Jackson Jambalaya

On first glance, this motion would appear to have merit. The judge "creating" her own victim's impact statement would appear to put more in the role of prosecutor.

Several lawyers have told me others hope to get Green because the chances for reversible error are high.

So do we get to see the new and improved Judicial Performance Commission in action on this one?

somewhat bizarre for a judge to recite poetry in a sentencing, but the law says judges have WIDE latitude in sentencing so long as the sentence imposed is within the limits set by the legislature. unless she received input on her poem from a party, she's free to make whatever statements she wants in imposing sentence, which is what she did. carrying any logic these motions might contain forward, how would a judge be able to order any kind of presentencing investigation?

judge green is a different bird, but in this case, she hasn't crossed the line to being reversed IMO.

The bottom of pages 2 and 3 of the motion for resentencing seems to have been cut off. Can you post that document again with the complete versions of pages 2 and 3?

Maybe Judge Greene wanted her 15 minutes of fame, after all this was high profile. But, I'm from old school, keep your mouth shut unless what you have to say is required by law. A sad story and I know no one involved.

Judge Tomie Green spoke for the dead. She believes her words were what the dead would have said.
Perhaps she was channeling the deceased doctors. Amazing! I did not realize that Green had channeling abilities until now.

There should be no doubt when a judge sentences someone that their decision was reached in an impartial manner.
It is apparent that Judge Green used this imaginary exchange sprinkled into the law to reach her decision.
Bad show...

I certainly think the victims' family members who spoke at the sentencing were more qualified to speak for the victims (ie. - their request for leniency) than the judge, who did not know the victims or what they would have thought or said. Since the victims were not able to present an impact statement as described in #6 of the Motion for Re-Sentencing, shouldn't the family members statements carry more weight than what the judge "assumed" the victims would have said?

What blew me away in court that day after the charges against Stuart was the fact that Green completely ignored the families. Completely.

Yeah .. I saw this story ... yesterday on WAPT. Oh that's right. You only kiss WLBT's butt.

What's your point? I don't see the pdf's on WAPT's site.

yeah give the guy a break. he's just a blogger

legally, judges can completely ignore what the victims, the state, and the defendant and counsel have to say in sentencing. judge green is untouchable at the ballot box, so she doesn't care from that angle. KF, you should have known better than to be blown away by anything judge green says and does from the bench.

just think, she's counting down the days until she is senior judge in Hinds County. she is going to attempt to muscle a lot of her views onto the other judges. look for some real drama early in 2011.

I know, I know. Knew all that already. Just figured the victims' families would've gotten a little more respect from the judge. On the other hand, there is the letter from Kirksey that makes some good points.

Someone said that the victim's families were more qualified to speak for their deceased loved ones by requesting leniency in Karen Irby's sentencing.
Perhaps Judge Green had a hearing loss when the deceased asked her for leniency towards Karen when she was channeling them.... or, maybe that was something the JUDGE didn't want to hear.

I think KI may have just 'woke up' and realized she should have gotten her own attorney and is looking for a way to take that guilty plea back. I'm no fan of KI but I knew from the beginning I'd have had my own attorney if I were in her shoes. I think she was promised the moon filled with cash if she went along and now realizes she was duped from the beginning. Oh well, she shoulda worked for a living from the beginning, taken care of her child, and stayed away from ho monglers.

this case is pretty normal: you plead open, get hammered, and start playing the attorney shuffle.

remember, if you were drowning, you would grab at straws too.

So prior to the KI sentencing,often has Judge Green been inspired to recite poetry when sentencing folks?

Someone said: "this case is pretty normal: you plead open, get hammered, and start playing the attorney shuffle.
remember, if you were drowning, you would grab at straws too."

Karen Irby isn't drowning. She is serving a long sentence on dry land.

The road home for her is quite long. Who wouldn't seek a shorter path towards home if the legal opportunity arose.

IMO, she should get a review of her sentencing by a new judge who doesn't speak for the dead.

Save your typing all naysayers, this is my opinion and you have yours. I've heard yours.

7:01 give a legal reason she deserves another shot. not your personal feelings, but a legal reason. do you think the new lawyer is right or just earning a fee grasping at straws? the woman had her days in court and it didn't go well. you don't get a "do over" unless there is something exceptionally flawed, and there isn't such here.

When you PLEAD GUILTY, you are leaving your life in the hands of the court. They even make you aware of this before hand.

end of story.

18 YEARS IS TOO LONG! I DON'T KNOW HER, BUT I DO KNOW A YOUNG MAN WHO WAS SENTENCED TO 5 YEARS FOR A SIMILAR OFFENSE...RAN A STOP SIGN, ONE IN ANOTHER CAR DIED. BOTH DRIVER AND VICTIM HAD BEEN DRINKING. THIS CASE WAS SO NOTORIOUS, I IMAGINE IT PUT THE FEAR IN MANY PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN IN A CAR AND DRIVEN DRUNK. I AM SO SORRY FOR HER. NO...I DO NOT MAKE LIGHT OF WHAT SHE DID. I REPEAT, 18 YEARS WAY TOO LONG.

She SHOULD have gotten no less than 20 years, just like the guy that killed the fireman and his wife and WAS NOT DRUNK!!!! She wants a another shot go for it.. maybe the next judge will throw the book at this murderer instead of being somewhat nice about it and knocking some time off....

Karen Irby was desperate. She was driving when two people were killed, and she was badly hurt herself. She only had Stuart's people and his money to help her, and these people's main objective was to protect Stuart.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me like Karen had a very good chance to beat this if she had gone to trial. She convinced the families of the deceased and Judge Green, too, that Stuart played a big part in causing this wreck. From the very beginning I thought something was going on in the car, and her story is very believable to me considering Stuart's history of violence. In fact lots and lots of people now believe her who completely blamed her before.

Yes, it's her all her fault for not getting her own help and lawyer, but the woman was desperate, very desperate after the wreck. Now what's done is done, but I don't blame her for doing everything possible to reduce her sentence. It might not work and probably won't, but I am glad she has another lawyer and is trying.

7:05 - I beg to differ. "unless there is something exceptionally flawed and there isn't such here."

Really? You speak with such authority. Certainly odd. And why?

First off, look think about the MULTIPLE flaws in the investigation. Although, JPD could screw up pretty much anything. Second, could collaboration exist between the "client(s)" that pay the legal fees? Third, Mac and the Irbys. Seriously, add up the percentage of overall contributions to his re-election campaigns. What percentage of the overall monies raised came directly from that family? Don't forget some other things, like conflict of interest on behalf many individuals.

Just be patient before you rush to such judgments. I assume your opinion could/probably will change. Regardless, drink up 7:05. Do you really think a well established attorney would take on a dead end case without merit? Hope (obviously) you are on somebody's payroll. Sleep well. I have no dog in this fight - on either side of the aisle - just my opinions. 7:05 - tell me where I can pick up a check (or bill some time), my opinions could change. The next few double whiskeys are on me.

For the record I agree, she should be in jail. After all she chose to drive under the influence. This story is not going away any time soon.

KI plead guilty and was sentenced within the guidelines. Legally, that should be THAT.

This is ridiculous.

Nice thread and debate. Y'all done good today.

9:50 legally, you waive all such arguments when you plead guilty. she had every opportunity to litigate the points you refer to; she didn't, she plead guilty.

my authority is practicing criminal law for over 30 years and being reasonably competent doing so.

yes, some attorneys will take a dead horse to beat to generate fees. are you shocked; if so, welcome to the real world.

its very easy to sit on the sidelines and then come back and second guess how a case was handled; its also very easy these days to suspect black copters over every horizon.

ms. irby made the choice to plead guilty. in hindsight, it might be a questionable decision, but she made it and the law says her decision, questioned at every opportunity by the legal system, is now final. there are simply no legally viable reasons for this case to be reopened and rehashed ad nauseum.

The only thing ad nauseum here is the shameless way KI's attorneys threw her under the bus for all to see. She would never have made the decision to plead guilty without a roomful of HIGHLY PAID lawyers telling her to do it.

7:16. You are so, so right. Stuart Irby was to be protected at all costs, and it didn't matter if his wife and the Mother of his child went to prison or not. The woman was a desperate soul after the wreck, and she got terrible, terrible legal advice. She was told she had no choice but to plead guilty when this was not true at all. The JPD investigation was screwed from the get go. Lab tests were screwed. Evidence was lost or not collected (UMC.) The accident investigation was screwed. Testimony was taken in groups at the CCJ rather than individually. Testimony was taken days after the wreck. Stuart Irby has a history of violence beating his wife and her child. I could go on. Karen got horrible legal advice from lawyers paid by her husband, and we know why.

One thing that really shook me was during the opening stages , judge green snapped at the victims families that whatever they needed to say , they better make it short and don't take up the court's ( judge's) time with their comments.

9:33. You are right. Judge Green acted like she didn't have five minutes to hear the deceased families. What they said was never going to be important to her even before they spoke.

But then she (judge green) proceeded to wind on with a lengthy poem that seemed inappropriate. Inappropriate , because she chided the only living victims to make it short and then created her own victim statement.

The milk is on the floor...no use crying over it.

Karen could have hired other lawyers. And, she certainly could have gotten a second opinion. She didn't.

That is hardly remarkable or unexpectd behavior from her IMO.

If she is a " victim" as some of you want to believe, she is a victim of her own repeatedly poor decision making.

You cannot argue that she hasn't the background or intellectual capability to make good decisions.

You cannot argue that she hasn't had more than a few incidents which she have caused her to question her decision making ability before this ever happened.

Good people can make bad mistakes and bad things can happen to good people, but when a person's life is as chaotic as KI's, SHE should have paused to consider HER role in events and sought objective help.

7:51......What happened to that dude that hit the firefighter? I never heard anything else about it...

green is reversed more often than not. she also seems to be out for well to do whites. just saying. look at the stuart robinson decision..

11:09 green isn't reversed more often than not. no judge is. tone down the rhetoric if you want credibility. she is reversed more than some and for pretty bizzare decisions she comes up with. she's blatantly open taking racial issues into consideration when making legal decisions, but time has proved that she won't be reprimanded or punished for this. she won't be defeated at the polls. she is Exhibit A for appointed judges.

Why should the victim's families have MORE say in the matter than the rest of the people of the state of MS? The case was 'State of MS vs...' Not Irby vs. dead people.

This wasn't the first DUI Karen has gotten. It will undoubtedly NOT be the last.

Will it be YOUR kids burned alive the next time when she gets out?

All Irby Inc. is doing is trying to see if the next judge up the line WILL be bribariffic. Clearly Judge Green was not.

If Stuart WAS beating the hell out of her (and her kids) why was she still with him and going to dinner with him MONTHS after the beating occurred with her daughter? Normal women would have had so many restraining orders against the man by then it would have choked a horse. Then again, most horses don't have the checkbook Stuart Irby does...

Finally, I don't think anyone currently involved in a civil case against the defendant in a criminal trial should have ANY say in the criminal matter until the civil trial is over. And maybe not even then. The doctors families have sold their voices for whatever money they can get out of the Irby's.

Rest assured. If Karen gets out. There will be more wrecks and crazy. It might be YOUR kids dead in the morgue next time.

oh my, the sky is falling: karen might get out and kill someone's kid. get. a. life. she won't be getting any more DUIs any time soon. what do you really want, a pound of her flesh? why don't you move to red china, you'd like how they do business.

crime victims have a constitutional right to be heard. that's to be heard, not to rule.

11:34 You are so, so out of line. The doctors' families have every right to sue Stuart Irby and force him to pay and pay dearly. If he is left with nothing it would be a very just decision. Also, you must have missed reading the police reports filed on Stuart. There is no doubt that he was drunk and beating Karen and her child.

Let me say one thing about those police reports. Stuart was convicted of absolutely nothing. Yes, the narratives in the reports tell a horrible story but keep in mind they are ONE person's side of things and in Mississippi, all someone has to do to have someone arrested is sign an affidavit. I had one complete report and several others that were just one page abstracts so we don't know what they really said either.

Lest we forget Karen wassentenced to 40 years she caught a break visavis statute to serve consecutively. And she got two years suspended. What is unfair about that?

11:28:
you're wrong there. check the stats . i well recall in late '80's or early '90's fed judge barbour was reversed in over 60% of his cases. agree with you though, judges here need to be appointed or like in texas-- where attys vote..

I think Karen should stop bothering the court and get busy with her memoirs.

11:34 and 11:50 you both have points.
There is reason for concern if someone has harmed another and consistently made bad decisions that cause one to wonder if they will continue to pose a threat. 11:34 is concerned that Karen, if this appeal had a prayer in hell , would continue to pose a risk.
While there is evidence of remorse. It is impossible to tell whether the remorse is due to the consequences she ( and others) is (are) experiencing or about the decisions she made.
There has been insufficient time to see a change in behavior and words are easy and unpersuasive to many of us.
Karen continues to make excuses (" I just had three glasses" and " Stuart was fighting with me"). I haven't heard anything about speed or after seeing that Stuart was getting drunk,not choosing caffeine instead. BAC drops and they were at CCJ for hours. Nor have I heard her say she should have left Stuart to protect herself and her children.

Her only expression of responsibility is the three glasses of wine... she knows her peers will not make much of such a " mistake". And, the evidence suggests that she admitted to not one more drop than her defense would have no choice but to stipulate as true though the prosecution could clearly have argued and provided evidence that she had more than that.

I don't want a " pound of flesh". We all hope prison isn't just about punishment but that time can bring insight and change.

I want to see Karen accept consequences and responsibility but MORE importantly to evidence a real change in behavior in actions rather than words. If she is mentally ill, I want her to get help. I don't want her to be a threat to herself, her children or the community. I want her to have learned from her mistakes.

But as of this five minutes I have not heard or heard of any behavior or utterance that could not be reasonably construed as self-serving on Karen's part.

I find it interesting that some think Karen made/got a bad deal.

Who knows what a jury would have done or what might have come out in court in Karen's disfavor.

Who knows if the families agreed to ask for leniency if Karen would just tell them what happened that night? Or if , with the prosecuter'a additional agreement not to ask for the maximum , a deal was sealed?

Why does anyone believe that Karen's lawyers AND the Irbys wouldn't have benefitted from a " not guilty" verdict?

Don't y'all GET it? EVEN if Stuart HIT her, that isn't a DEFENSE. She could have stopped the car and gotten out. It doesn't explain the witnesses who saw excessive speed BEFORE the crash. It defies physical explanation. It just DOESN'T fly.

11:34 a.m., you seem to be accusing the victims' families of caring more about getting money than getting justice. Do you really think you know more about this case than the victims' families? If so, are you one of the people acting on Stuart's behalf?

It appears that both Stuart and Karen each had some serious individual personal problems long before this wreck ever happened and that they tended to bring out the worst in one another.

Stuart's representatives have claimed (on Stuart's behalf) that he can't remember what happened the night of the accident. As far as I know, Karen never claimed she couldn't remember what happened that night; she just never had given an official statement about what happened, that is, until very recently. I don't know whether or not Karen is telling the truth when she says that Stuart attacked her in the car. But then again, I don't know that Stuart and his representatives are telling the truth when they claim that Stuart can't remember what happened that night. The fact that Stuart "has a known bipolar disorder" has now been revealed publicly. If Stuart had that condition before the wreck, it is certainly conceivable that he could have attacked Karen. I'd like to hear the details of what Karen has to say, and then try to make an informed judgment as to whether or not she is telling the truth.

Something seems a little fishy about the whole ordeal. Could Judge Green have read the poem on purpose? Could this have been the plan all along? Who is paying for new lawyer? This just seems too quick and sudden.

@2:27. I agree with you. Something just not right about the way the whole situation has turned out. Maybe since the family has begged for mercy, they are betting on getting this conviction thrown out and take her chances on a judge that has been paid. May Green wouldn't take a bribe, but will make a "mistake".

While I find the motion well written, I am left with this thought. Karen requested a pre-sentencing report. Karen had hundreds of letters by well meaning folks to give her leniency based on her being a mom. In my mind she opened the examination of all angles for consideration. What bothers me the most is that the appeal seeks to quiet the consideration of the victims. It does not seek to limit the "victim families". It seeks to silence any consideration for the good Dr.'s. Kinda sick if I really want to be logical about it.

Let's not forget that Karen Irby plead GUILTY. Maybe the Judge saw through all of the letters which most likely came mostly from Stuart's friends and acquaintances. Let's remember that she has a past that isn't as rosy as all her NEW friends want to seem.

She killed two people and she is doing the time. If the families were from around here, they may find out more about Karen Collins Bounds Irby than when she was begging for mercy after she killed their loved ones.

For all of those who know Karen, why didn't she hit the road a year ago taking both of her kids and go to her parents to live or somewhere else. Why did she stay? What was there to be afraid of at that point?

It doesn't sound like SI was in great shape to abuse her and her kids last year considering the injuries he sustained from the crash?

I don't get it...none of it makes sense. There just comes a point where you have to take care of yourself in life, and obviously she made a choice to stay with a violent man, EVEN after he tried to beat her while she was driving.

There are plenty of bipolar people walking around, but how many court cases have you heard of where a bipolar person tries to beat their spouse while driving?

And, if he did, SHE SHOULD HAVE SAID THIS 15 MONTHS AGO and filed for a divorce from him then.

I would like for all KI supporters to fess up and admit:

1. I have attempted to visit her in prison.

2. I have at a minimum sent her a personal letter of support.

Given you cannot do 1 for at a minimum of 6 months due to she is becoming a prisoner, I am curious how many of those have even attempted number 2.

While you have every expectation to support her here, I am very curious as to what you have done in action beyond complaining about us who call bullshit.

7:21, I don't know where you got your information, but you are wrong. Why don't you fess up and admit you don't know what you are talking about.

2:07, did it ever occur to you that she couldn't pull over and stop the car because Stuart had knocked her unconscience? Surely that would explain the high speed witnessed before the wreck. You guys try leaving a madman who owns and rules the world.
And 5:42, Stuart's "injury" hasn't stopped him from hurting his own child since the wreck. Karen and her daughter were not the only ones subject to his wrath. He has violently hurt his own 4 year old son, fairly soon from getting out of the hospital with such an intense brain injury.
Karen is a strong woman and has wanted out of this nightmare for years. Perhaps Stuart threatened the lives of everyone Karen loved, or perhaps he only threatened her daughter's life. Where could she hide that he could not find? There are no corners of the earth or rock big enough to get away from this mad man, pre and post injury.

8:58- Didn't he file for a divorce in Sept. 2008?

She doesn't and hasn't appeared that strong in the past. There are ways out, especially when you have the financial means that she has.....I think she enjoyed the lifestyle he provided for her.

8:58- one more thing, if he knocked her out, she wouldn't have remembered much of anything. She seems to have remembered lots that happened in the car that night at this point. I do believe that she was awake when she crashed and told someone at the scene of the accident when asked how much she had been drinking, she said, "plenty!"

9:39 I never heard or read anything that said Karen Irby told anyone Stuart "knocked her out." It is my understanding she has said he was attacking her and pulling her hair. Ever tired to drive a car while someone was trying to pull your hair out? It is extremely painful and driving would be impossible. I have heard from several sources that when when Karen arrived at UMC part of her scalp was separated/pulled from her head and had to be repaired. Also, remember Dr. Dedousis said something about proof in court.

Finally, didn't you always think something was going on in the car that night to cause Karen to drive like that and never even try to brake? I sure did.

10:47,

That same BS post that you've already posted once still doesn't make a lick of damn sense, no matter how many times you post it. If someone is 'attacking' me while i'm driving, the FIRST thing i do is STOP.

Period

Anything else is just plain stupid.



That wreck is nothing but the cause of two DRUNK IDIOTS getting into an automobile instead of taking a taxi or hell, a FREE LIMO.

May 22 5:48 is spot on! I didn't realize you got a "do over" if you pleaded GUILTY! How does that work exactly- "oops- I made a mistake/the devil made me do it/Stuart made me do it!" Yeah- RIGHT!

12:02 I'm with the original poster, and the point is not BS as you called it. Something was definitely going on in the car on Old Canton Road. How does anyone continue to drive or stop if someone is beating the crap out of you and pulling your hair from your scalp? You can't stop if you can't brake. I have also heard one of Karen Irby's medical issues was her scalp being separated from her head.

Who's to say he wasn't fighting with her in an attempt to get her top pull over and stop driving 100 mph???

8:58, what is the difference in saying "knocked her unconscience" as you wrote in your post to 2:07 or "knocked her out?"

Please explain that to me, b/c either way she remembers way too much to be knocked unconscience as you wrote.

She appeared to be communicating with the EMT's at the scene of the crash. So I don't think he "knocked her unconscience."

So move on......

I would love to see a medical/psychological evaluation on KI like we saw on SI.

There may be another side to this story...

Crazy As Bat Sh..t and CYA!

I don't think "golddigger" is a diagnosis in the DSM whatever-version-we're-on-now.

8:29 AM So I guess you didn't write her huh? Or, are you on the list to call? Notice, inmate has to request your visitation. Take the time to research before you accuse one of not knowing what they are talking about. Classification takes up to 30 days. Medical evaluation can last up to several weeks. Visitation while under suicide watch is ??? Unless you are direct family or attorney, I bet the chances of you getting in your visit the first six months are slim.

http://www.mdoc.state.ms.us/Frequently%20Asked%20Questions.htm#Where_do_new_inmates_go_when_first_moved_from_the_local_county_jail_to_MDOC_custody

http://www.my601.com/mostpopular/story/Karen-Irby-on-Suicide-Watch-Heres-Her-Daily/rpB320fcNEexB94FgRAOBQ.cspx

And if you want to know what really is going on in CMCF...take a look here...

http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=802

My reference in the above should have been 8:29 PM. My apologies in advance.

8:53 Stuart is not a big.muscular man with long arms. He is short. Compare his size to Karen's in the CL photo

Have you SEEN this model car's front seat?

Do you understand Karen had a foot and ankle injury common to race car drivers BECAUSE her feet were at the pedals?

She was conscious at the scene.

You can pull out hair. You can even get some skin with it sometimes, but you can't pull skin away from the scalp...that's an impact injury.

The most common reaction of those assaulted while driving is to slam on the brakes.

Your theory is incredibly unlikely.

My theory is that they were fighting in the car over the report to child protective services. Stuart was angry. I believe he said, not nicely, that he was going to divorce her. I believe she decided if she couldn't have him,no one else would and said so. She wanted to prove it or scare him into believing it and started driving at a high speed. He may well have started to hit her then.

Murder/suicide , both attempted and successful, is , sadly,a common occurence where there is a history of domestic violence.

My theory fits the facrs without imagining bizarre physical gymnastics or unusual reactions.

11:19, You are obviously a member of the Stuart Irby Fan Club!!! Get a new hobby because he is a sad and pathetic excuse of a man who beats women and children!!!

Guess you are a fan of the KI Golddigger" Club! Marry old and wealthy, no matter the cost to your children! Life in the Fast Lane/Live Large. Was it worth it all you Fan Club members???

12:39 You can defend Stuart Irby forever, but it's not going to do any good. By his own doing his good name and reputation are gone, and probably any hope of happiness and peace in his life are gone, too. Anyone who beats a child is a sad, pathetic soul.

11:19, You sound resentful and jealous of people with money. How sad for you! Why don't you stop spending your life blogging, and try to make some money of your own?

I am not advocating innocence or guilt for anyone, but feel strongly that many do not understand domestic abuse. Until you've experienced it, it's really easy to ask why the abused does not leave, and often times, we can even condemn a victim because we don't understand why the abused stays with the abuser. Please take a look at the following statement adapted from the National Coalition against Domestic Violence: These attitudes are common myths about victims of domestic violence. The fact is that reasons for staying are far more complex than a blanket statement about a victim's character or strength of will.

Whether or not you feel KI and/or SI are guilty, please, let's educate ourselves on domestic violence. You may be surprised who you know that might be living in hell, but has become skilled in hiding it. Trust me, it unfortunately happens much more than you know--even to those with financial security.

Please don't beat me up on here! This is my first & most likely only comment! :)

1:42PM Please explain for us that don't understand what the hell you are talking about. I fail to see how the post you refer to can result in the conclusion you made.

11:38PM Don't know Stuart, just know that Karen is an admitted killer. And, you best start speaking in alleged terms, there has been no conviction, there has been no court intervention, there has been no assumption of guilt by Stuart.

For both of you, have you sent a letter requesting a prayer session with Karen? I was praying the other night, all of the evil tongued folks on this site would just put aside their horrible judgments of Stuart and pray for the one who accepted responsibility for her actions. I prayed that they would understand that she needs their thoughts/prayers. Their hatred consumes them about this man and they should learn to channel it in a positive manner. But, they don't listen. They bitch.

1:47PM You are right. Here you go...

http://www.sheridanhill.com/batteredmen.html

Wonder if this could backfire on her and she be given more time?

"A bird in hand is worth more than two in the bush."

Told you the night of sentencing KF; misapplication of the law,ineffective assistance of counsel and 4th amendment issued. Green has no business on a bench. Green is a incompetent, racist slug that political correctness prevents from being removed.

A year ago lots of people were against Karen for this crash.

Now that Karen has been sentenced, everyone is poor poor Karen. She is married to a violent person blah blah blah!

Well, if you will research, Stuart Irby FILED for a divorce from Karen in Sept. 2008 and in the petition for divorce, it states HABITUAL AND CRUEL AND INHUMANE TREATMENT.

Karen is finally having to be accountable for her actions and doesn't like the outcome of her sentence. So before everyone continues to throw stones at the Irby's, please take the time to look at the WHOLE ENTIRE PICTURE.

I don't care if you like either one of them or don't like either one of them. But all of this, Stuart did this and Stuart did that.......there's another side to this story as well.

I don't live in MS and don't know either one of them. I'm going from what I have read over the last year on this blog site and heard in the MS news.

Where is the nurse that said SI had a clenched fist full of Karen's hair when he was brought in to the hospital the night of the accident. And that KI had a bald area on the right side of her head with all other injuries being to the left side of her body?

Where is the "someone" who said "something" about "somebody"?

FAIL 3:55PM.

Don't know 3:55PM, but you are right? Where is the Nurse (aka Waldo)? Why were those details not contained in her deposition? Why were those details left out of the description by the family at her trial? Where is Waldo? I am of the belief that Karen was going to take them both out by driving the car into a wall, or at during the time she was hurtling down Old Canton, she was threatening him with bodily harm or death even. That to me is the most logical explanation why she SPED UP! Perhaps Stuart was actually trying to get her to slow down!

Maybe her foot was on the naturally and normally on the pedal when he yanked her bald and as a reaction looking for leverage she stiffened her leg, no longer thinking about a gas pedal.
ANYTHING could have happened. Perhaps when she was asked how much she'd had to drink, in her damaged, yanked, wrecked head... she heard and responded to how much had Stuart had to drink.

Karen Irby should have gone to trial. If this blog is any indication, there's not twelve people on earth who could get in a room and could agree to anything about this terrible accident. Outdated test tubes, bad accident reconstruction, unprofessional police reports, witnesses questioned together, prior reports of Stuart's violence, etc. She could be relaxing in Destin right now. Boy, did she get some terrible legal advice.

OF COURSE judge green denied the motion. What, was she going to say: Sure, you guys are right, I was wrong. "I shouldn't have created such a "me" moment with the sophmoric creative writing exercise...and I realy thought that her attorney would OBJECT to the whole thing anyway!!!!!!"

Judge Green may be a brilliant judge but she looks and sounds not-so-brilliant with her "axing" questions....and her demand to only use "plain talk". Her dismissal of lengthy victim family input was insulting. They deserved more.

6:58 pm You lost me at "axing". Disrespectful regarding speech. I would love to sit with you and go toe to toe with vocabulary and see how you mispronounce. Your assumption that she dismissed the families pain is pretty insulting. The father and mother of the good Doctor are in extreme mourning and suffering physical ailments as a result of Karen killing their children. Her brother said it, they cannot be here. You are cold. Simply cold.

KK , you're misinterpreting my comments... The judge virtually scolded the victim families saying that could not make lengthy statements , that she would not tolerate them taking the court's time. Then ,she proceeded to make her own lengthy poem . I felt bad for the families. How you derive that I am 'cold' is beyond my comprehension. But good luck with your attempts to sort this all out, I am sure you'll get there.

KK needs his fat, smarmy ass kicked up and down State Street for about an hour.

where are you KF....judge denies Irby's request.

I was making some damn chicken margarite from scratch. The irby's can take the night off tonight.

May 24 1:47pm Great comment about abuse. I am an educated (college graduate) working as a professional in the financial field. I would call myself above-average intelligent,but years ago I was in an abusive relationship. Now that I finally left - after 10 years of marriage to him - people ask "why didn't you leave"? I cannot explain why we don't. But, Mrs. Irby was drunk and driving a vehicle. The alleged assault is inexcusable, but drinking and driving is even more so. If she has been a victim of domestic abuse that just makes this situation all the more tragic.

Kingfish: might we have that recipe???

People, there's a difference between reasonable doubt and imaginative thinking.

Theories should have some basis. You cannot pick and choose among the facts and ignore evidence to form a viable theory or imagine your personal experience is relevant. Please check the eyewitnesses testimony of the distance the car was speeding. Please note there is more than a little evidence about Karen's prior behaviors in court records.

What some think is " rude" on the part of Judge Green, others understand that a court sentencing is not the time or place for memorials or expressions of grief. Cautions not to take up too much court time are common and unfortunately necessary. Our courts are rather overburdened.

Those of you forming such theories were probably shocked at the OJ verdict. Now you see how people believe what they want to believe and dismiss inconvenient FACTS.

Just returning from a good ass whippin' off of State Street! Thanks to all who participated. I'm now soaking in a warm bath as I write this, not the couch where you will usually find me.

Let me begin by apologizing to 7:49pm. I read your post several times and STILL misinterpreted it. My concern was the statement that the judge dismissed the statements of the family. While I agree she was not warm and fuzzy (much like her prose) I do think she gave appropriate time to the voices of those who are still alive whether they were in the courtroom or not. My misinterpretation is in the contempt I hold for the KI Fans who would dismiss the very real pain of the doctor's pain because of some factor of the trial (the judge, KI statement, letters, etc.).

You have my utmost respect, and again, sorry I read that wrong.

KK

peace from me as well, thanks for the words. I just rememeber from the video, that the judge warned the family not to take too much time, left me the impression that the families would be cheated out of their opportunity to express their sadness. The poster a few lines up seems to know courtroom decorum better than me and I admit I know nothing of court room procedure, but it just struck me as odd that the judge would tell the families that they needed to watch the clock , then the judge herself took a lengthy time reading a fictitious poem. I am not a KI
sympathizer, I sympathize with the victim's families and for all who will suffer as a result of this tragedy.

As I understand it, the initial basis for the victims' families choosing to sue Stuart for damages was because he allowed Karen to drive his car home that night even though he knew she'd been drinking. Of course, it appears that he'd had more to drink than she had, but still, he shouldn't have allowed her to take the keys to drive them home. They both should have agreed to call a cab or use the taxi service provided by the Country Club for those kinds of situations. Stuart's allowing Karen to drive his car, even when he knew she'd been drinking, may not amount to criminal negligence, but at the very least I think it should provide a strong basis for some civil liability on his part in the matter. But IF (and I stress IF) Stuart actually attacked Karen in the car, then he should be charged criminally.

I saw on WLBT last night that Stuart's attorney has stated that Stuart is maintaining that he did NOT attack Karen in the car that night. But how can Stuart know that for sure if he supposedly can't remember what happened that night, which is what he has been claiming for months now? Is Stuart suddenly getting his "memory" back now (quite conveniently for him), now that Karen has started to make specific allegations against him?

I don't know what happened in the car that night. I do think Karen needs to spend some time in prison. She certainly shouldn't have been driving after drinking as much as she apparently had to drink that night. And even IF Stuart actually attacked her in the car, she may have already been speeding before that point. But IF he truly attacked her in the car, then it seems he should be criminally charged too. And Stuart shouldn't have let Karen drive the car in the first place.

I'm not convinced yet one way or the other whether or not Stuart attacked her in the car. I'd like to hear more, and I suspect we will. I do think it's interesting that Stuart seems to suddenly (and conveniently) be remembering enough now to claim that he didn't attack Karen in the car.

Both Stuart and Karen seem to have had very serious problems long before the wreck happened. Now, "The War of the Irbys" is coming out in public for all to see. And we should want to know the true and complete facts of this case, because two people were killed as a result of the mess in the Irbys' lives. I for one am glad that Karen is doing some prison time and can't possibly harm anyone else with a car right now. But it makes me VERY nervous to know that Stuart, with bipolar disorder and an apparent history of alcohol problems, is still being allowed to drive.

All those points are very compelling and it sure would be intriguing to know exactly what did happen that tragic night, However, there will be no trial because Karen pled guilty to the crime that she is now serving a severe sentence for.

It really is sort of unbelievable that Karen and her atty would somehow want to present a defense to something that she pleaded guilty to.

CCJ video on www.wapt.com is interesting

I am the victim of spousal abuse, I do not drink, therefore, I never drove. Mine beat me in the home, where others did not see him do it, The comments of the DA are incorrect, if he knew anything about spousal abuse he would know that things can change in an instant. Sure, they looked "happy" in the picture but one word, one look, can set that spouse into a tirade, the DA should not make comments he can't back up, none of us know what actually happened in that car, mine beat me for no reason at all, when he was drunk, I didn't have to say anything, if I just cut my eyes the wrong way, I was beaten, so Mr. DA, looks are deceiving, it can happen in an instant. The only people who saw me beaten were my children. So, don't judge if you haven't been there before and never say that "they looked fine, no problems", Mr. DA you were not there.............

Geez...give it a rest. Do you troll every Irby page?

It may have been WAPT rather than WLBT who reported that Stuart's attorney has stated that Stuart is maintaining that he did not attack Karen in the car on the night of the accident. Whichever TV station reported that information, it is certainly worth noting that Stuart had previously claimed that he could not even remember the events of that night. So, it's definitely interesting that Stuart can now (supposedly) remember enough about that night to know with certainty that he did not attack Karen. It just seems very convenient (for him) that he now supposedly remembers that detail, which makes it suspicious.

Stuart didn't do anything. Karen killed two doctors.

I think that what Stuart has is "selective" memory. If he is in such poor mental shape, who is taking care of the little boy? And shouldn't DHS be involved with all the other allegations made with he and children? His true colors will come out before long. His mouth will overload his brain pretty soon and let's just sit back and see what happens. Did anyone question Wife No. 1 and the children he had with Wife No. 1 or could they have been bought off, it would be interesting to read those divorce records. Keep up the good work KingFish.........

I love how you "selectively" want to blame Stuart for Karen's actions.

12:45, have you ever been in a car accident and sustained a brain injury such as Stuart's?

If not, I suggest you do some research on this.

If he did attack her in the car that night Karen should've come out with this a year ago and her bags should've been packed.....instead she was posing for pics at a charity event....

Am not blaming Stuart, my opinion is that it took two to tango.

Yes, 8:56PM, you are right. It takes four feet, four hands, two heads to drink and drive one car into two people. If it was Stuyie driving, I'd feel the exact same way, but it wasn't. It was Karen.

10:19 Some of us believe those who are parents have an obligation to our children to be good role models and to think of their future before our personal pleasure. We even think we have a responsiblity to our community to not put ourselves or others at risk.
While Stuart may not have legal responsibility, some of us hold him morally responsible whether he hit his wife in the car or not.
I am still at a loss to understand why some find planning to get home safely so difficult especially when they have the resources available to Stuart.
But, I accept that is an old fashioned notion.

9:13 AM, what in the world are you talking about?

Karen could have also called a taxi cab and made the choice not to drive that night. And, she made a choice to not only drive drunk, but drive extremely fast. Read the paper and listen to the news.

And, foremost and most important, she made a choice to stay with him after the wreck and subject her kids to it and not tell the entire truth about this wreck from the beginning, assuming SI did something to her in the car to cause this tragedy!

If she wasn't driving so fast, she may have been able to better control the car. She left the JJC driving fast, there are witnesses who saw her.

I'm so glad that you aren't raising my children. Karen is where she is today because of her actions, not Stuart's.

There it is! Morality. So we finally get to the bottom of this. Go pray. Trying to crucify a man who did nothing with respect to the crime is getting old.

I am with 9:36AM. If your warped sense of morality for blaming Stuart is what you possess; Stay away from my children. Far, far away.

From what I recall reading in the days and/or weeks after the accident, neither Karen nor her attorney said anything about Karen being attacked by her husband.

The husband was found to have no memory of the events.

The State decides not to prosecute the husband.

Then Karen uses the alleged attack by her husband in an attempt to lighten her load at sentencing.

The legal strategy for both Irbys may be controlling what we hear and when we hear it

Do we really know the truth, other than Karen was drunk and was driving the car that killed two innocent victims?

lots of pawning... isn't it sad there was NO winner. My sympathy goes to Karen for sure. Yes, she's guilty of the crime and being USED. Stuart, you don't win either. You will, forever, be held accountable. How does counsel sleep without aid? I enjoy being "little ole me" - don't want the glitz, glamour or money that doesn't provide happiness.

For all you ding bats that think Stuart is here, get real. Your paranoia is showing.

He can be anywhere he wishes. I understand he is quite active these days. Activity increased right about sentencing date. Sleeze-bag !

It sounds like you know him, of him, or an acquaintance. WHY NOT TELL HIM YOURSELF what you think? Nutbag.

Honestly, we don't know when Karen told about Stuart beating her in the car. Certainly her attorney knew it very soon after the wreck, but the public just didn't know this until the sentencing. I still say she got terrible legal advice. Stuart remembers. I will never think differently. It is just better for him that he says he doesn't.

Stuart does not remember. He has traumatic brain injury.

9:07 That's what he claims, and it is impossible to disprove. Many suspect he's lying about his memory loss.

There is nothing in 9:13s comments that doesn't apply to both Karen and Stuart.
While Karen is legally responsible, Stuart has personal responsibility for his decision making as well.
Basing one's decisions on immediate gratification without regard for others or possible consequences can be called any number of adjectives...immature,unethical,irresponsible,crazy...