stvrtg wrote:
But we are left with some need to actually clarify
what did happen,
according to our formal processes and to the judgement of our elected
judges. In this way we can at least have a formal statement which is removed
of all the hyperbole we have seen thus far.
Clarifying what happened is a task for historians, not judges. When the
accused dies in mid-trial, the trial is dismissed.
If a responsible person or group wanted to develop a policy proposal to
cover future situations, it would be appropriate to include a careful
and detailed review of this case as part of their background material.
To abuse the judicial analogy, this would be a law professor kind of
activity.
Stan