Jackson Jambalaya

I'm not terribly upset by this decision as most high profile cases are continued at some point. It will be just past a year after the wreck. If it gets continued past March, different story.

Who asked for the continuance?

I don't know who asked for continuance, but time isn't going to make this go away for Karen Irby. People are not going to forget what she did on Old Canton Road last February when she was drunk, driving at excess speeds, and killed two people.

Now for you lawyers in the bunch.
Would a civil suit normally be filed and settled before the criminal trial outcome?

Interesting question. I'm aware of civil cases that were settled before the criminal case in an effort to make the victims less out for blood regarding the criminal case.

On the other hand, where it comes down to a trial (and not a settlement) on the civil case, the civil case usually gets postponed until after the criminal case because of the defendant's fifth amendment rights.

Good for you Kingfish,love the warning. Just read some of the CL site. Some angry people out there. Well, so much for Southern Hospitality!

Kingfish, one of the reasons I found your site and continue to read/post is because of the absolute idiocy that goes on over on CL. Also, you actually present facts, whoa!!! what a concept. Kudos!

Now for my comment; is anyone really surprised by the delay and the continuance? Frankly, I would think it would be sometime next summer, 1.5 years before Mrs. Irvy ever saw the inside of a courtroom.

The delay is typical in most criminal cases. Delay equals less outrage. Although this case may be the exception.

No, I am not surprised by the delay at all. However, I don't believe the outrage of this case is going to go away. The lawyers are buying time trying to figure out the best plan of action for her with very few options. Karen Irby is going to go to prison whether it's in 2009 or 2010.

This is getting more interesting. If she tries to claim she had a seizure then she will have to justify driving with a seizure disorder, clearly a sign of a "depraved heart".

Although this state is no longer a mecca for "jackpot justice" in the malpractice area, that recent history shows just how many "experts" are willing to say anything for a fee.

Another point - didn't the legislature pass a law one or two years ago that said any expert witness in a malpractice case had to be licensed in Mississippi? Would that apply in a criminal case?

With two dead doctors being the victims in this case, it will be interesting to see who is willing say anything to support whatever "neurological" defense is offered.

On the other hand a neurologist may state that she suffered a traumatic brain injury and 1) can't remember the events or 2) can't assist her attorneys in preparing her case or 3) both. That would be a problem for a prosecutor.

Unable to assist sounds like a stretch. If she was unable to assist, wouldn't that mean that she is suffering from something neurologically speaking? I would believe that would be a concern for the court. Would they not intervene to ensure proper care is administered? Or at a minimum, restrict activities in a specific manner consistent with any neuro problems (i.e. no driving, no left alone, attend scheduled neuro treatments)? It appears to me that it is more of a defense re: cause of accident.

4:24. Neurologically impaired is going to be her defense, because let's all be realistic, they don't have another card to play.

Just because there is a neurologist listed doesn't mean that a neurologist will be part of the defense. IF you can make the trial preparation expensive for the prosecution, you might make them more willing to negotiate a plea.

When it comes to delay of trial, the prosecution has little ability and the defense can delay with little impunity.

One can waive one's " speedy trial" rights just as one can waive the " right to an attorney".

Governor Fordice didn't remember his wreck. How much time was lost by Mrs. Irby? Also, how much time was lost by Mr. Irby?

6:48...There's no way to know. I was in a horrible wreck, was hospitalized in intensive care for a month at UMC, and I remembered my wreck. I remembered everything. Unless they were both really drunk, they would remember at least leaving the CCJ and driving down Old Canton Road. In the end they will remember what their lawyer wants them to remember.

Driving with a seizure condition would constitute depraved heart only if she had a reasonable expectation that she would be at high risk--not average or higher than average, high risk--of having a seizure while driving.

Neurological is the only plausible explanation I can think of for why someone would drive 100mph with .09. Y'all are so wrapped up in "oh, haha, a woman we can wish evil things on in public and not sound like creeps" that you've missed the obvious, which is that somebody driving that fast is statistically risking their own life more than the lives of other people on the road.

She could have hit the guardrail without colliding with the truck first. So let's get real here. There was obviously something neurological going on. Either she was drunker than .09 or there was a medication interaction or she had a seizure disorder that resurfaced when she didn't expect it to. Unless it's #1, it qualifies as a freak accident, not a depraved heart homicide.

7:12, with respect, just because you remember your wreck doesn't mean that every person involved in an accident remembers theirs. I'm not trying to defend Mrs. Irby, by the way. Just pointing out that it depends on the exact nature of the injuries.

8:00 "Either she was drunker than .09 or there was a medication interaction or she had a sizure disorder that resurface when she didn't expect it to."

OR they were both .09 and probably higher, and they were physically fighting in the car causing her to lost control crossing two lanes. This reason makes more sense to me than anything else considering their history of domestic violence. I don't buy the fainting or seizures or medical interaction. Too convenient. No way a jury buys it either.

It's a good thing you're her neurologist and have access to her medical records.

God, you sound like a bunch of 13-year-old Trekkies on a fan forum. But more bloodthirsty. I almost love it.

8:08. Respectfully it doesn't really matter what we all think about the Irbys remembering about that night in February anyway. In the end they will remember only what their lawyer tells them to remember because of the murder charges and upcoming trial.

8:17. No people are not going to buy she had a seizure or fainted or any other bull. We all know none of these things would make you speed at excessive rate passing cars on the road. Read the the charge against her. That's exactly what it said she did.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

She's going to get away with it. Get your minds right. It's happening right now.

If her lawyers use the defense of a neurological problem, can the fact that she does or doesn't have another episode between now and her future trial be part of evidence for the defense? or in the case of no episode, the prosecution?

Also, somehow a alcohol/medication interaction doesn't seem like an 'freak accident'. Particularly depending on what the drug, oops, medication, was.

Reading the motion, I think it far more interesting that there are video tapes of them leaving CCJ.

It is also interesting that they request time to find and review medical records.

However,testing for neurological problems ...say..having doctors trigger another seizure shouldn't be that difficult if a neurological problem exists. Wouldn't need records for that.

Given the nature and many possible explanations for seizures, it's a brilliant defense, gotta love 10 seconds for a tonic seizure and 10 seconds for a Mercedes to go from 0-100 and the impossibility of proving a seizure didn't happen(might prove it did if you try) except...

for the witness who saw the car SPEEDING and PASSING other cars BEFORE the accident making a sudden neurological event as an explanation for the speed and lack of control a rather hard sell.

I was convinced that Mrs. Irby was guilty of depraved heart murder but realized - she really does deserve her day in court. There is a small - very small chance that she had something neurological happen and I owe that to her and anyone else in this situation to let her present her case and not yet pass judgement. I do think that her chance of proving anything is almost impossible - but it is true that something could have happened. I think that while we may all have our own ideas - me must wait and listen. If they cannot prove beyond a resonable doubt then I feel she is guilty - but our system does require that we give each other our day in court.

Take out two sentences and it stays up.

8:00 What guardrail? There is no guardrail.

Something just occurred to me thinking about a seizure and recalling the scene. I make that drive several times a week and have tried to imagine a reasonable explanation. I'd actually like there to be one.

IF she had had a seizure causing her to put pressure on the accelerator sensors ( not a gas pedal,computer sensors),she wouldn't have corrected for the curve and wouldn't have ended up where she did. You just don't end up at the Glen.

The most difficult explanation to present for the defense will be how the Irby car goes from the far right lane across three more lanes to the far left to hit the truck in such a short distance and ends up where the collision occurred.

The prosecution has only to take jurors to the scene.

And, of course, I expect there will be a problem finding jurors who have never heard the explanation for why drunk drivers so often survive otherwise fatal accidents.

It's " reasonable doubt" not " beyond the shadow of a doubt", but if only one juror doesn't understand that, this defense may work.

If it does work, I expect , to all our detriment,it will become a common excuse. " I wasn't fleeing/speeding , Officer", I had a seizure".

the devil made me do it.

1:13 Karen does deserve her day in court and will have it.

Citizens are not required to " presume innocence". The only requirement is , if called to jury duty , is to be honest if you have already formed an opinion on the case under consideration.

It may be of interest to some that having formed an opinion or even personal acquaintance with the accused or prosecutors or lawyers doesn't guarantee that you'll be excused from the jury IF the attorneys of both sides believe you can be fair in judging the evidence. Or , if the defense believes their evidence is so compelling that they can successfully change your opinion with the facts. That doesn't happen often, but it happens.

It is also common for jurors to either believe and admit when asked that the police usually get it right or that the police are often wrong. That alone doesn't necessarily mean they'll be excused.

It seems as if the delay would work for the prosecution as well as the defense, right? I don't see how they could possibly build a case by 7/6. I'm not a lawyer but that's just my opinion.

How do we know that she was in the far right lane? Did someone actually see her? Could she have been in the left lane? I typically drive in the left lane on that road because the road is rougher on the right and I hate hitting all of that asphalt and shaking my car so. I don't remember there being any skid marks so how do they actually know? Could she have had something happen, been in the left lane and drifted? My car is so out of align from the pot holes in Jackson that it drifts to one side. Could the slight curve that she took been just been dumb luck? I was pretty convinced that she was drunk until I had dinner out the other night and had a few drinks. My wife bought one of those breath things so that we could check before we drove. I registered .09 (didn't drive she did) and realized that I felt fine. I was shocked at how .09 felt.

I guess that I will have to hear what the witnesses say. My mind keeps changing about all of this the more I read what people are theorizing. Yes - these are theories but some of them may be possible.

I guess we will not know until we hear the facts from both sides.

The accident scene re-creation ( both photos and computer generated) has been shown many times. And, if one had to drive by the scene just after the accident, one could see how the investigators laid it out.

Accident scene investigators don't need skid marks to re-create the positions of the vehicles.

I suspect that's why the motion included hiring an accident scene investigator. They hope he/she can find a reason the JPD accident scene investigators got it wrong.

It is seeing the sharpness of the angle between the vehicles that continues to bother me. Misalignment doesn't work, especially in a vehicle that heavy.

I would really like to be able to fit the facts with a rational explanation ( as opposed to a highly unusual one) as I'm distressed by the one that does seem explain the facts as I know them.

A serious error by the accident scene investigators is, by process of elimination, all I'm left with having this five minutes.

And, IF, the bond agreement allows ( as it does according to CL) Karen to drive to school , it would be rather awful if she ever got behind the wheel of a vehicle again should she claim a seizure. She'd be putting her children and everyone else's at risk. Driving at all, ever again, would be a terrible thing to do.

And, I would hope if a seizure defense is successful, Highway Safety would take away her license to drive ever again.

To the person who said tell Karen "hi" that is uncalled for. I don't know her and was just commenting on the therories that have been on this site. Just because someone wants to question what lane she was in and how that information was obtained doesn't call for such a comment. Like many people I am trying to wrap my head around many possibilities. I am sorry that you are filled with such hate toward people just trying to converse with others about what could have happened. The fact is that unless someone witnessed something there is always room for error - either way. If she was going that fast you are indeed correct. Why is it wrong to question how we know for sure which lane she was in ect?

No hate here.

Just tired of irbyites trying to make it out to be some 'silly mistake' and if she says she sorry it'll all be better and go away.

Driving 100+mph in a residential neighborhood isn't a 'mistake'.

You don't weave in and out of other cars, passing them, if you're having a seizure.

Like the poster just previous to your lame reply cited. IF she's still got her drivers license at this point, HOW STUPID IS THAT!!!???? if she's going to claim 'seizure'.

We need a undercover investigation to see IF she really IS driving. How many *other* DUI/murder defendents have a dl at this point in the game? Especially since it isn't like she has to drive to work or anything to support her family. Course we know that'll never happen since her husband bought the local media sometime the day after the wreck.

If she's going to argue 'temporary loss of faculties' or something equally stupid. AND KILLED PEOPLE! That should preclude her EVER have a dl. EVER.

Again, I am not an irbyite as you so called it. Just someone trying to question how the know for sure what lane she was in.

I agree that she should not be driving now. I never said anything to the contrary. I just cannot understand how my questioning something brings something so hostile out. If you read what I wrote I never brought up that or several other things that you are so terribly upset about. I don't know the Irby's and cannot say hello to Karen for you. I am just a person trying to engage in a few questions on a website and read some other opinions.

I do have a question for you though - How can her husband who was in a coma "buy the local Media sometime the day after the wreck"?

re: posts 11:59am, 1:28pm, 3:10pm

I bet an analysis of grammar, phrases and word usage from forum posts would be interesting. The phrases "Did someone actually see her?", "Were you there?", etc. come up alot when someone is defending Irby's actions.

As well as variations of "hateful", "full of hate", "such hate", etc.

A statistical analysis would be interesting. How often would different people use exactly the same phraseology?

Interesting that you are deflecting a question with another question.

This is the first time I have posted on any website. These are obviously many questions that people share. I have not defended Mrs. Irby, I simply asked a question about the lane and could the car have veered. I found some of the comments that people made on this particular blog very interesting and it made me start thinking and question my own opinions of the case.

Your theory that the same person is posting things is definitely incorrect if you are in reference to me. You just blew that one out of the water.

I never asked "were you there" and when "hate" or "hatefullness" is being spewed it is obvious. These are not complex phrases that are unique to one mind or individual. Most people have used them in thier language thousands of times in a lifetime.

Don't attack me for simply posing a question on a blog.

Kingfish, your "hateful" blogger can have his or her way. I won't be particpating in something this rediculous again.

I repeat. I was simply engaging in theory. Quit turning this into someone who is for or against the Irby's.

I believe in the charges against her it says she was speeding and passing other cars. Obviously they have witnesses who saw her doing both before the accident occurred.

I just don't see how the defense can say a seizure or fainting caused her to drive so fast. She certainly would not have been able to pass cars either. You would have a hard time convincing me that anything other than the speed of her vehicle upon impact was what caused the wreck to be deadly. If she had been driving the speed limit, we might not even be talking about this now.

Well said 3:55.

Gee. I was just asking a question. You were not being attacked. Nothing personal intended.

On the CL site, this site, the Jxn tv sites, the same phraseology comes up. The phrase "being hateful" is not common where I live. It stands out.

When asking for proof of things, asking about the physical data (car wreckage, brick wall wreckage, BAC, hospital records, etc) make sense to me. But asking if a person mentioning known info about the wreck was present at the wreck site seems odd to me. It feels more like a "nah nah, I didn't do it and you can't prove it" type of dialog.

and no, I don't think one person is making all of these comments. But it doesn't seem crazy to guess that maybe they talk to the same people;
Hear the same phrases.

For awhile the forums had posts that asked if everyone wanted to burn Karen at the stake. Made me cringe every time. Two people burned to death.

3:10: There was a brother that was running everything while everyone was in the hospital or laid up.

3:32: You are correct. I'm not going to give away other phrases but they are there. 3:55: You are correct but it is happening none the less. Please come back. We still love you here.

Thanks KF, I ,too ,have noticed a " theme of phrases" in some of the post defending Karen. 5:23 the " witch" references have hit me as they did you...skin crawling creepy.

The general tactic is to attack the messenger rather than address the message in hopes the messenger will be frightened off from the bullying.

KF,I'm not sure why you don't want to mention any of the other common phrases that I , too, have noticed. I'll assume you have good reason and respect that.

But, I hope you'll forgive me for pointing out just one that I think is unfairly out of line with the realities and therefore should be mentioned..." jealous ex-girlfriend".

The " exes" are not legion. Who Stuart dated in the past is not a secret in some circles. The " exes" were never " jealous" of Karen ( it seemed to be the other way around to most social observers).To a woman, the " exes" are known in said social circles to be supportive of Karen and Stuart. They had all " moved on" before this happened and have expressed nothing save sorrow and concern.

That tactic seems particularly dangerous in that if the "exes" were to become angry about these attacks, one might should worry about what they could say.

I really don't think that Karen had a Seizure.Years back my Father was drunk and driving he ran a red light and passed out.Thank the Lord there were no other cars involved.His DR.told my Mother that he passed out because of his blood sugar,the alchol caused an inbalance with his Insulin and caused the blackout.This very well could have been what happened to Karen that night.

I am sure the authorities have long ago investigated at the CCJ what the Irby's had to drink that night. Their server would know, and their drinks (and meal if they had one) would have been put on their account there, too, so the CCJ would have records. Also, we know the authorities have a tape of them leaving there by the statements in the continuation action. Lots of info on the drinking part of this case will come from the CCJ.

10:34 I'm not so sure the account receipts will be that definitive. I expect the defense will argue that Stuart bought drinks for others that night...noticed someone's glass was near empty and offered to get them another when he was refilling his own. It might be argued that he bought the drinks/wine for everyone at the dinner table as well.
It will be the receipts combined with the tape and BAC that the prosecution will use to paint its picture of events.
It will be interesting whether or not the attorneys make this assertion or if they will have testimony under oath that Stuart bought drinks.
I've wondered about who will be on the witness list and who will be out of the country when the trial nears!
Cultural and religious values, and the obligations of citizenship vs social comfort,financial interests, group identification and friendship is one of the fascinating aspects of this case to me.

Its a completely unconfirmed rumor and for now, I'm zapping any reference to it.

KF, I know what rumor you mean. My source on that one is impeccable. When there's that kind of day at work, good or bad, everyone at work knows. I trust you will dig and scoop the others in the media.
There's zero doubt in my mind that it's no rumor.

Everything got very quiet, whats up? All must be right in the world of Irby.....

Why should there be anything going on? Unless some motions are filed, next thing is a trial date so it will probably be quiet for awhile.

8:38am. I agree with your post. I also have zero doubt the talk is just rumor.

What rumor?

8:17 wouldn't you think if a reporter asked for a confirmation or denial of said rumor to one of those who are in a position to be certain, that a straight out denial would be smart if there are no " legs" to the rumor? It's an " is" or " isn't" kind of thing.