Since I was neither a juror nor a spectator at the trial I can only assume that Dr. Murray should bear some of the responsibility for Jackson's death. News reports indicate that the prosecution presented a very strong case against the doctor, but my mind keeps going back to the jury. I can't help but wonder what was going through their minds during this trial.
I am not referring to the question of innocence or guilt, but rather the aftermath of the trial or what I call the Casey Anthony Syndrome. I don't know how original that is, but that is how I would classify the vicious reaction by many in our society to the Anthony not guilty verdict.
At the time, I couldn't help but wonder how future juries would feel about being seated for a highly publicized and volatile trial. Would the potential public outcry and accompanying violent threats over their verdict adversely influence their ability to render a fair and impartial decision?
I am not saying that is the case here, but I do have to wonder. How would the public have reacted to a not guilty verdict? Could this be considered jury tampering by proxy?