The Trial That Should Have Been Ordinary
February 1989. In the quiet village of Wadhurst, East Sussex, Harry and Nicola Fuller, a wealthy antiques dealer couple (newlyweds for only about six months), were found shot dead in their home. The motive at the time appeared to be robbery gone tragically wrong. Suspicion quickly fell on Stephen Young, a local builder who owed Harry money and had been seen arguing with him by witnesses before the murders.
Young was arrested and charged with double murder, and faced trial at Hove Crown Court in March 1994. However, the evidence was circumstantial. There was no murder weapon, no fingerprints, no direct witnesses that seen the shooting. But the prosecution painted a compelling picture of financial desperation turning in a deadly double murder.
After weeks of testimony, the jury retired to deliberate. Sequestered in a Brighton hotel, twelve ordinary citizens held Young's fate in their hands. With little in the way of real evidence to help them decide the facts of the case a few of them decided to try something... unconventional.
The Midnight Ouija Session
On the night of March 24, 1994, four jurors, perhaps influenced by the era's fascination with the supernatural... decided to consult paranormal forces beyond the courtroom. Because... why not, I guess?
Using a homemade Ouija board fashioned from paper and an upturned wine glass, they gathered in a hotel room after lights out. The participants included foreman Mark Walker, a bank worker, and three others whose identities were protected.
They asked the board direct questions about the case. According to later testimony:
"The glass moved to spell out 'Stephen Young guilty yes' and named details only the killer would know."
– Juror testimony in appeal hearing
The "spirits" allegedly identified the murdered Harry Fuller as the one communicating via the Ouija, and confirming Young's guilt and even providing specifics about the crime scene.
The session lasted over an hour. All four jurors returned to deliberations convinced in his guilt and swaying the holdouts. On March 25th 1989, the jury delivered a unanimous guilty verdict. Young was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murders.
The Scandal Breaks
Word of the Ouija session leaked almost immediately. One of the non-participating jurors, disturbed by what they heard, informed the court. Another juror reportedly confided in family, who contacted authorities.
Young's legal team appealed on grounds of jury misconduct. The case reached the Court of Appeal in February 1995.
"Four members of the jury took part in a Ouija board session in their hotel... The glass spelled out that the defendant was guilty."
– Lord Justice Rose, Court of Appeal judgment
The appeal judges ruled the incident "improper external influence" that compromised impartiality. In an unprecedented decision, they quashed the conviction. This is Britain's only known mistrial caused by supernatural consultation.
The Retrial and Aftermath
Young was retried in November 1995 at Lewes Crown Court. Without the tainted jury, the prosecution presented the same evidence. This time, conviction was swift. He got life imprisonment again.
The scandal made headlines worldwide:
"Jury consulted spirits in murder trial"
– The Times headline
Young served his sentence and was released on parole in 2012 after 18 years.
He maintained innocence until his death.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Feb 1989 | Fuller murders |
| March 1994 | First trial, Ouija session on 24th |
| March 25 1994 | Guilty verdict |
| Feb 1995 | Appeal succeeds – mistrial |
| Nov 1995 | Retrial ordered – found guilty again |
Who Was Named?
The jury foreman was identified in several reports as Ray (or Mark Walker in some sources, a bank worker who allegedly led the Ouija session). He was the most publicly associated because he took charge of addressing the "spirit." The whistleblower (who didn't participate in the Ouija session but did report it) was the 24-year-old referred to as "Adrian" in Jeremy Gans' book The Ouija Board Jurors (2017) as he had contacted the press anonymously at first.
The remaining three participants (and the other non-involved jurors) stayed fully anonymous. No court documents or reliable news sources ever released their names, consistent with the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and jury protection norms.
Final Verdict
Four jurors in a Brighton hotel room asked the dead for justice. The glass answered. The verdict fell, and British law had never seen anything like it, and never will again. Thankfully the Ouija board didn't free a killer. As a sidenote, the prosecution case was literally paper thin with almost zero actual evidence linking Young to the murders. Wonder if the mistrial influenced the retrial guilty verdict, because zero new evidence was presented. Makes you think.