Jackson Jambalaya

Just another example how the Irbys rule! Hope the judge can see through all this and give the Irbys what they deserve!

Why didn't the DA just use the ER's blood test?

Two Lakes conspiracy?

(By the way, the Paulbots messed up your poll already.)

"2 glasses of wine"( 5oz) for a person weighing 120lbs ( doubt Karen weighs that much) would results in a .06 immediately and a .03 one hour later.

So, the problem with " depraved heart" is related ONLY to speed and not to how drunk one is?

I don't think it a difficult problem for a jury to be given blood alcohol tables and the hospital tests.

You don't need much sense to figure out that Karen was very drunk...EVEN if you accept a 3 hour old contaminated result!

I knew the Paulbots would. Next week I'm running the same poll without him.

The question thus must be asked why the officer used an expired kit and waited three hours to take the test.

I hate to say it, but given the situation as you laid it out, I think the only reasonable explanation goes beyond incompetence and looks criminal.
If it works out this way, I'd say an investigation is warranted.

A hospital blood test is not handled under chain-of-custody conditions, and is run in a hospital lab, not a lab certified for legal purposes. Therefore it is not admissible in court. When I have ordered blood drawn in the ER after an MVA, to see if the patient (driver or passenger)is intoxicated (and possibly at risk for the DTs), the deputies/police draw a separate sample if there is a legal question about a driver. Only their result would be admissible in court.

KF: You can't draw an arc with just two data points. It is possible her BAC was much higher at the time of the actual accident, falling to 0.13 an hour later and 0.09 after another two hours, which could be expected. However, it is also possible the 0.13 was her highest value - without an earlier result it is impossible to tell. If the two samples were drawn simultaneously then the difference could be attributed to the differences in the two kits.

I do not understand how the DA thought he could admit a result obtained from a hospital lab. There is no provision for chain-of-custody records in routine hospital work (e.g., EVERYONE who handles a sample must sign off on it, so the date and time is recorded every time it is handled), so it would be very easy for a defense attorney to raise reasonable doubt issues about whether the sample was accidentally switched, adulterated, how many other samples the tech(s) handled that night, etc. That is why they insist on their own sample for legal purposes, and why it takes so much longer for lab results to come back from the state crime lab than the hospital.

IIRC the usual tube type for ethanol contains EDTA to prevent clotting, so the sample stays liquid and can be tested for several days if needed. "Expired" EDTA may break down but I'm not aware of it turning into ethanol. If the officer was definitely told he should not use the expired kit because the results would be invalid he should probably be fired before he messes up other investigations. I doubt the powers that be care about the competence of JPD, however.

Glad you got this info out fish. Now, where did the cop get the expired kit?

Are they just 'hanging around' in a closet at UMC somewhere?

Are they just hanging around in a closet at the crime lab?

Does JPD keep expired kits around for 'special cases'? Cuz most inventory control mechanisms would get these kits thrown away.

If the victims of the crash had been cops would they have used an expired kit for Karen's DUI evidence? Hmmmm...

How many *other* DUI cases could be thrown out for use of expired kits? Is this a common thing with JPD? IIW a defense attorney I'd certainly like to know.

The powers that Be Are The Incompetence!

I wonder if, and how many, other JPD BAC tests have been taken with expired kits? Oh, just say in the last 3 years.

Just exactly how often does that happen? 10% of the time? 1% of the time? 100% of the time if your last name's Irby?

That's data I would find pretty interesting.

This whole area is like a plot from a cheap, trashy paperback.

Well, except for the cheap part, amiright?

Makes you wonder how many innocent people are in jail because of police incompetence/corruption.

Lisa, it makes me wonder the exact opposite of that, really. How many people are out roaming the streets because of police incompetence and corruption?

The JPD was trying to protect the Irbys, the JPD Chief's largest campaign contributor and friend, from the get go. Two people literally burned up when the Irby car hit their vehicle. Karen Irby's BAC test was no doubt very, very important, and the JPD officer still used an expired kit to test her BAC even when the ER nurse kept telling him the kit was expired. Come on folks. How can you not say the JPD was trying to help the Irbys? Of course they were. The JPD officer knew by using an expired test kit that the BAC results would be discredited in court.

If the fix was in,,,, why did K.Irby plead guilty?

Paul, I agree. It goes both ways. I don't know which one is worse.

She was allowed to please guilty to a lesser charge!

She was allowed to please guilty to a lesser charge!

"2 glasses of wine"( 5oz) for a person weighing 120lbs ( doubt Karen weighs that much) would results in a .06 immediately and a .03 one hour later.

K. Irby said she had "2 glasses of wine". I didn't hear her say that was ALL she had to drink that night. Maybe she also had 3 double scotches first.

blood tests from hospital labs are certainly admissible as evidence in a criminal case. hospitals document the handling of the blood as well or better than a forensic lab. to state otherwise is nonsense.

1:23 Based on the tens of thousands of clinical blood tests I have ordered, as compared to the relative handful of forensic tests I have ordered (blood alcohol levels, rape kits, etc) I can attest the procedures are as different as night and day. Hospitals do NOT document handling of a sample to the same standards as a criminal lab. Our routine samples sit for hours in a collection box, waiting for a courier, accessible to anyone who would want to tamper with a sample. That can't happen in a locked box where each sample has to be signed for each and every time is it accessed.

2:23 a criminal desiring to challenge evidence for tampering must offer some proof that actual tampering took place. as long as the seals are intact, there's no need for a pair of human eyes or placement in a locked box from start to finish. the law has changed on "chain of custody", its been relaxed as it applys to the state. if the defendant can't prove some degree of tampering, those claims fail.

Are hospital administered blood tests admissible in court, Yes or No? KF, everything about this "investigation" was intentional. Just how far are police willing to go, you & I wouldn't be surprised? Not only are these intentional errors a slap in the face to the doctors families, but also to every citizen of Ms. We expect & demand the police to do their job's correctly and, if not, everyone involved in this investigation & reconstruction should be held ACCOUNTABLE. Do not think for one moment that Jackson is the only place in Ms these intentional erred investigations are happening, Brandon Ms(Rankin Co) is a close runner-up. No high society involved, just a cop killing a teen & "alleging" he was on a burglary call. I suppose the officer's 16yr old front seat passenger was there to assist him with the burglary?

there is no question that hospital administered blood tests are perfectly admissible in court; or perhaps a better way to say it is if collected, stored, tested and reported correctly, there admissible. do you honestly think that cops and crime lab people are more educated and able than doctors, nurses and techs?? I'd trust the hospital test waaayyy before the cops and you would too. you have if you been treated in a hospital....

She will be in jail for a long time. If there's anything Judge Green hates more than white people, it's rich white people.

Well, if Judge Green's alleged hatred of rich, white people causes her to hold a drunken murderer accountable, I guess the ends justify the means. The Irby's have been playing that game for some time now.

Karen Irby killed two people over a year ago, and she has never seen the inside of a jail yet. I hope Judge Green will do what is right, and put this woman behind bars for a very long time. I have always felt Stuart played a large part in this accident happening, and I am only sorry he can't go to jail with her.

We have a high profile accident scene where every profession at the scene understands up front that big time attorneys and the media will be looking over their shoulder.

Either it's corruption OR the Bubba collecting the sample couldn't take some " little woman" telling him his job.

In either case, send the SOB to Parchman so he could be someone's " little woman".

K.F.

Some more questions about this.

Has any info been released about how it was determined that the driver of Irby veh. was K. Irby and not S. Irby?

The accident investigation reports you had up do not cover that at all.

And also what has been heard about S. Irby alcohol test results?
(seems like due to his injuries that would have been done at hosp, don't remember hearing this though).

Were tests for other substances done? To Irbys, and the other victims?

What was the source of the photos used by second report writer?
He said they were provided to him or something like that.

10:51 I think the better question is where is the list of contents of the Irby car?

Seems to me that " probable cause" existed to check for drugs in the car, purse and on the persons.

Anon at 1051pm and 850 am

What would it make you think if different (more) tox. was run on the victims and less on the Irbys?

I don't know any facts or rumor about this-just wondering what was done.

If the atty's for the victims estates are on the ball this will be covered.

Ladd: I hadn't plan to cover the story myself, but McMillin called and offered me the exclusive interview, saying all he wanted was a media outlet that would be "fair" to him.

When Ladd uses her JFP to pilot a 1500+ word tanker truck to carry Sheriff Campaign Contribution's water you know that Kingfish is hitting very, very close to home. No source documents, no nothing from the JFP. Just McMillin's spin. Hmmmmmmmm.

Irby contributions to Sheriff Campaign Contribution aka Malcolm McMillin:

Irby State PAC 6/29/95 $500

Stuart Irby,Jr. 6/25/99 $1,000
Irby P.A.C. 6/28/99 $1,000
Stuart M. Irby 7/2/99 $250

Stuart M. Irby 1/28/03 $2,500
Charles Irby 3/21/03 $100
Charles Irby 3/21/03 $5,000
Stuart M. Irby 4/2/03 $2,500
Stuart M. Irby 4/15/03 $750
Irby P.A.C. 6/26/03 $1,000

Stuart Irby 6/13/07 $4,000
Charles Irby 6/13/07 $5,000

Total of above: $23,600

Ladd: He [Sheriff Campaign Contrbiution] does not deny having a "close personal relationship" with Stuart Irby whom he calls "a friend" ...

But, but, but ...

Ladd: He [Sheriff Campaign Contrbiution] said that since the accident, he has seen Stuart Irby twice at local restaurants and exchanged pleasantries ...

That is one helluva close personal friend.

Your close personal friend who has personally given you $11,000 out of his own pocket to pursue your dreams of elective office is involved in a major head-on automobile accident, is hospitalized in a coma, survives, after weeks is released from the hospital, spends months recuperating, begins to get up and around, then gets in another automobile accident and you've only coincidently "exchanged pleasantries" with him because you happened to visit the same restaurant as he happened to be visiting at the time?

He's a close personal friend and you never once contacted him to find out how he is doing and to offer your support?

You have nothing to hide about your actions as JPD Chief but yet you're treating your close personal friend as if he is somehow radioactive and needs to be avoided?

Damn Sheriff you sure treat your close personal friends in a mighty strange fashion.

Ladd's article is a complete joke. No surprise since Natalie Irby is one of her good friends and used to work for her but of course, Donna is ethical. Doesn't cite one document, doesn't use any data, just takes what Mac says as gospel.

Unlike Ladd, I've posted every document so you could make your own judgements. In fact, if I remember, when the accident first happened, the JFP didn't even mention the deaths in the headline, just that the Irbys were hurt in a wreck, mentioned the deaths four paragraphs down. When someone called them out on it a few days later they changed it.

Monica Hernandez attempted to interview Mac on camera, he refused to do so and was pretty belligerent with her. Its also interesting how they all pick on WLBT when the other stories made similar reports, however, WLBT was the only one, along with this blog, to obtain the two accident reconstruction reports. Unlike Ladd, I just don't tell you what someone says, I actually give you the documents.

OK, this is pretty interesting. It seems like Ole Mac is condemning his own oversight, he is in charge you know. Maybe with him, the buck stops somewhere else.

Two things:
1. "Barnhardt could never be an expert witness." He failed the test. So the evidence collected would not be recognized by the court?
2. The blood samples were inadmissible b/c taken by the hospital.

The confusion he tried to introduce about Huff not being at the accident scene was a pretty lame dodge and blame toss over to the DA.

The "Aggrevated DUI" blame toss is BS. If you take points above and consider NO EVIDENCE would likely be presented by the person that took it as an EXPERT or the inadmissible blood tests, this looks at a minimum like HORRIBLE work. Whoever was in charge needs to take responsibility, not avoid it. It only makes the person in charge look guilty of hiding SOMETHING.

Ladd: "I made it a point not to be involved, not to be briefed," he [Sheriff Campaign Contribution] said in an interview in his downtown office Monday.

But, but, but

Ladd: McMillin said he had sent Huff back to the scene six days after the crash, on Feb. 16, to help collect road data to computerize for future use, because JPD then had no one who could operate the equipment.

That's odd Sheriff. You were making a point of not getting involved and not being briefed but somehow you decided to send Huff out to the crash scene a few days later.

Memo to Ladd: Since you wouldn't dare have an editor edit THE Editor note than six days after February 11th would be February 17th, NOT February 16th.

It is obvious Kingfish that Malcolm McMillin knows how to play Donna Ladd like a fiddle. He calls her up, tells her that he is not getting a fair shake from those nasty anonymous bloggers -- even though you aren't anonymous -- and that he'll give her an 'exclusive'. That plus Ladd was all in for Faye Peterson so a chance to ding Smith is a bonus.

It goes without saying that she'll go down on that story opportunity in a heartbeat.

Funny, the fool commenting over at Ladd's house of gobbldy gook (I had to re-read it many times it was so confusing); he might take note to visit over here and take a look at your documents (originals) and the much more intelligent comments and thought provoking conversation.

In other words, ONLY JJ conducts interviews, checks sources, PROVIDES FACTUAL INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS, as do most "old media" outlets, while JFP generally does none of this. I'm still laughing at, "According to McMillam". How about "According to my dog".

You know what, I like my average Joe's and Jane's right here at JJ. I am surprised by the poster, isn't he a musician around here? Not smart to call your fans "average".

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out later on that DA Smith is somehow in cahoots with the Irbys and that's why he went for an even lesser charge of gross negligence manslaughter instead of aggravated DUI or depraved heart. Something doesn't smell right in the DA's office.

KF I know you have sources close to this statement. I have one too. I can say this is an absolute false and slanderous statement and Ladd allowing this up with no substantiation clearly demonstrates she is, as her puff piece indicates, clearly under the influence of Irby, ahem, McMillan.

Do any of them even know about the amount of campaign contributions the Irby's made to Mac? I'm pretty certain no money made its way to the District Attorney's office.

3:50 PM nails it. Ladd got played.

Donna is now engaging in revisionist history.

"Huff's second report says that the blood-alcohol level was .8%, not .9% as I report above"

From Ladd....

One thing that is interesting about looking back on this case is talking to legal types who say that the problem seems to be the initial charge was too ambitious based on the actual evidence and state law; I'm hearing that repeatedly, especially since this story came out today.

I got $20 that Ladd goes after the DA on this to remove the spotlight from Sheriff and Co.

Ladd: I'm reading back through my file now and Huff's second report says that the blood-alcohol level was .8%, not .9% as I report above.

But, but, but

Huff Report: "Information provide [sic], revealed Karen Irby was operating the Mercedes under the influence of alcohol above the Mississippi State Statue of .08% bac."

There must be something about the word 'above', as in greater than, or more than, that Ladd just doesn't get.

Smoke-Fire, comprehension, from Ladd? Is this the first time you read the JFP?

Donna Ladd reporting? Thats like Mac not having any influence in the largest case to hit Jacktown in years.

Had some other politician that Ladd doesn't like suckered another media outlet to rush out a spin job in order to meet a deadline she would be ripping them a new one right now.

Had that same outlet scurried after the fact to fill in the blanks and answer the unanswered questions as she is doing this afternoon she'd be apoplectic with fits about her best practices, better journalism tirades, yada, yada, yada.

Ladd says, "I hadn't plan to cover the story myself, but McMillin called and offered me the exclusive interview, saying all he wanted was a media outlet that would be "fair" to him."

"Fair" as in McMillen's side of the story which, as we all know when it comes to the Mighty Mac, isn't necessarily anything close to the truth.

I did report that JPD had no one who could operate the machine and that is why Huff was used.

Also, I reported it was aggravated DUI that was used to reindict Mrs. Irby.

I can also say THERE WERE NO DRUGS FOUND. I've seen the evidence list and everyone was clean.

She is embarrassing herself.

Ladd is a damn liar. HERE is what she wrote:

"I'm reading back through my file now and Huff's second report says that the blood-alcohol level was .8%, not .9% as I report above. Would have to check the tape to make sure of which I was told, but there are both the numbers.

One thing that is interesting about looking back on this case is talking to legal types who say that the problem seems to be the initial charge was too ambitious based on the actual evidence and state law; I'm hearing that repeatedly, especially since this story came out today.

And thanks to everyone getting in touch on this one.

posted by ladd on 04/07/10 at 03:31 PM"

HERE is what Huff's report says:

Page 21: "Information provide, revealed Karen Irby was operating the Mercedes under the influence of alcohol ABOVE the Mississippi State Statute of .08% bac."

Get that? Not it WAS .08 but it was ABOVE .08.

Here's another gem by that idiot who can't read:

"This story reports that the police found in the second report that "Irby was actually going 70 miles per hour." According to officers who do reconstructions, this means she was going a *minimum* of 70 mph, which is what those numbers indicate. If the reporter only used Huff's report without interviewing experts on it, she couldn't have know this, so I don't blame her. But it is an important point if these reconstruction reports document *minimum* speeds. Apparently, Huff could not determine that Irby was going over 100 mph based on what was available -- remember, he was *not* on the scene the night of the accident and the police photographer didn't take pics of the tire tracks -- he could only say that she was going a *minimum* of 70 mph.... posted by ladd on 04/07/10 at 03:16 PM"

HERE is what Huff wrote in his report:

Page 21: "To obtain the speed of the Irby Mercedes I used the Critical Speed Formula. First, information is obtained from finding the radius of the side slip "yaw" marks left on the roadway, half the width of the Irby Mercedes and the drag factor of Old Canton Road. I then used the critical speed formula to calculate the Irby Mercedes speed to be 70 miles per hour."


Notice how she isn't providing any documents. Want to know why? Probably because she has none and won't admit she is using mine so she tells you what a source says. This is garbage.

K.F. at 6:24-more questions are answered.

I read the Ladd story, too bad she didn't ask questions like I think you would have.

Maybe she did ask those questions but we can't tell because of how the story was written like Ladd said:

"I didn't have much time, but I tried to be careful to put enough "according to McMillin" and the like in there. This is his story, as well as other sources, which I say."

This reads like the K.F. should give Mcmillin a call to help him 'clear all this up".

"No one who has anonymously accused him of being in cahoots with the Irbys has contacted him for an interview or comment, he added."

After all Mcmillian says in the Ladd sorry:
"The interview, which included access to personnel with knowledge of the case and supporting data compiled by investigators, indicated that there was more to the story than has been revealed by bloggers, the DA or other media."

If it's like you say it is sheriff- I'm sure K.F. will help you to get the word out.

Remember who was mayor at the time? Need I say more?

Here is a comment at the JFP website where the Ladd story is-is this a troll or Ladd?:

" One thing that is interesting about looking back on this case is talking to legal types who say that the problem seems to be the initial charge was too ambitious based on the actual evidence and state law; I'm hearing that repeatedly, especially since this story came out today."

Since the actual evidence for the initial charge was not admissible/usable/correct due to what is the current topic of discussion (how did all these evidentiary and investigative screw ups happen?)-doesn't this tend to prove K.F. and some other commentors here correct?

So if this hadn't been discovered before trial....

Rest easy King. Of course she is using your documents. She is backfilling the story today completely on the fly. You couldn't find stronger testimony to the work you've done when Ladd can't report to her readers the names of the "local anonymous bloggers" that have generated all this controversy. So much controversy, mind you, that she burns the print inches to report on it. You aren't anonymous. She knows your name. She knows the name of your blog and I highly doubt there is even one local reader of the JFP online who doesn't also. McMillin the puppet master pulls the strings because he knows that Ladd the puppet will chase, as someone noted above, an ***EXCLUSIVE ***. WOW. Holy Cow!!!! An exclusive!!!! McMillin didn't want to talk to someone like Monica Hernandez because he knew he'd had to wiggle, fudge, obfuscate, dodge, weave, duck and run from the many unfortunate factoids you've already reported while looking into a camera.

Don't forget this is the same 'reporter' who wrote that Robbie Bell was whacked out on sleeping pills and tied up while George was murdering and anally raping Heather Spencer.

The community knows the score King. The members are the local media know the score.

Case wasn't too ambitious. For 114 mph, they had the right charge. Keep in mind all that matters is the speed finding is discredited because the wrong measurement is used and presto, a nice little motion to suppress succeeded.

Everyone needs to remember that this is the same Malcolm McMillin who plays all the white NEJammers for idiots each election by scaring them to crossover to the Democratic primary out of fear that an opposing black candidate might defeat him. It is the southern strategy on the local level but the JFP has never said a single word about it.

Ladd: It is correct that Barnhardt had not passed the test to qualify him to testify as an expert witness, but that does not mean that he was not qualified to do reconstruction, McMillin said.

But, but, but

Ladd: McMillin's data, however, indicated that he [Barnhardt] was certified on three different levels to do accident reconstructions; thus, his presence that night was not unusual.

Not unusual? What in the Hades is Sheriff Campaign Contribution talking about?

Is it standard operating procedure former Chief McMillin to use an officer to conduct important investigations such as an accident reconstruction who isn't licensed to then testify as an expert about the collected results+conclusions in a court of law? If the investigating officer can't testify then who the fuck is going to McMillin?

Shades of Dr. Stephen Hayne. SHADES.OF.STEPHEN.FUCKING.HAYNE.

McMillin leaves that hanging curve ball about Barnhardt right over the plate and slugger Ladd WATCHES the taken pitch FLOAT BY for a called 3rd strike.

YOU ARE OUT LADD. YOU BLEW IT. MCMILLIN CHEWED YOU UP WITH HIS BULLSHIT AND SPIT YOU OUT. YOU ARE A DUPE.

Fish, what will this do to the Dr.'s family civil case? One attorney friend told me this could be a case buster.

The Hayne comparison by 7:37 is extremely salient.

The question now begged is how many other accident reconstructions did the unlicensed Barnhardt complete. How many other defendants may have accepted a plea bargain based on the work of this unlicensed reconstructionist.

2:35 You obviously didn't pass chemistry class.

You can't do toxicology on people that badly burned.

Here's your hint...alcohol is flammable. BLOOD is needed for BLOOD tests.

Your comments ( and you aren't the first to fall for such nonsense) is the WORST CASE OF BLAME THE VICTIMS I've ever known!


MAC AND LADD also think we are stupid ( or they are) if they think failing a course in accident reconstruction " doesn't mean you aren't qualified".

WHAT???

DIDN'T QUALIFY by not passing the test means the SOB ISN'T QUALIFIED!

This is like the Ron White bit about the Sears tire guy that miss LUG NUT day an TIRE COLLEGE. So..surprise...the lug nut fell OFF!

A voter should NEVER vote for Mac again because either he's an idiot or he thinks WE are idiots!

Only in the JFP do you get Donner Kay going off about anonymous bloggers in a piece that falls apart without her own anonymous and unnamed sources.

Ladd in the story at the JFP site states:


"Smith also told WLBT that Barnhardt "waited three hours to give Irby a blood-alcohol kit and used an expired kit to do so." The tube in the kit, Smith said, was expired.

McMillin's explanation showed truth to this assertion, but not the whole story. Irby underwent two blood tests that night: the first by University of Mississippi Medical Center when she arrived there shortly after the accident. That test showed a blood alcohol count of 1.3%. Then, three hours later after the reconstruction was complete, Barnhardt requested another blood sample. He provided a blood-sample kit that had an expired tube for the blood, which officers say means that the preservative inside the tube may no longer be good. That test found Irby's BAC to be .9%--meaning that it had fallen in the three hours since the earlier test, which McMillin said is not unusual."

Reporter Ladd: Are you still working on your bullet point summary?

I can help you out with a few bullet points of my own.

1. If as you state K. Irby had BAC of either 1.3 % or .9%, then we would have another fatality.
I believe the numbers you intended are 0.13% and 0.09%. Is this your mistake, or did you accurately quote McMillan?

2. Is there a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for toxicology tests in bodily injury or fatality accidents? Did McMillan tell you about this and you forgot to report it, or did you forget to ask and he forgot to tell you?
One might think there is a procedure to follow... but then that ought to be an area of interest for the reporter in any case.

3. "Then, three hours later after the reconstruction was complete, Barnhardt requested another blood sample".
Is this implying that the first blood sample was requested by Barnhardt? Or did medical personnel order the first for medical treatment purposes, and then Barnhardt order the second?
In either case the question is: Did Barnhardt ( or the person in charge) consider the first sample collected as evidence? If so what precautions were taken with respect to ensuring evidentiary value was preserved?.

4. What reconstruction was completed three hours later? Barnhardt's? Someone elses?

5. "He provided a blood sample kit that had an expired tube for the blood...".
Any questions that could be asked here? Did you ask them?
May I suggest:"has this happened before?", "When did superior officers find out about this?", and "What was done at that point?"

6. You state: "that test found Irby's BAC to be .9% meaning that it had fallen in the three hours since the earlier test," which seems to imply a reading of 0.09% just over the threshold for intoxication ( see #1 above). There is some doubt about the accuracy of this number, but in any case, if he had waited perhaps four or five hours, that reading might well have been less than 0.08%. No questions about this?

7. Concerning the expired tube Barnhardt used "...which officers say means that the preservative inside the tube may no longer be good."
Are the unnamed officers qualified to analyze what happens when expired tubes are used?
What would have happened when the defense attorney questioned this evidence?
When did McMillan ( or any other supervisory personnel) notify D.A. Smith of this problem with an important piece of evidence?

More bullet points for reporter Ladd in just a few minutes.

I guess we now know who the Umbrella Man and Ladd is supporting for the LT GOV's race. Watch the for the political fall out folks - unless you have a Spaceship.

Odd how after many years as an elected official in Hinds County, Mac is concerned about internet bloggers.

Joe and Jane are smart enough to realize the farce that is taking place in the City of Jackson.

By the way, I also reported Barnhart HAD received other certifications, just not the state one.

Bullet points for reporter Ladd
continued:

From the JFP again:

"In his follow-up report, Huff also found that the original investigators had photographed the scene, but had not taken photos of the tire marks left by the Mercedes--a serious error. McMillin said this meant that Huff was limited in what he could ascertain about the minimum speed Irby was traveling more than a year after the accident when investigators had used the actual tire marks to claim she was driving a minimum of 114 mph."

8. If this (the above)is the case, the discovery of the deficiency(ies) in the investigation were only after D.A. Smith asked Huff to review it due to the facebook incident with Barnhardt.
An investigator who had failed the test to qualify to testify as an expert witness had written a report that was not reviewed by anyone prior to Huff? What is the SOP? Check for mistakes at trial? Who supervises accident reconstructionists at JPD?

9. Had JPD any thoughts to who would testify since the report writer was not able to?
Was there someone else present at the scene that did not write the report, but would have presented it at trial? If so.. the name?
It might seem that the person testifying would to some extent supervise the preparation of the report, but then again...

Concerning Jackson Jambalaya, and the research and investigation done by KingFish, it seems that the following tends to support what has been revealed at JJ.

"However, McMillin did not deny that police officers, or at least one, made serious mistakes during the crime-scene investigation that evening, but blasted claims of local anonymous bloggers that he intentionally sent an unqualified investigator to the scene after hearing that the Irby family, friends and campaign contributors, were involved.



10. Serious mistakes were made, by one or more officers... that seems to be a new fact if the number is more than Barnhardt. Did the reporter ask about other mistakes...

11. ""With all probability, I was home in bed," McMillin said.""

Exclusive opportunity for reporter Ladd to think up some points and questions here.

The bullet-point summary from reporter Ladd may or may not be appearing soon, but if she needs some info or analysis...will she stop by here?

K.F. If reporter Ladd gets permission from you she can use my bullet points to help get organized on this, but since I hear the helicopters getting closer, I have to

I appreciate your comments but must ask you to refrain from using the word "bullet" because she might think people on this site are threatening to shoot her.

Also avoid the use of the word "point" as it could be interpreted as a symbol of male domination under the theories propagated by Catharine McKinnon. Putting the two words together might instill a climate of fear and we can't have that.

K.F. The phrase in question came from
JFP comments:

"OK, I'm working on my ******-***** summary. First, though, I wanted to add some links to WLBT stories that McMillin mentioned.

posted by ladd on 04/07/10 at 03:16 PM "

I thought that was Ladd commenting, and I used the same phrase.

No other intent intended, or intended to be implied.

If you want this changed, I'll resubmit those comments without
those words.

Ladd in the story at the JFP site states:


"Smith also told WLBT that Barnhardt "waited three hours to give Irby a blood-alcohol kit and used an expired kit to do so." The tube in the kit, Smith said, was expired.

McMillin's explanation showed truth to this assertion, but not the whole story. Irby underwent two blood tests that night: the first by University of Mississippi Medical Center when she arrived there shortly after the accident. That test showed a blood alcohol count of 1.3%. Then, three hours later after the reconstruction was complete, Barnhardt requested another blood sample. He provided a blood-sample kit that had an expired tube for the blood, which officers say means that the preservative inside the tube may no longer be good. That test found Irby's BAC to be .9%--meaning that it had fallen in the three hours since the earlier test, which McMillin said is not unusual."

Reporter Ladd: Are you still working on some kind of summary?

I can help you out with a summary of my own.

1. If as you state K. Irby had BAC of either 1.3 % or .9%, then we would have another fatality.
I believe the numbers you intended are 0.13% and 0.09%. Is this your mistake, or did you accurately quote McMillan?

2. Is there a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for toxicology tests in bodily injury or fatality accidents? Did McMillan tell you about this and you forgot to report it, or did you forget to ask and he forgot to tell you?
One might think there is a procedure to follow... but then that ought to be an area of interest for the reporter in any case.

3. "Then, three hours later after the reconstruction was complete, Barnhardt requested another blood sample".
Is this implying that the first blood sample was requested by Barnhardt? Or did medical personnel order the first for medical treatment purposes, and then Barnhardt order the second?
In either case the question is: Did Barnhardt ( or the person in charge) consider the first sample collected as evidence? If so what precautions were taken with respect to ensuring evidentiary value was preserved?.

4. What reconstruction was completed three hours later? Barnhardt's? Someone elses?

5. "He provided a blood sample kit that had an expired tube for the blood...".
Any questions that could be asked here? Did you ask them?
May I suggest:"has this happened before?", "When did superior officers find out about this?", and "What was done at that point?"

6. You state: "that test found Irby's BAC to be .9% meaning that it had fallen in the three hours since the earlier test," which seems to imply a reading of 0.09% just over the threshold for intoxication ( see #1 above). There is some doubt about the accuracy of this number, but in any case, if he had waited perhaps four or five hours, that reading might well have been less than 0.08%. No questions about this?

7. Concerning the expired tube Barnhardt used "...which officers say means that the preservative inside the tube may no longer be good."
Are the unnamed officers qualified to analyze what happens when expired tubes are used?
What would have happened when the defense attorney questioned this evidence?
When did McMillan ( or any other supervisory personnel) notify D.A. Smith of this problem with an important piece of evidence?

More summary for reporter Ladd in just a few minutes.

April 7, 2010 10:27 PM

Summary of some kind for reporter Ladd continued:

From the JFP again:

"In his follow-up report, Huff also found that the original investigators had photographed the scene, but had not taken photos of the tire marks left by the Mercedes--a serious error. McMillin said this meant that Huff was limited in what he could ascertain about the minimum speed Irby was traveling more than a year after the accident when investigators had used the actual tire marks to claim she was driving a minimum of 114 mph."

8. If this (the above)is the case, the discovery of the deficiency(ies) in the investigation were only after D.A. Smith asked Huff to review it due to the facebook incident with Barnhardt.
An investigator who had failed the test to qualify to testify as an expert witness had written a report that was not reviewed by anyone prior to Huff? What is the SOP? Check for mistakes at trial? Who supervises accident reconstructionists at JPD?

9. Had JPD any thoughts to who would testify since the report writer was not able to?
Was there someone else present at the scene that did not write the report, but would have presented it at trial? If so.. the name?
It might seem that the person testifying would to some extent supervise the preparation of the report, but then again...

Concerning Jackson Jambalaya, and the research and investigation done by KingFish, it seems that the following tends to support what has been revealed at JJ.

"However, McMillin did not deny that police officers, or at least one, made serious mistakes during the crime-scene investigation that evening, but blasted claims of local anonymous bloggers that he intentionally sent an unqualified investigator to the scene after hearing that the Irby family, friends and campaign contributors, were involved.



10. Serious mistakes were made, by one or more officers... that seems to be a new fact if the number is more than Barnhardt. Did the reporter ask about other mistakes...

11. ""With all probability, I was home in bed," McMillin said.""

Exclusive opportunity for reporter Ladd to think up questions and why to ask them here.

The summary or whatever it is from reporter Ladd may or may not be appearing soon, but if she needs some info or analysis...will she stop by here?

K.F. If reporter Ladd gets permission from you she can use my summary or whatever it is to help get organized on this, but since I hear the helicopters getting closer, I have to

April 7, 2010 11:12 PM

K.F.-

It's your place, so I resubmitted
those comments with what I thought was Ladd's phrase removed.

Delete the first two and those Microsoft words wrt to PowerPoint won't be used by me again here.

You know, I went to every hearing, posted practically every document, posted police reports, and obtained documents that were obviously not available to the public, had very good sources, yet the one who claims to be a journalist is supposed to be the authority because she sat with the Sheriff for a while and he told her what "the truth" was.

Ok.

Ladd obviously knew that the Mac doesn't " do" real interviews as demonstrated on this site.
He wants to control the interview.
If Ladd teaches journalism, it's no wonder we have some many reporters around here who lack any sort of curiosity but like to be spoon fed a story.
This wasn't " journalism" this was PR.

Ladd doesn't teach journalism. She teaches agenda.

You know what? I am still a bit surprised that Donner didn't bring up the whole FB and the animal cruelty felony issue. Where was her journalistic fire there? Given her penchant to quote, "According to my dog..."; I thought she would be all over this one.

FWIW, the only people I ever hear picking up that rag are bar-flies, hoping to find out who is playing at Fire, H&Ms, etc. Read: The oh so drunk Jacks and Jills.

I just heard from someone suggesting that right-wing bloggers are alleging a conspiracy by McMillin due to the rumor that he might run for lt. governor as a Dem, and they want to hurt his chances.

Is Ladd for real?

"I just heard from someone" - I've heard that someone is a great source for factual data, I've also heard someone wears a tin foil hat and drums up something about somebody, according to my dog.

Um, Donner, please do us a favor and keep publishing. I need a good laugh every now and then. I especially enjoy knowing that if it weren't for folks like you, we certainly would not be able to quantify rumor and innuendo at its finest.

I'm a libertarian on the political scale, so she certainly isn't talking about KF. I wonder who, it must be someone, or somebody, doing something. Let my facts speak for themselves.

I think she did a good job with the McMillin piece and I am surprised KF didnt ask for an interview as well. McMillin
gets my vote.

We'll be watching you KF

There is a new business grand opening next week in Fondren. The name of the business is Fondren Foils. Fondren Foils is a new age hatter and will be offering all the latest in tin foil head fashions. They have their own line of ready made foils named after various celebs and special peeps. I have it on good authority that they will have a dome like foil they plan to call the Donna Dome. They also make custom fit tin foil hats for any occasion. Check them out next week.

Apparently, my dog liked the interview. When I got home last night, he was pouring over it.

Yeah, that comment about someone told me that..... is actually her so-called tablogging at its best. For the record, I've heard the rumors first read them on Othor's site a while back, surprise, and also heard of others. I really don't care and am not out to destroy the Sheriff's career, as if I could.

As for watching me? Good luck. The Irby private investigators already did that a long time ago.

Given Donner's penchant for complaining about anonymous comments, why doesn't she come on over here and offer to post a diatribe for us to critique. Why? Because she can't handle the truth.

Love,
Pinocchio
Fairyland, USA a.k.a. JFP-land

Ladd: "But if it's true, prove it, don't just infer it."

Note: educated people know the difference between "infer" and "imply".

Notice that not one poster over in Laddsworld has asked her to identify the local blogs that she refers to in her McMillin apologia.

McMillin voter definition:
who is gullible or who will form a belief or opinion based on feelings rather than facts/someone who is intellectually lazy or afraid of learning they were duped /criminal needing protection/ ostrich

cbdeleo:
At best, Sheriff McMillan should have being doing everything possible to have a fair, accurate, intense investigation to protect and defend all four people involved in this tragedy. That is his job! To not want to be involved or briefed to protect himself from implications is unbelievable, not only because I imagine he was briefed but also because it is insulting as a citizen that this is acceptable behavior for such an important law enforcement official.

Based on this comment above, sounds like ladd is stealing my content.

As a side note, my verification word was "reshaft".

I, and I am sure this blog, will not be used by the JPF for their inability to think. To take our critical thinking, then apply it to their inability to think for themselves, then realize that "shit, I didn't think" is just wrong. Its finally shows me that they are the joke that we have always thought. I'm done ranting. From this point on, its factual analysis without commentary. JFP does not deserve commentary.

Not sure who cbdeleo is, but it is funny to me how that comment shows up and then suddenly, ladd has a reversal of position. Too contrived.