'Ouija board' appeal dismissed

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-12-07 06:55pm

A murderer whose original trial was ruled unsafe because jurors consulted a ouija board has lost an appeal against his conviction at a subsequent retrial.

Stephen Young, 46, was jailed for life at Hove Crown Court in March 1994 for shooting Harry Fuller and his wife Nicola at their Wadhurst home in 1993.

The insurance broker, from Pembury, Kent, won the right to a retrial but was convicted again in December 1994.

The Court of Appeal in London dismissed his appeal on Tuesday.

A retrial was ordered after it was revealed that four jurors at Young's original trial consulted a ouija board, which some people believe can be used to contact the dead.

The jurors used an upturned wine glass on the board during a drinking session the night before finding Young guilty.

The subsequent retrial took place at the Old Bailey in London.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 076927.stm

lazerus · Post by **lazerus** » 2004-12-07 07:16pm

I will not loose my faith in Humanity.
I will not loose my faith in Humanity.
I will not loose my faith in Humanity.
I will not loose my faith in Humanity.
I will not loose my faith in Humanity.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-07 08:06pm

Remember everyone, professional juries are a bad idea.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-12-07 11:30pm

Durandal wrote:Remember everyone, professional juries are a bad idea.

Yeah, because then there would be no use for catchy phrases such as "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit"

Post by **weemadando** » 2004-12-07 11:40pm

Yet another reason why trial by peers is such a wonderfully unappealing concept.

What the fuck happens when you're in a courtroom and the jury are Fundies?

"have you ever engaged in sexual relationships out of wedlock?"
"Relevance your honour?"
"Goes towards character of the defendant."
"Answer the question."
"Yes."

Jury: Well then, he's sinned once, we might as well send him to gaol for this crime as well!

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-12-08 02:57am

weemadando wrote:Yet another reason why trial by peers is such a wonderfully unappealing concept.

What the fuck happens when you're in a courtroom and the jury are Fundies?

"have you ever engaged in sexual relationships out of wedlock?"
"Relevance your honour?"
"Goes towards character of the defendant."
"Answer the question."
"Yes."

Jury: Well then, he's sinned once, we might as well send him to gaol for this crime as well!

Hey, just hire a Lionel Hutz like defence lawyer and watch as the trial turns into a stand up comedy routine.

"Objection!"
"Sustained."
"AARGH!"

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-12-08 03:07am

Wait. He was convicted, won an appeal, but was convicted at a retrial in 94', and then was turned down for an appeal based on his ORIGINAL trial, even though he had already been retried?

Am I right? Or what? Confused?

Gustav32Vasa · Post by **Gustav32Vasa** » 2004-12-08 10:57am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
weemadando wrote:Yet another reason why trial by peers is such a wonderfully unappealing concept.

What the fuck happens when you're in a courtroom and the jury are Fundies?

"have you ever engaged in sexual relationships out of wedlock?"
"Relevance your honour?"
"Goes towards character of the defendant."
"Answer the question."
"Yes."

Jury: Well then, he's sinned once, we might as well send him to gaol for this crime as well!
At least you get free pizza.

Hey, just hire a Lionel Hutz like defence lawyer and watch as the trial turns into a stand up comedy routine.

"Objection!"
"Sustained."
"AARGH!"

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-08 11:37am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
weemadando wrote:Yet another reason why trial by peers is such a wonderfully unappealing concept.

What the fuck happens when you're in a courtroom and the jury are Fundies?

"have you ever engaged in sexual relationships out of wedlock?"
"Relevance your honour?"
"Goes towards character of the defendant."
"Answer the question."
"Yes."

Jury: Well then, he's sinned once, we might as well send him to gaol for this crime as well!
Hey, just hire a Lionel Hutz like defence lawyer and watch as the trial turns into a stand up comedy routine.

"Objection!"
"Sustained."
"AARGH!"

"Sideshow Bob ... did you rig the election?"
"No."
"... Kids help."

Flakin · Post by **Flakin** » 2004-12-08 02:10pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Wait. He was convicted, won an appeal, but was convicted at a retrial in 94', and then was turned down for an appeal based on his ORIGINAL trial, even though he had already been retried?

Am I right? Or what? Confused?

No mate. He was convicted but later allowed an appeal retrial.. (Won a retrial). At the appeal they used the ouija board.

Flakin · Post by **Flakin** » 2004-12-08 02:19pm

Noo wait, I'm wrong. Never mind. This is confusing innit?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-12-08 02:44pm

So, the Jurors had a drinking session the night before finding him guilty? I'd think the fact that they were hungover is better grounds for an appeal than the ouija board idiocy.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-12-08 02:54pm

I'm not sure what the fuss is about, the guy got his retrial like he should have.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-08 03:22pm

Regardless of whether he got his retrial, it says something about the quality of juries that a jury which survived the oh-so-infallible selection process would decide its verdict after a drunken Ouija board session. What if they simply lied about how they arrived at the verdict? Anyone capable of doing such a thing in the first place is certainly capable of lying about it.

I reiterate my earlier stance about how "a jury of your peers" is a vastly overrated idea, and a professional jury association would be better.