The story of the murder trial that was repeated because the jury used an ouija to contact the victim
It happened many years ago, but it is still remembered as one of the most unusual cases that have occurred during a trial. The murderer of a couple seemed clear. However, the man was going to have a second chance. The jury tried to "contact" one of the victims with a ouija.
March 1994. Harry and Nicolas Fuller had just married and lived in a country house in Wadhurst, East Sussex. One night, someone entered the house and murdered them in cold blood with a gun. Harry, a 45-year-old car salesman, was killed by a single bullet in the back. Nicola, 27, died of a combination of four shots, the last in the head while trying to call the police.
There was a clear suspect, Stephen Young, 35, and insurance broker. The man had debts estimated at just over 100,000 pounds, and his creditors were overwhelming him. Mr. Fuller had taken money from the bank days before the murder, 13,000 pounds he should have in the house.
Image: Wikimedia Commons
However, when the police searched the house after the murders, they found no substantial sums of money, only 80 pounds hidden under a sofa and 130 pounds in a shoe. For his part, Young was detained near the events. First he denied everything, although later he admitted that he had been at the crime scene and that he had found the dead couple and fled fearing for his life.
Later they found the murder weapon and everything seemed ready for sentencing. However, the trial was going to become a unique case in history. In March of 94 he was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. A few months later, the man "won" the right to a new trial. The reason? Four members of the original jury consulted in an Ouija table from the hotel where they met to try to contact one of the victims before giving a verdict.
Image: Wikimedia Commons
The unusual and surreal situation had reached the ears of David Penry, Mr. Young's lawyer, who brought a formal complaint to the court, arguing that it was an irregularity during the trial. If the behavior of the jurors had come to light before the verdicts were issued, the judge of first instance would have had no choice but to acquit the jury.
While at the time it was tried to defend the members of the jury alleging that what happened was an internal matter between them where the court should not intervene, and that there was nothing to suggest that they broke their oath to judge the case in accordance with the evidence, or that his unanimous verdict was contaminated by what happened, the trial was repeated.
Finally, 22 months after the murder, Stephen Young received two life sentences after the second, and now valid, trial for the death of the Fullers. [The Independent, BBC]