Jackson Jambalaya

How is Vickie Curry still employed as a police officer with Madison PD after she went to her pals in her own department to investigate a case involving her family?

I am no fan of Stuart Irby, but Curry and Company seem sleazy enough to cause me to side with Irby on time one.

I saw on Wtok news a couple days ago that Karen Irby had been transferred to Kemper County correctional facility. The news didn't give a reason for the transfer.

They don't have to give a reason, prisoners are moved all of the time. Just because her name is Irby doesn't mean they have to alert the media every time she is moved.

11:24, can you share your opinion as to a defensible reason to terminate her from the Madison PD?

Shadowfx: If you have to ask that then you would not understand any explanation that is given. 11:24 said "How is Vickie Curry still employed as a police officer with Madison PD after she went to her pals in her own department to investigate a case involving her family?"

Please read 11:24s comment again and concentrate on it real real hard. Are we beginning to see the problem with what Curry did? Anything?

a grand jury indicted Irby based on the evidence presented ... enough said.

"a grand jury indicted Irby based on the evidence presented."

That dont mean shit.

Hey "that don't mean shit" ... have you ever been indicted????? Ha Ha Ha! I guess it will all come down to the jury want it.

@7:55. Now that it's morning again, perhaps you can think clearly enough to answer my question. Do you know anything at all about terminating offenses and grounds for termination or are you simply suggesting you don't like her approach and would like to see her fired? I doubt "going to ones pals to discuss what she thought was criminal" is going to get one terminated. Perhaps you can point to a handbook violation or departmental policy infraction. Nice stab at rebuking my question though....

1:15am. I am interesting in hearing myself 7:55 explain, too, instead of just throwing out some BS response. Waiting..... waiting.....

Simple. Madison PD should have never investigated this case. Period. Standard procedure would have been to hand it off to MCSO, MBI, or Ridgeland PD. Its what you call a conflict of interest.

Bunch of loons.

I, frankly, don't know what to make of all of this.
I know that we hear on TV that a grand jury will " indict a ham sandwich" and that Irby is hardly a sympathetic character, but I question whether the photo is as benign as it's described by the defense. Juries can also get a bit cranky if they feel their time is being abused by a prosecutor over nonsense.
Ms. Curry clearly took offense even if Mr. Bounds initially maintained contact with Irby after the email was sent. But, then emails aren't always read in a timely fashion and the relationships here are hardly usual.
How did the photo come to the attention of Ms. Curry? Was there commentary with the photo?
Nor can I understand why the MPD or the prosecutors' office would be interested in getting involved in a dispute between two men once married to the same woman without cause. Police and prosecutors tend to have a particular dislike for family disputes. Even assuming some hope for publicity or community approval for going after a hated individual, they would have to know they had a weak case if it is as described BY THE DEFENSE.
We seem to have many coconspirators here as the judge would also have to go along and all must be willing to jump into a family dispute with no one in the system to point out the obvious and cool things off.
I suspect the photo is " worth a thousand words" or else this would not be happening. Let's do remember that Stuart engaged in sexually inappropriate decision making before his accident as his friend's divorce papers( which were all over the Internet) made clear.

Kingfish; while your opinion is certainly interesting, 'conflict of interest' won't hold up in this situation in a termination hearing. Not quite as 'simple' as you suggest. If she had launched off on her own into an investigation that was already known to be totally outside the bounds of her job or outside the bounds of departmental jurisdiction, and she did so knowingly with full intent and knowledge of violation of departmental policy, then we would be talking 'simple'. Otherwise, you're full of it. At least in this case.

Second guessing the jurisdiction and the prudence of Madison PD's involvement is one thing. A terminating offense is quite another. Why even run that rabbit trail. We bitch about JPD sitting on their hands day and night and now we bitch about Madison engaging in an investigation. If her supervisor and chief feel she AND OTHERS (INVESTIGATORS) acted inappropriately, something will wind up in their files. Terminate somebody for this chicken shit? Hardly.

"interesting opinion"

Its not an opinion. It IS a conflict of interest. Mother of kid is a Madison Police Officer. Standard rule in such cases, and this is based on talking to more than a dozen law enforcement officials in different jurisdictions was this case should have been referred to another agency as it involved an employee of the Madison PD. Madison PD should have never touched this case. but hey, I'll take the word of some anonymous commentor over what a bunch of cops have told me should have happened.

as for an indictment. Please. Its Michael Guest, the grandstander of District Attorneys in Mississippi. He won't prosecute Susan Ridgway, Charles Evans, Chris Evans, or Claiborne Frazier but damned if he'll indict a brain-damaged man who sent an email to a middle aged man. He's grandstanding -again, and I'll be surprised if there is a conviction.

I offer this comment in general terms. I'm not accusing this officer of anything because I don't know what, if anything, she did to initiate or further the investigation.

That being said, violating the conflict of interest policy *will* get an officer fired at most departments. These conflict policies are fairly consistent from department-to-department. Ex: "Police officers shall...refrain from becoming involved in official matters, or influencing actions of other police officers in official matters, impacting the officer's immediate family, relatives, or persons with whom the officer has or has had a significant personal relationship." (FDLE Rule 7.1)

That's why KF's point about why the case should have been referred to another agency is so important. When a case involves a family member of an officer, this situation gives the appearance that the case is a railroad job.

Regardless of how innocent or well-intentioned the investigators may be, there is no way to avoid the *appearance* of impropriety. No matter the true facts, it taints the entire process in the eyes of the public.

I'm shocked supervisors at Madison PD didn't put a stop to this and have another agency do the investigation.

The law doesn't say anything about " appearence of impropriety" as quoted above.

It seems to me that it wouldn't JUST be the prosecutor or Ms Curry believing this case was worthy of pursuit. You'd have to have a lot more people in the system buying into this.

You're asking me to believe that a single female officer carries that much influence and that even a grandstander is so clueless about his profession, that he is willing to risk the embarrassment of his case resting on a benign photo shopped picture of a girl's head imposed on a voluptuous but decently posed body in a bathing suit often seen at water resorts alone.
I've come across some mega political and legal males in my lifetime who were also outwardly prudish but none lacked the self preservation to be THAT stupid.

1121, my post did not say that conflict policies used the phrase "appearance of impropriety." I used that term to state why those policies were in place and rigidly enforced by most departments.

Rationale for the policy aside, officers are generally prohibited from involvement in cases involving relatives. That's the point.

At this point, I still say the investigators in this case should get the benefit of the doubt as to actual impropriety. My speculation is that Madison PD's failure to refer the case to another agency was not motivated by malice, but rather a lust for camera time.

It is unfortunate that most cannot see the "malicious prosecution" that resides in these charges. Given the facts presented to date, it seems clear, at a minimum, incorrect charges were levied against SI to achieve some end.

It is difficult to get past the fact the email was between two adults and ends up with charges of cyberstalking a child?

It also looks like sour grapes because I'm sure no one went to Disney.

Can an investigation be called for within the department by an agency outside the MPD?

I venture a guess, you will find, they are acting on similar practices that Divorce attorneys use in municipal courts.

Dah, this is the police department of Madison The City which all offices are run by the Queen Mary.. Office supervisors are just a title.... Only the Queen says what will be done... The Queen always answers her cell...

Superb! Now we learn that Mayor Mary is behind it all and has a hard on for Stuart Irby and she managed to ramrod the entire investigation. Hillarious. She also dislikes Dale Danks and is behind the efforts to keep weeds and snakes on his overgrown golf course!

As Dudy Noble famously opined, "Gentleman, you're talking about rat shit and there's elephant turds lying all around!"

PS: I've 'talked to a dozen or more law enforcement officials in different jurisdictions' and we all believe that quote is appropriate given this discussion.

Helloooo? A PD investigation file is discoverable. Do you armchair geniuses know of anything in that file that reveals falsified investigatory comments or fabricated evidence? It contains only factual material, whatever its value. The actions of the D.A. and grand jury took on their own life independent of who is the mommy of whom. Curry can't be faulted for the subsequent decisions of the D.A. or G.J.

Not too worried what you think Shadow as in six months time when this case is either dismissed or he is found not guilty, I'll have the last laugh. I will say this.

I've learned in my short time here, KF, that the only valuable opinion is your own. You'll grow out of it though. Maybe. Someday. I don't give a rats ass whether or not he's guilty or gets dismissed. I'm just here to point out the idiocy of your 'inappropriate investigation' bullshit.

(my word to verify is haute).

5:42am: "Curry can't be faulted for the subsequent decisions of the D.A. or G.J."

Much in the same way the DA and Grand Jury can't be faulted if their subsequent decisions are based on the untruthful testimony of a witness.

Not saying that is the case here, but it seems prudent to consider all the possibilities, rather than just blindly blaming the DA and grand jury, and assuming the police acted appropriately.

"Do you armchair geniuses know of anything in that file that reveals falsified investigatory comments or fabricated evidence?"

Since we are talking about using the overwhelming power of the government to take away a man's freedom, I submit the proper inquiry is: "What proof is there that the contents of the file are *not* falsified or fabricated?"

Guy that just commented. You were fine until that last paragraph. Resubmit again without it.

Crowley, are you sure the office intruder wielding the nail file didn't bang you upside the head with the heel of his shoe? If you and others are going to charge/insinuate/opine that an officer either engaged in improper investigatory techniques, possibly presented fabricated evidence or somehow mislead the court.....don't you think you need to belly up and show some sort of evidence of that?

Or are wild assed speculatory accusations supposed to influence the courts of a rat in the imaginary woodpile?

I'm among the chief doubters that Irby is guilty of a damned thing since the 'child' was not the target or victim of his actions, nor was any contact (that we know of) had with the child. However, trying to lynch the officer is silly.

You and Kingfish are wrong on this one. In lock step. But, still wrong.

If any of you posting here even took a moment to check your facts. You would know that none of this has anything to do with Vicky Currie or her family. She is only the Investigator assigned to the case, she was not a complainant or victim in the case.

Don't count ME in that group of tools, 2:53.

I just really hate when people think they have to take time out of their day to shoot off comments about something when they don't even have the most simple basic fact correct!!!! If you can't even get that part right then just keep it to yourself.

442: What simple, basic fact are you talking about? Please share.

I'm not insinuating anything. My last comment was in response to 542, who stated that an officer should not be blamed for the actions of the DA and grand jury. My point was that it's not necessarily the DA's fault when a bad case gets indicted. More precisely, don't always assume that the prosecutor is a fool and that the officers are pure as the driven snow. We'll just have to wait and see where the fault lies.

As stated in my comments of 1058 and 1212, I've made it clear that there's no evidence of actual wrongdoing.

5:32, what I am referring to is that if you go back to the top of this page, the first comment posted on this matter on the 16th, leads you to believe that the Investigator Vicky Currie is also the victim in the case and that she is just out to abuse her power and get revenge. Vicky Currie is the Investigator that the case was assigned to. The case has nothing to do with her personally or her family. She was not the complainant or victim in the case. Every comment thereafter seems to follow that trend. That is what I was talking about. Therefore, that is what annoys me is that someone who wants to think they are so knowledgeable in something they are obviously not, can't even get the most simple and basic fact about the case correct.

Good points. Allow me to clarify because I was not clear. I'm not blaming or trying to beat up on the investigator. Someone assigned it to her. It is not the law to assign it to another agency. However, it is standard practice to do so for obvious reasons.

Now as for Shadow, I'm getting used to the histrionics. You know, Shadow makes up stuff, says I'm lying, says I'm deleting her comments, only allow people who agree with me, and that sort of thing. None of which is true.

915, sorry you're annoyed, but glad you are here. I've got a few "basic facts" about this case that seem important. Would you mind factchecking them for me?

Here they are:

1. Daughter of Madison police officer is alleged victim of a crime.

2. Madison PD investigates the case instead of referring it to another agency.

3. March 3, 2011 @11:21 am--Madison PD issues a press release announcing it has served a search warrant on Stuart Irby.

4. MPD press release states that search warrant was issued in connection with "cyberstalking INVOLVING A MINOR" (giving the false impression Irby was cyberstalking a minor).

5. March 3, 2011 @1:55pm--Madison PD issues ANOTHER press release (with the all so important mugshot) announcing Irby has turned himself in and was released on bond.

6. The allegations against Irby do not constitute a crime under Mississippi law.

Do we now have the "basic facts" correct? (Feel free to dispute #6, but that's going to be the result).

How do these basic facts smell to you? Madison PD deviates from standard practice and investigates a case involving the child of an officer. Madison PD then sends out a press release announcing it has served search warrant on Irby (not MPD's standard practice to issue presser re: a search warrant). Press release gives false impression that Irby was cyberstalking a minor, making it much more "newsworthy" and certain to grab reporters' attention.

Madison PD issues a second press release a couple of hours later announcing that Irby turned himself in and bonded out (when has Madison PD ever issued 2 play-by-play news releases in the same day?). Then it turns out what Irby did is not illegal.

Based on these basic facts, can you honestly say this was a legitimate investigation to bring a wrongdoer to justice? Or do the facts support an inference that it was more likely a publicity stunt by someone trying to feed his/her massive ego with "the big score?"

NOTE: The term "Madison PD" refers to the 2 or 3 lawless jack-booted thugs responsible for this farce, and not to the vast majority of MPD officers who had nothing to do with it.

Shadow's comments about KF are true. KF used to complain about how Donna would not allow most of his comments on JFP and now KF has become that which he used to complain about re Donna, but KF seems to be blind to it.

Everyone seems to forget that there may be some facts not yet in evidence.

The indictment may have been a means to further investigate complaints the girl herself may have verbally made to officers. The indictment may not have included the girl's claims until there was some evidence to support her claims of being cyberstalked but the investigator/prosecutor may have found her and/or her friends, credible.

Do remember that Stuart's computer was seized.

We do not know what other actions Stuart may have taken toward this young girl that appeared on his computer.

Did he post the photo on his or her Facebook page? Did he IM her? Did he email her and not just her father? Did he share this photo with his email address book?

Has anyone SEEN the photo? Is the body posed in an obscene or inappropriate way? Is the photo suggestive? Was there commentary with the photo that was suggestive or inappropriate?

If the photo is obscene in nature, the description in open court and in the papers filed would not be specific.

I am having a difficult time believing that all those involved in the prosecution , including the mother, would risk their reputations on only the photo as described thus far.
I may be wrong and the MPD, prosecution office , judge, the girl, the girl's entire family may ALL suffer from extremely poor judgment and have personality disorders, but frankly, it seems a bit far fetched to believe there weren't several people in the process to urge that cooler heads prevail...ESPECIALLY the teenage girl herself who is certainly not enjoying this kind of attention as her peers surely know and neither the girl nor her peers would get worked up about a photo shop in a bathing suit.

Those who have or have had a teenage girl in the house GET what I'm talking about. No one can spread misery and be uncooperative like an unhappy, embarrassed teenage girl. Nor is anyone more grossed out by dirty old men than a teenage girl!

This time next year Madison will be called Stuart The City. Currie, officer mommy and crew will be down at securitas begging for a job.

If this child is embarrassed it's because of her father. Instead of handling this like a man or just hitting delete, Bounds took a deep breath and smelled the scent of cash and off he went crying to the exwife. The rest is history. By the time this thing is over we will find out that one can indeed break a dog from sucking eggs. I reckon Boundsie won't be playing the Stuart lotto again.

Someone please give us the facts that you all seem to know that the rest of us are wondering?????

@8:59. It seems to be happening with regularity now. Thanks.

Take one brain damaged, morally handicapped horndog who sends a sexualized pshopped photo of an underaged teenager to her father.

Gee. I don't see why this should worry anybody. He's just a good ole boy. He didn' mean nuthin by it.