Jackson Jambalaya

However, one must wonder why Mr. Irby is fighting so hard to avoid talking to the District Attorney and if he is trying to keep any information regarding his own conduct (or his wife's) from the prosecution.

Sheriff Campaign Contribution is breathing a small sigh of relief. Irby wouldn't have answered the questions but the questions themselves would have opened the worm can for all to see. Regardless, it will all come out soon enough.

No one is really surprised that Stuart is not going to sit for a fifteen minute interview with the DA, but no one really believes he is unable to do so. His friends say he has traveled out of state, attended social events, and even made jokes about traveling from his home on a bike to River Hills, he can most certainly sit down on a sofa in his own home and speak with the DA for fifteen minutes. What a joke. He is definitely avoiding the interview because he is hiding something. No doubt whatsoever.

Let's just talk about a practical concern here for one second. Mr. Irby would be unable to testify against his wife unless they both waived the spousal competency issue. That ain't gonna happen.

Miss R. Evid 601 provides:

RULE 601. GENERAL RULE OF COMPETENCY
Every person is competent to be a witness except as restricted by the following:
(a) In all instances where one spouse is a party litigant the other spouse shall not be
competent as a witness without the consent of both, except as provided in Rule 601(a)(1) or
Rule 601(a)(2):
(1) Husbands and wives may be introduced by each other in all cases, civil or
criminal, and shall be competent witnesses in their own behalf, as against each other,
in all controversies between them;
(2) Either spouse is a competent witness and may be compelled to testify against
the other in any criminal prosecution of either husband or wife for a criminal act against
any child, for contributing to the neglect or delinquency of a child, or desertion or
nonsupport of children under the age of sixteen (16) years, or abandonment of children.

Furthermore, it's reasonable to assume that ANY statement Mr. Irby would give out of Court, the State would intend to use as evidence against her in her trial. There's no way that would happen under the Fifth Amendment of the United States.

Crawford v. Washington (written by Justice Scalia) says that any out of court statement which is testimonial in nature (i.e. likely to be used in criminal proceedings) cannot be used in court unless the accused has had a right to cross-examine the person giving the statement.

Because of 601, Mr. Irby's never getting on the stand, therefore, there will be no chance to cross-examine; therefore, all this hullaballoo about whether he was giving a statement or not means nothing.

Justin, I'm not lawyer but even I know from reading about this case that there is no marital privilege when a spouse is a victim of the other. Mr. Irby is a victim of Mrs. Irby. Isn't she the one that caused his serious injuries? Yes.

Nope nope. It says "party litigant." The parties are the State of Mississippi and Karen Irby.

Crawford v. Washington actually had a similar fact pattern:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-9410.ZO.html

Well, well,well...

Big risk taking here...too many people not bound by confidentiality know too much.

Probably won't make it to the media but will come back to bite some folks LONG after this is over.

WOW

As the old saying goes " when you lay down with dogs, you get fleas"...just ask Bobby DeLaughter.

And, if Stuart is so impaired SOMEONE needs to get guardianship, right?

I just saw WAPT's 6 p.m. edition of the "retrograde amnesia" story about Stuart Irby, and WAPT spoke to DA Robert Smith. As I recall, Smith said that they know now that Stuart Irby won't be able to testify to anything. I got the impression from the way Smith was acting that that was what the DA's office was trying to accomplish all along.

Boy, if the notion is true that Stuart was driving the car when it first left the Jackson Country Club, and that the police stopped him and asked Karen to drive, it would sure explain why Stuart is so reluctant to "remember" anything, especially when the Irby family has contributed so much to McMillan's campaigns. (By the way, is the Sheriff's name spelled McMillan or McMillin? I thought it was McMillan, but you use McMillin or Mcmillin.)

I would like to know, was Sheriff McMillan operating as the police chief for the JPD when the wreck happened? If Stuart was initially driving the car when he and Karen left the Jackson Country Club, and if the police then stopped Stuart on the suspicion that he was driving drunk, would McMillan have been contacted by the JPD and asked if it was okay to let Karen get behind the wheel if she didn't seem to be drunk? We do know that Karen was driving the car by the time the accident happened. If the police had stopped Stuart before Karen started driving, would Karen have been furious about that? Would that at least partially explain why she was driving so fast?

So is he avoiding the interview because he doesn't want to have to expose the JPD under you-know-who's leadership by telling that he was driving, got stopped, Karen got in the driver's seat and BAM!

Wow, great minds think alike 6:50. It's in the air. Now how can it get admitted in court?

6:54: Maybe the prosecutor can "help" the defense by pointing out Karen Irby couldn't have been driving, then putting on several CCJ witnesses who can say they drove off with the husband behind the wheel.

Does anyone know if this is a Jackson psychologist who is helping to prevent justice in the case of the deaths of two physicians? Does this psychologist understand where future business will no longer come from?

Let's hope the Farese Law Firm (or at least their investigator on this case--last I heard it was Terry Cox) can get hold of the police communication records. I see from Kingfish's August 17th story "JPD: Serving and Protecting or Just Protecting the Defense?" that the Farese firm tried to subpoena certain JPD communications documents from the night in question, but that the City of Jackson filed a motion to quash that subpoena. What is the status of that motion? Did the Farese firm ever get any of that information, even under seal?

Let's also hope the Farese firm is monitoring this blog.

6:50. So you are saying they've just iced Stuart? Shrewd if correct.

If JPD pulled over one drunk and allowed the other drunk in the vehicle to continue the trip behind the wheel is the City of Jackson liable for the results?

If the officer failed to conduct a sobriety check on the other drunk then that sounds like a major problem considering what transpired minutes afterward.

Didn't McMillin endorse Faye Peterson when she ran against Smith?

BREAKING: Sheriff McMillin Endorses D.A. Faye Peterson

by Adam Lynch
Aug. 21, 2007

Hinds County Sheriff Malcolm McMillin endorsed Hinds County District Attorney Faye Peterson over Democratic challenger Robert Smith this morning. McMillin announced his endorsement to the Jackson Free Press, saying he opposes Smith because of an alignment with Jackson Mayor Frank Melton, and opposed “Melton’s attempt to expand his sphere of influence to county offices.”

So...what is really going on here? Why would a mere witness/victim be so reluctant to say "anything." Poor Karen. All of this is so sad for the real victims in this case. No one is left to speak for them. I wonder if the victim's families will move for a special prosecutor; or will $$$ take care of that too?

Wow, someone credited wapt for it's story and Kingfish didn't throw up a WLBT defense? I'm speechless, almost.

Karen, please get your own independent counsel ASAP.

6:50, 7:26 here. My impression of DA Robert Smith from WAPT's 6 p.m. report was just that Smith seemed glad to know now what to expect from Stuart Irby--that Stuart is going to be saying he has "retrograde amnesia." I don't know that the DA doesn't want Irby to testify; I just think the DA wanted to know what to expect from Stuart and to see what kind of reason Stuart was going to come up with for not testifying. So, I don't know whether or not the DA was actually wanting to "ice" Stuart's testimony, if by "ice" you mean to stop Stuart from testifying. But there certainly may be other people who do want to "ice" Stuart's testimony, especially if Stuart might ever suddenly become inclined to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Well, how let's think a minute. I think the defense that Karen had a seizure just before the wreck just went out the window. There's no one now to say they saw her having one.

Also, can't the DA use what the doctors said about Stuart's health to prove their case against her for what she did to him?

I like WAPT fine and give them credit all the time. I watch them and WLBT, rarely JTV and Fox40. WAPT has done a good job on this whole story. WAPT broke the first few stories on this case and WLBT had a good run on the last few.

6:50 McMillin was still head of JPD at the time of the accident.

7:10 Dr.Evans works at Methodist Rehab and is well educated, well qualified. She also is young enough to be Stuart's child and I fear she may not know what she's gotten herself into. She can't know what she doesn't know.

She's only been out of school about 8 years...not nearly enough time to become sufficiently jaded for this one or to appreciate how politics of no interest to her now and the agendas of others can affect her life for years to come.

It's too bad, really.

The other Doctor with Dr. Evan's qualifications at Methodist Rehab is Stuart's cousin. I have been told that he has not been allowed to treat him however.

Dr. Evan's from Methodist Rehab is the one that provided the Dr's excuse for Stuart?

I didn't report it at the time but in the hearing, Mr. Irby's lawyer said it would be Clea Evans.

What Green should've done was followed Judge Jordan's example and consulted with an independent medical doctor and determined Mr. Irby's true condition.

I think there is a footnote dealing with the medical records

"Objective, independent medical review by a physician practicing in the field of neurological and severe brain trauma/injury informs the Court that the statements of Stuart Irby's medical providers appear sound, competent and credible.

However, acts or actions by Irby which are inconsistent with the medical assessments or which signal obvious improvement in his condition may cause the Court to revisit this issue."

Ah. got it. Let me look again. Missed that. My fault.

Well, well, well, someone has been googling Jackson Jambalaya at Miss Meth Rehab Center this morning.

I just wonder who that could be.

Could the cousin be influencing his co-worker?

I don't think that she could get away with Stuart grabbing the steering wheel thing. There were no skid marks and there would be some kind of mark unless she just let go of the wheel and didn't press the break at all.

Quick - delete 9-9-09 @ 11:48pm!!!!

signed,
thursday august 13, 2009 @ 3:56p.m.

I have a really stupid question. Does having a phd make you a physician? If not, then wouldn't the language in 11:48's post negate the 'physician' opinion?

I don't think there is any irregularity to this order. That S.Irby suffered significant brain injury .... coma....intensive care
makes it 100% reasonable that his ability to remember is compromised.

Nothing irregular to the order and not claiming it is. Wasn't surprised at all by the order.

Took that post down because the last paragraph went a little too far. Rest of comment was pretty good actually and would love to see the rest of it reposted.

I am more and more convinced Karen Irby is on her own to get out of this. I don't believe the Irbys care if she gets locked up or not. It might be their only way to get rid of her. As guilty as I think she is, she really needs as someone keeps saying to get her own independent lawyer now.

OK, KF...how's this...

That Stuart cannot/will not testify that Karen had a seizure is, in my opinion, a good point.

Medical testimony that a seizure might have occurred isn't enough. Karen would have to testify that she had a seizure.

Of course, the prosecuter has always had only to ask any doctor testifying a seizure is POSSIBLE years after a not uncommon childhood injury , " Doctor, isn't it true that alcohol consumption can trigger seizures and had the defendent not consumed alcohol above the legal limit, the seizure you suggest could have happened, might not have happened? In other words, no alcohol, no seizure ?"

If the prosecution keeps with a KISS strategy...the alcohol, the speed, the angle and the horrible nature of the deaths and prior DUI...the jury will not get distracted by defense red herrings.

Would all of you conspiracy theorist please goole TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY with a GLASCOW COMA SCALE OF 3 and then you will know what this is about.... HE DOES NOT KNOW and will probably never know.
He can be riding his bike, going out of state and all of the other things mentioned and that does not take away from the fact that he had a GCS of 3... He has nothing to say about that night except I CANNOT REMEMBER. Obviously the medical statement which would logically come from a PHD psychologist that treats brain injuries says that...
No conspiracy just fact...

Then he should go on record and say "I don't remember." The fact he won't agree to give a statement to the D.A. when he is obviously capable of holding a 15 minute conversation suggests "I don't remember" is NOT the extent of what he knows. Perhaps he is wise to avoid a purjury trap . . .

7:47pm. I agree. He could hold a 15 minute conversation, but he simply doesn't for some reason want to go on record with any response.

Secondly, since his mental health is not good, wonder if someone has been appointed to help with his legal and financial affairs? Surely, this would be necessary if what the doctor says is true about Stuart's mental condition.

6:46 apparently it is you who do not understand the Glasgow Scale.
It is a GUIDE. There are factors such as metabolism, alcohol or drug use, that can affect the reliability of the scale.

It is used WHILE THE PERSON IS IN THE COMA to judge the severity of the COMA .

The lasting effects of the coma are not predicted with certainty by the Glasgow scale. Some with high numbers have recovered with only minor coordination problems and others with low numbers have had long lasting , life altering changes such as to their personality or loss of a key ability to perform certain tasks.

There is much about the brain and nervous system that remains unknown.

Whether or not memory, personality, and intelligence has been affected is in large part determined by the patient's by any pre-existing testing and reports by the patient, their family and their friends of what the patient was like prior to the accident.

For example, if a patient was inappropriately emotional before the coma and the doctor observes that sort of reaction afterwards, the doctor can't know if the reaction is from brain trauma or a pre-existing personality or hormone disorder.

Retrograde amnesia about the event leading to a trauma is not uncommon. Indeed, there is a well publicized case here in Jackson in which the NYPD wanted to know how the victim became injured but the victim has no memory as yet. There is no indication that NYPD feels frustrated by her level of cooperation or that lawyers were needed to protect her from authorities.

Perhaps there is a medical basis for the people at Methodist Rehab to believe she would not be harmed in the asking,and Stuart would, but it doesn't appear that the existence of retrograde amnesia ONLY is that basis.

"Moreover these treating physicians advise the Court Mr. Irby's involuntary participation in even a simple interview at this time would likely "worsen" his condition, would setback his brain injury recovery, and "cause harm" to their patient."

Doctor has spoken.

PhD has spoken but the answer probably lies in " along with other cognitive, psychological and emotional maladies".

Let's just not pretend that the brain trauma is the sole basis of the opinion or as one suggested, that the Glasgow scale is definitive.

Nor should KF be attacked for affording the opportunity to sort fact from fiction...whether it's what the law says or what medical findings mean or how the history of events is presented.

I was told that Stuart told several of his friends that he remembered seeing them when they came to visit him at UMC. Of course he was in a coma then so obviously he is confused about that time. There is no reason to trust anything that he would say either for or against Karen.

No one said that the GCS was anything other than an indicator of the severity of the assault. I was merely saying that the fact that the injury was so severe that it is definitely plausible that he does not remember.. But that is not nearly as sensational as all of this conspiracy thinking..

And by the way, I do understand the GCS as I have lived with a loved one that was in the identical condition as Stuart and it has been 5 years and he still does not remember the events of the day before or the day of the accident. But again I am sure he has something to hide. RIGHT???

Have any of the jet pilot, millionaire, stud muffin neurosurgeons in the group bothered to let people commenting even know WHAT the GCS scale is indicative of? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Coma_Scale

The GCS only measures conscious state at a given point of time. It has NOTHING to do with reason for performing the scoring, causes of the change in level of consciousness and is not prognostic nor diagnostic in and of itself. It just affords a method to measure changes from the "now" assessment from "earlier" measurements. Or so I was taught to use it. Just sayin'

So the citizens of Jackson are supposed to believe Stuart can take trips, be out and about town, attend social functions, bike, and visit with family and friends who all say how well he is doing.... But he is not able to sit on his sofa in his own home and say to the DA, "I don't remember" and if he does this, it will "cause harm" to him? Doctor or no doctor this just doesn't sound right, because it isn't right.

7;56 Are you seriously saying that in this case a GCS of 3 after a traumatic brain injury means nothing? Get real.Reading your statement implies that it was merely an indicator that he was less concious then earlier.. Please!! Did the physical impairments, not speaking, inablility to swallow, etc. mean anything to you?? You are splitting hairs to make only your point. Of course it is not prognostic or diagnostic in and of itself, neither are many of the things that are done or seen in medicine. "or so I was taught to use it" God forbid me ever looking up and seeing you standing over me if your God complex and your intellectual ego will allow you to argue that this man was not seriously injured and may not remember . If you were really taught,as I doubt, then I know that you know this is definitely a case where I do not remember PROBABLY does apply. Not a jet pilot,
millionaire,or neuroseurgeon but I am a stud muffin and I do recognize that the injury was a major assault and I am willing to concede that he may not remember. I believe that justice should be served in this case and that money should never buy justice. However, I believe that even these young docs would have recognized that he may not remember and moved on to collecting other evidence in this case such as communication tapes, surveillance footage, etc...God Bless the families of the victims in this case.

6:59 I think most people "recognize Stuart may not remember" but what we don't get is why he cannot simply say to the DA "I can't remember." He obviously has told his doctors he can't remember, but he can't tell the DA? Also, be for sure the DA has long been collecting evidence against Karen Irby. There's plenty without a word from Stuart.

9:31 The people of Jackson don't have to believe anything in this case. because:

1. no evidence or opinion will ever be presented to us,,, such as a doctor's opinion.

2. There is a JUDGE who reviews issues that you are apparently disgruntled about and it is the JUDGE who makes the decision and she has ORDERED that S.Irby not be interviewed.

We are all observers ,,, and we really don't have a very close view.

8:32
Exactly and we should accept that there may be a reason and not a conspiracy..

Conspiracy...hmm...love the way that gets thrown out as an accusation.

Is a conspiracy a group of people of like mind who band together to further a goal or goals ? Or, does a conspiracy have to have a nefarious agenda, and if so, define the specific elements of " nefarious" which give rise to being a " conspiracy".

Do I believe like minded people get together to further an agenda which satisfies their individual or collective self-interests? YES.

Do I believe such groups rationalize and define their self-interest in positive terms that others would see as negative...or conversely describe obstacles to their common agenda in negative terms? YES.

Do I believe that individuals with selfish interests will manipulate and deceive others, including garnering group support? YES.

Do I believe that when people are presented with information contrary to their personal knowledge or experiences they become puzzled, curious and even suspicious? YES.

Do I believe that people in positions of authority can make bad decisions, incompetent decisions, self-serving decisions and try to avoid being held responsible for those? YES.

Does that make me think there were CIA or Mafia people on a grassy knoll? NO!

You are throwing the word " conspiracy" around as if there is never a rational basis for questioning decision making or the course of events. More importantly, you seem to argue that we should NEVER question those in authority or the " system" and assume from the beginning it will operate well.

So...do those of you accusing " conspiratorial thinking" have the same faith in Congress and the Executive branches of government and their individual and collective motivations and competence as you do in JPD and Hinds County court system?

Believing that drug dealers killed Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson is conspiratorial thinking. Believing that OJ's legal dream team conspired to get OJ off by conjuring up such nonsense it NOT.

Get the difference?

11:19am Great Comment!!!

Please!!! are you freaking kidding me????

12:50 no

try www.wilderdom.com/Group.html or wikipedia on "groupthink" will start to give you some insight on how people behave in groups.

Or you could try www.frankferudi.com for explanations of what is an isn't conspiratorial thinking.

Those were the most basic sources I could find for you.

I rest my case.. You just proved the point yourself moron...

5:31 I'm afraid it's the other way around. Apparently, this was too difficult a challenge.
I'll try to kindly assume you selectively read rather comprehended.