"All that transpired played a role in his condition," said the medical examiner, in the case of Officer Brian D. Sicknick, who died after the January 6th breaching of the Capitol.

"His office said that it attributes death to natural causes when it can be ascribed to disease alone and that 'if death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural.'" Yet the medical examiner, Francisco J. Diaz, determined that Sicknick died of "natural causes."

I'm reading "Officer Attacked in Capitol Riot Died of Strokes, Medical Examiner Rules The determination is likely to complicate efforts to prosecute anyone in the death of the officer, Brian Sicknick" (NYT).

"The determination is likely to complicate the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute anyone in the death of Officer Sicknick, 42; two men have been charged with assaulting him by spraying an unknown chemical on him outside the Capitol. But an autopsy found no evidence that Officer Sicknick had an allergic reaction to chemicals or any internal or external injuries.... Two men were charged last month with assaulting Officer Sicknick, but prosecutors have avoided linking the attack to his death...."

That's written confusingly. If "prosecutors have avoided linking the attack to his death," then what are the "efforts to prosecute anyone in the death of Officer Sicknick"? The assault is an assault regardless of whether it caused a death that happened to occur soon afterward. But there's also that discrepancy between what the medical examiner said — "All that transpired played a role in his condition" — and the assertion that the finding of death by "natural causes" excludes the idea that death "was hastened by an injury."

Not discussed in the New York Times article is the way the media ran with the notion that the Capitol protesters had killed a cop. That's the legend they created, and I bet that legend will live.

FROM THE EMAIL: I'm getting a lot of email, much of it expanding what I've already said in that last paragraph. I get the sense many readers need that to be said more elongatedly, more emphatically. But let me give you this emailed comment, from James. It's short and pithy, and it kicks things up with an observation that I didn't make — speculation that there was deliberate delay to give life to the legend:

Maybe the reason prosecutors have not tried to link anyone to Officer Sicknick’s death or charge anyone with homicide is that they have known for months that he died of natural causes and there was no homicide. The powers that be just did not bother to let the rest of us know this until after the “they killed a cop” narrative was firmly rooted in the public mind.

ALSO: Glenn Greenwald is especially outraged for the way other journalists treated him: 

Because of its centrality to the media narrative and agenda, anyone who tried to point out the serious factual deficiencies in this story — in other words, people trying to be journalists — were smeared by Democratic Party loyalists who pretend to be journalists as "Sicknick Truthers,” white nationalist sympathizers, and supporters of insurrection.

For the crime of trying to determine the factual truth of what happened, my character was constantly impugned by these propagandistic worms, as was anyone else's who tried to tell the truth about Sicknick's tragic death. Because one of the first people to highlight the journalistic truth here was former Trump official Darren Beattie of Revolver News and one of the few people on television willing to host doubts about the official story was Tucker Carlson, any doubts about the false Sicknick story — no matter how well-grounded in truth, facts, reason and evidence — were cast as fascism and white supremacy, and those raising questions smeared as "truthers”: the usual dreary liberal insults for trying to coerce people into submitting to their lies....

"I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function."

"I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution to respect a coequal branch of government. Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don't think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice this jury." 

Said Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill, the judge in the Derek Chauvin case, quoted in "Jury ends first day of deliberating with no verdicts in Derek Chauvin murder trial/With the dismissals of the alternates, the jury of 12 is now half white and half people of color" (Star Tribune). 

It's a hopeless wish. People are going to talk. And disrespect is part of human expression. An important part. The rule of law is one of the all-time great ideals, but the way the law plays out in real life deserves — and benefits from — the expression of disrespect. It's fine for the judge to wish for respect, but it's up to him to do what earns respect. 

His main point here is to deny that there has been a mistrial because of what's been said out there in public, particularly what Rep. Maxine Waters said — that protesters need to get "more confrontational" if there is no guilty verdict. It's horrible to think that all the hard work of conducting a trial could be squandered by one wild-talking politician. Of course Cahill denied the motion.

But does the threat of riots unfairly prejudice the jury — and does Waters's one inflammatory statement make all the difference? What does "more confrontational mean"? It could just mean bigger, louder, more passionate demonstrations. But perhaps we're supposed to know that she meant destruction and violence — just like the way the supporters of the last impeachment were sure that when Trump urged people in the street to "fight like hell," everyone was supposed to know he advocated criminal disorder.

***

There is no comments section anymore, but you can email me here. Unless you say otherwise, I will presume you'd enjoy an update to this post with a quote from your email.

"Ann: Used to be a frequent reader. But, it has become a waste of time trying to understand what you are attempting to cryptically express in your blog posts these days."

"I wish to stay informed, not play clever head games. If you have something to say, just say it. I'm too busy to play your silly exercises. Otherwise, find a more productive use of your and my time. As judge and jury and former reader, I find you in Contempt. Case dismissed. Goodbye!"

Someone wrote that and emailed it to me. It's not a name I recognize, just an email address that's a stray collection of numbers and letters.  

I laughed out loud at "I wish to stay informed, not play clever head games." People read this blog to "stay informed"? That seems ill-informed. And as for that "judge and jury" and "Contempt/Case dismissed" business — that can't be a lawyer. Must just be someone cranked up about my being a (former) law professor and thinking I'm vulnerable to criticisms containing legalistic lingo. 

But you need a specific charge if you want to find me guilty, and what is it? Failure to keep you informed?  Not having something to say and just saying it? The crime of playing clever head games? The infliction of silly exercises? Cryptic expression?

Oh, there I go, asking questions when I don't allow comments. Oddly enough, the complaint you see above never mentions the abolition of comments. Is it possible the person thinks the blog "has become a waste of time" because there are no comments anymore — that the comments used to help him understand what I was cryptically expressing? Ha ha — I can't understand what the emailer is cryptically expressing. And now here I am imposing it on you!

FROM THE EMAIL: Mary writes: 

Um, that sounds like Trump! lol, too funny. With the exception of all caps, that could be a Trump twitter rant. And he’s a man that’s been more than knee deep in court cases his whole life so it kinda fits him. “waste of time”, that’s straight up Trump! What do you think?

Yeah, complete with the stray capitalization.

btw, your blog is 1000% better now, so much more interesting with curated comments.

Thanks!

And AZ Bob writes: 

I've always liked your blogging style. It reminds me of being in law school many years ago. You frame the topic in a way that provokes a wide-open discussion. The comments provide much entertainment, if not insight. This may not be what the commenter was trying to say but I do miss reading the comments. The comments had a way of making the post complete.

A while back, you asked us to be more judicious in our posts. I wish that had happened. It noticed prior to your change in format that one particular open thread became a slug fest. As moderator, you have your hands full so I see why you reigned in the comments. I hope you find a way to return to having comments.

Asking for something would not work, because there were some bad faith commenters — commenters who were out to destroy the blog. They might even be inspired to do more of the very thing I said not to do. 

AND: Bob writes:

Neither you nor any of your audience will miss this Low-Information Reader.

Tommy writes: 

I actually prefer no comments, mostly because I'm more interested in your opinion than I am anything going on there. I think having comments resulted in your being more interested in starting a conversation and less likely to give an opinion, and it's that opinion I prefer to read.

I think you actually like and prefer the conversation bit when it's civil, and history shows I'll read your blog no matter what you do, but I wanted to let you know there is at least one person that would prefer the no conversation just tell us what you think version.

Comments (and the current version of sort of comments) have been around for awhile now, and I still miss the other style, anyone that wants to comment can start their own blog.

Long time reader from back when George W. Bush was in the White House

Thanks, Tommy!

Stephen writes: 

My wife and I both miss the comments. We enjoyed reading them to each other. Quite a few of the commenters had clever and pertinent things to say. Yes, sometimes I learn things about current events from your blog; there have been multiple incidences of you writing about a death of some prominent person before I see their obituary anywhere else. Your legal commentary is also quite good. Of course, your posts can’t all be gold nuggets and diamonds; there have been many posts where your stream of consciousness writing made me think that you were talking to yourself and we were all eavesdropping. Those posts always seem to leave me cold and cause me to move on to something else.

Thanks. That's a clear indication to me that I'm not the writer for you. I'm not here to feed news updates. If you dislike the posts that are in my personal voice, then you're not the reader for me.

We still read your blog...

Oh... all right....

... but losing the comments have made it less enjoyable for my wife and I. Oh, well. I’m indifferent regarding posting any part of this on your blog. Further, I’m not going to sit down and compose an email to you whenever I feel I have something worthy to say. There was an immediacy to commenting which made it fun, and it was easy to say something. Emails not so much....

This is good.  People are more selective in what they will email compared to what they'll just drop in the comments. People — some people — would throw in comments without thinking about whether they "have something worthy to say." Nobody emails to say "Why are you still reading the New York Times?" or to ask, off topic, "Who shot Ashli Babbitt?"

ALSO: Amadeus 48 writes: 

Mixed feelings, here. I miss the comments, but if I am honest, I confess that things had fallen into a slough. In my own case, for the most part my comments gave me a chance to snark. There are other blogs for that, aren’t there?

So now I have a chance (not really given a choice) to write something at least somewhat thoughtful THAT ALTHOUSE WILL READ! Be still, my heart.

Isn’t asking an intelligent question the best way to make a point? Haven’t generations of philosophers and law professors thought so? It seemed to me that questions like for whom did Althouse vote and why were pointless. The point was to make the reader ask himself or herself for whom were they voting and why.

So, on to a brighter and more thoughtful tomorrow.

Thanks for years of fun and provocation.