Justice Indra Maharaj wrote that the victim impact statements filed in this case were “unusual number, breadth, scope, and content.” Twenty-two were submitted, and of those, 18 were presented to the court. Nine of these, she said, came from direct victims and the parents of one victim, and these were useful. Seven statements came from “aunts, uncles, and cousins of the direct victims,” which she said were less useful. And several more statements were given by “friends of the family,” portions of which had to be disregarded by the court because they “recounted dramatized details of the hospital scene or memorialized the deceased.”
Read full article on The Growth Op
