Interesting, but surely if they were making a principled point about media interference in general they wouldn’t have booed the verdict? As the media interference had already happened the result was irrelevant.
Since the media was interfering in favor of the verdict that actually happened, the verdict is evidence that the court was swayed by the media. They may be (or believe they are) protesting the court’s “caving to media pressure” or some such.
Interesting, but surely if they were making a principled point about media interference in general they wouldn’t have booed the verdict? As the media interference had already happened the result was irrelevant.
Since the media was interfering in favor of the verdict that actually happened, the verdict is evidence that the court was swayed by the media. They may be (or believe they are) protesting the court’s “caving to media pressure” or some such.
Yeah, that was kinda what I meant. Also, I wouldn’t assume they’re thinking particularly rationally!
Nor would I.