Anorak

Anorak | Murder case jury discharged because rude juror said another juror stank

Murder case jury discharged because rude juror said another juror stank

by | 13th, June 2013

juror smell

TO the Old Bailey, where a juror on the third day of a murder trial has penned a note for the judge’s eyes. The juror says she is unable to focus on the case of those accused of killing 20-year-old Jamie Sanderson at the in Oceana nightclub, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey, because another juror smells.

Judge Wendy Joseph considers moving the man into the press box. But away from the other jurors she worries that he may feel ostracised.

She then decides to discharge the entire jury. Says she:

“There is a problem. There is nothing that the poor man can do about it. I am not prepared to force him to sit in another part of the court room. Even if I were to find jurors to sit by him, it would not necessarily resolve the problem. At the end of the day they have all got to sit in the jury room together. We are two days and one hour into evidence and the prospect of many weeks ahead of us. These defendants are entitled to a trial by 12 jurors. Nobody really wants to go on with 11 jurors from a defence point of view.”

The court matron then has a few words with the man about his hygiene. 

The cost of the case is put at £3,000 a day. So. That’s £9,000 wasted because the woman failed to tell the stinky juror that he smelt. He might have thanked her for telling him directly, upset to have caused offence at his unfortunate condition, one compounded by a hayfever blocked nose and living alone. A quiet word and an offered bottle of perfume would have saved thousands of pounds. The woman instead wrote a letter, putting the man’s smell as a matter of recorded fact, deferring to the judge. This seems as far removed from polite as it can get. Her manners are deeply flawed.

Rather than offering a cough as wind was passed, this juror chose to held her nose and dance around pointing. Her target was given no chance to retort “smelt it dealt it”, but was taken to one side and spoken to. Does this sensitive juror point out to the police people who carry carrier bags of dog poo about with them? No. Because for reasons to mad to fathom that’s now acceptable. She supposes writing a letter about man’s body odour is also acceptable.

The final word is with Mark Twain:

“Good breeding consists in concealing how much we think of ourselves and how little we think of the other person.”

What odds the letter writer never began her missive by writing her postal adress in the top corner? It’s all about standards. Her’s are low.



Posted: 13th, June 2013 | In: News, Strange But True Comment | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink