Thursday, June 23, 2011

My Little Darlin, PT day 32 by David

Yesterday Jan's tracheostomy tube was downsized.   This allowed her to breath around it and she began saying  subtly the word no.  She said it a lot.  Her trachea later on was completely capped and she started breathing through her airway normally.  She increased her vocabulary throughout the day and was responding mostly appropriately.   She developed the use of several phrases throughout the day that she used repeatedly.  One of her favorites is "I don't like it".   She also has said a time or two "I am pissed off".  She will answer some questions appropriately but mostly she simply responds with no.  She did call me D Mo which is a nick name commonly used outside of the hospital.  She makes me smile a lot for the first time in a month.  Mostly because she is clearly improving but also she is really cute and entertaining to talk to the way she is now, kind of like what I think a child smoking pot would be like.  She has not slept much (and I have not either) since she has been out of the CCU.  The best way I have found to get her to sleep is to mentally stimulate her.  I can do this by showing her photos and asking her to tell me who she sees.   When doing this she mostly tells me "I don't like it".  She continues to increase use of her R arm but it is still gross somewhat spastic movement.  There is some improvement in her fine hand movement as well.  I think I see some increased movement in her L arm and hand.  Her legs are also becoming more and more active.  Physical therapy put her back brace on yesterday and briefly sat her up on the side of the bed.  She did become orthostatic (her blood pressure dropped) but this is not unexpected given that she has been in the bed for so long.  Will increase slowly her time up and activity.  I also expect since she is doing so well with her tracheostomy capped that this will be removed in the near future.  Over all I give her a great big  !!!!!!!! T I V G T !!!!!!!!.

As every knows by now our very wise justice system has again failed those it is supposed to protect.  This is Mississippi, this is what we have learned to expect.  Several have posted with question as to why Mississippi code 63-3-401 which gives 5-20 years does not apply.  I was given legalese talk by the DA.  I would appreciate it if someone could explain it in laymen terms to me.  I only understand right and wrong and reading this code to me says if you get back in your car and rerun over someone then you have failed to stop and did not comply with the requirement of the code no matter your excuse.  I was told the excuse was panic and trying to move the car off the road so there is no violation.  I am a simple MD, please someone who understands the law explain this to me for my peace of mind.

In any case the law must be amended.  There is an amendment to the three foot law being drafted to be introduced by Representative Margaret Ellis-Rogers of New Albany.

!!!!!!!!!!!! The most important thing every one must do now is flood/call their  own representative and tell them to support this bill !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell them what happened to My Little Darlin Jan.

The other thing that must be addressed is cell phone use in automobile.  I am almost certain what was done to Jan was because this woman was on her cell phone.  The investigators could not pull these records because it is not against the law.  IT SHOULD BE CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT JUST LIKE DRUNK DRIVING if you do what was done to Jan or worse if on a cell phone.  The above amendment should take care of the criminal punishment for this but people will still be using that !%@#$ cell phone while driving and maiming or killing people.  There should be a stiff fine if caught using a cell while driving.

I need help with all of this.  I am having a very difficult trying to take care of Jan, myself and get any sleep.  Jan is my priority.  I will continue this post but my time is much more limited now that Jan is out of the CCU and we are about to head to Atlanta for rehab.  This page has generated cohesiveness but as a like minded group a central point of organization needs to be designated so that the momentum is not lost.  I suggest a start would be all of the cycling and running club leaders of the state to communicate and make some leadership organization.  Please do not let this momentum drop.  I need your help to prevent this. Thank you Robert  Garrett for getting on top of the amendment change.


I love My Little Darlin, I am so happy to still have her with me


  1. I'm so glad that she's more alert and talkative. That is wonderful. And, I vow to help change the ridiculous laws that allowed this heinous act to essentially go unpunished.

  2. I'm really pleased to hear about her improvement.

    The cynic in me has been mulling this over... I'd bet $20 that the driver is somehow connected to the DA. Friend, family, something. It sounds for all the world like he is trying to protect the offender.

  3. David, I am so happy for you! It was wonderful to read that Jan is responding to you and speaking! I hope Parisa can get up to see Jan before you leave for Atlanta.

    I, too, am distressed with the Mississippi laws. I hope peple are able to mobilize and get some action. I wonder what the DA would be saying if he was walking in your shoes.

    I'm sending my thoughts and prayers for you and Jan.

    (Parisa's Aunt from Colorado)

  4. I am an avid cyclist in GA. My friend, Jennifer D., has been keeping me updated as to Jan's progress. What great news to read this today!

    On the other side of things, I cannot understand why the driver is not being charged with attempted murder. Certainly, MS has laws about using a vehicle as a weapon?!

    Also, what would they have done if Jan were a pedestrian? In fact after the driver hit her the first time, that's what she "technically" became b/c she was no longer on her bicycle.

    Furthermore, I'm also wondering if "wackyvorton" might be correct - that the DA somehow knows the driver, personally. :\

    I'm spreading the word out here in GA and trying to see if any of our cycling contacts know someone familiar with Mississippi law. The way the DA is handling this is a travesty, IMHO.

  5. Excellent news! Glad you see humor in Jan's words, glad she's using words!

    The DAs comment about the driver not seeing Jan are ridiculous. She got out, looked, knew Jan was in front of the car.

  6. David, as you would like some explanations, I'll do what I can. You've already got a huge pile of mental and emotional burdens on your plate, I'll try and help by taking "confusion and frustration at inexperience with the law" off of it.

    Mississippi law pretty much states that for the much harsher charges to be applied, they have to prove intent. What that means is that the DA would have to prove in court that the driver INTENDED to leave the scene or INTENDED to run over your wife. Now, if I have read the story wrong, please correct me, but what I have seen said that the driver did not try to run, but was trying to move the car out of the road and did not see your wife. If that is the case, then under the law, the driver didn't intend to leave or cause further injury. Therefore, the law doesn't apply.

    Now, that being said, I in no way condone the actions of the driver. I also am truly, truly sorry for what happened, and wish nothing but a speedy and comfortable recovery for your wife, yourself, and the rest of your family and friends. I also hope that a small silver lining can be salvaged from this terrible cloud of a tragedy, and that the laws in Mississippi will be changed so that if a situation like this happens again (and let us all hope that it does not) the driver will be held accountable for their actions.

  7. Horrified by this story and wishing and hoping for a speedy recovery for Jan. I live in Portland, OR, but spent quite a bit of time in Grenada, MS working at an animal sanctuary and I know the area and what you are up against in your legal battle. I wish you the very best.

  8. As for why § 63-3-401 isn't being applied here, there's witnesses that say that the driver was attempting to do the right thing. The witnesses say that she was trying to move the car out of the way of traffic and made a mistake -- presumably due to her panicked condition.

    The only evidence that we've got that this was intentional was the police report -- and police reports are generally not admissible in court unless they cite their sources. Instead, the court wants to hear from the people who actually saw what happened. (and if the police report does cite it's sources, they subpoena the source.)

    As for § 63-3-401 itself --

    § 63-3-401. Duties of driver involved in accident resulting in personal injury or death; offenses and penalties.

    (1) The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of any person shall immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of such accident or as close thereto as possible but shall then forthwith return to and in every event shall remain at the scene of the accident until he has fulfilled the requirements of Section 63-3-405.

    (2) Every stop under the provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall be made without obstructing traffic or endangering the life of any person more than is necessary.

    (3) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, if any driver of a vehicle involved in an accident that results in injury to any person willfully fails ...

    ... according to witnesses, she was trying to comply with this, so she didn't "willfully" violate it, so she'd be found not guilty of violating it.

    That's why the DA isn't going forward with these charges -- he has no chance of getting a conviction under them. His hands are indeed tied here.

  9. It may not have been intentional, but it was very negligent. There should be felony charges for negligence and driving while impaired. The driver *knew* Jan was in front of the car because she got out and looked. She should have backed up, not run over Jan. The initial hit was also inexcusable. How do you hit a cyclist in broad daylight, with no traffic, unless you're not paying attention? Impaired driving is punishable, but she's getting off easy because the law is too specific about the cause of impairment. Hitting someone while drunk or high is horrid, but hitting someone while chatting on your cell is legally okay, you get a slap on the wrist.

  10. Sadly, there isn't against law for having your head three feet up your @ss.