The Blake Verdict: What Were They Thinking?

Re “Actor Robert Blake Acquitted in Shooting Death of His Wife,” March 17: Some jurors told reporters after their verdict had been read that Blake could be guilty but that the prosecution didn’t prove his guilt to their satisfaction.

Although the accused in a crime is rightly presumed innocent, there is nothing inherent in that presumption that precludes the suspicion of guilt. Why would anyone be prosecuted for a crime if his accuser did not feel confident of his guilt?

A jury has the responsibility to decide. It would seem to me that if there are jurors who are in doubt as to whether Blake is guilty or not, they ought to still be deliberating.

If they are not confident that he didn’t do it, why would they say that he didn’t do it and then not take the responsibility for that decision? “I haven’t made up my mind” seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable statement for a juror to make.

It doesn’t seem at all reasonable to me that jurors would say, “He is not guilty,” and then immediately say that they did not really mean it.

Ronald Webster

Long Beach