm is your interest?

Since you don't want to answer you sound like a paralegal at best, 3L if you are just curious. Who counts entries, posts, etc. It's easy math. Share something if you are going to suck up to us.

To 12:55 PM & 4:39 PM

Sorry I couldn't reply as quickly as you might have liked. I met both Stuart and his first wife separately some years ago, but have never met Karen, and am not a personal friend of any of these people. I just would like to know what actually happened in this situation. I want whoever was at fault, in whatever ways, to be held appropriately accountable. I counted the number of entries/posts just to make the point that there is a lot of material about the Irby situation on this web site for someone to read who didn't learn about this web site until four or five months after the accident happened. I'm not a member of one of the victims' families, but I imagine that someone like that could have written the same kind of comment I wrote. I was not "sucking up"; I was genuinely thanking the individuals that provided the helpful information.

10:12 if trying to hope for the best while accepting the worst or that assuming not everyone who holds a job is suited for it is naive, then I plead guilty.

11:07 thanks for the information!
I had no idea traffic ( I was at high traffic times) and stop lights could slow one down quite so much as I made an effort to travel the speed limit. Though, I expect I may have averaged a bit slower within the CCJ neighborhood than that is posted.

KF, a Mercedes is a smooth ride and on the interstate, one can be going faster than one realizes.

I have not found that the case in start and stop in town driving.

I was told my someone I consider knowledgeable that the difference in road conditions and the proximity of structures closer to the road is the reason. They said with tongue in cheek, " you'd notice the blur more in town"

Everyone should be aware of their speed at all times, especially if they have been drinking!
It doesn't and shouldn't matter what kind of car is being driven...

A full size Mercedes top of the line sedan can go from 0 to 100 in 15 seconds. At 100 mph you travel 148 feet in one second. At 40 mph , you travel 49 ft per second.

One has to also account for moving through 3 lanes widths with a 10' average width and add feet for the angle.

IF there were a seizure on one side involving the stiffening, jerking of the right arm and leg ( the needed scenario), it appears one would have to have been exceeding the speed limit prior to the seizure onset.

Fish, did you see this verdict in Rankin County?

http://www.mslitigationreview.com/2009/09/articles/33-million-rankin-county-verdict-setoff-by-612500/

Damn. No I didn't. Am reading it now.