|
Murder
suspect was there for me, Guess says 'I know this is going to
sound really bizarre, because it is'
Mark Hume National Post,
Tuesday, April 11, 2000
VANCOUVER - Gillian Guess,
the juror who had an affair with an accused man during his murder
trial, portrayed herself in court yesterday as being romantically
stalked by him.
"I just felt like ...
he was always there," said Ms. Guess, who strode into court
escorted by undercover police officers on either side.
She said Peter Gill seemed
to be everywhere she went while she was serving on the jury that
heard a double murder case against him and two co-accused.
He was there when she turned
around after using a courthouse pay phone, he was there when
she lined up for lunch at McDonald's, there when she parked and
there in a car beside her in traffic, motioning for her to wind
down her window.
The court already knows, from
earlier proceedings, that eventually he was there in bed beside
her -- but for the first time yesterday, Ms. Guess testified
about how her relationship began during the early stages of Mr.
Gill's 1995 murder trial.
Testifying voluntarily, because,
as a juror she could not be compelled to appear, Ms. Guess said
she first saw Mr. Gill when she sat in court with 500 other potential
jurors.
She said she did not realize
he was one of the accused until he took his place beside Michael
Budai and Ho Sik (Phil) Kim, who along with Mr. Gill were charged
for their alleged involvement in the 1994 slaying of Ron and
Jim Dosanjh.
Later, he began making eye
contact with her in court, she testified. And then he began to
appear near her wherever she went outside court.
"I was aware very early
on ... it appeared to me that he was following me," she
said.
"I was finding it alarming,
but at the same time I was feeling I didn't want to get him into
trouble by reporting it," she said.
Ms. Guess said that Mr. Gill
-- who would later be acquitted of murder by the jury she was
on -- approached her for the first time when she was lined up
at McDonald's, waiting to order lunch.
"I was still standing
in line, all of a sudden I heard someone say: 'I didn't do this.
This is none of my s---. My brother-in-law, Bindy, dragged me
into this.'"
She said she turned around
to find Mr. Gill immediately behind her.
Ms. Guess said it seemed impossible
to get away from Mr. Gill's intense gaze. Their eye contact became
so intense, she said, that after awhile she felt she was communicating
with him.
"I know this is going
to sound really bizarre, because it is ... I did at times feel
I was able to non-verbally communicate with him," she said.
Ms. Guess said her feelings
grew as did her doubts about his alleged guilt.
"It appeared to some people
that the Crown case was falling apart ... I started to feel a
lot of confusion about who were the good guys and bad guys,"
she said.
Ms. Guess, who at the time
of the trial was working as a victim's counsellor for the RCMP,
said one day she was on the pay phone when she got bad news:
A client of hers had attempted suicide.
When she turned around, there
was Mr. Gill, ready to offer comfort.
"He said, 'It's not your
fault' ... at that time he started to become a pseudo-support
system for me," she testified.
Ms. Guess gave her testimony
during a new evidence hearing, which the Crown has called in
an attempt to win a retrial for Mr. Gill and his two co-accused.
The case continues.
Guess talks back: Disgraced
juror lectures judge on finer points of law
Andy Ivens, Staff Reporter
The Province , April 14, 2000
After nearly four days of acrimonious
testimony, directed mainly at her former lover Peter Gill, disgraced
juror Gillian Guess briefly turned her sights on B.C. Court of
Appeal Justice Ian Donald yesterday.
Known for his patience and
polite courtroom manner, Justice Donald took pains to remind
the strong-willed witness not to discuss her evidence outside
court, just before the afternoon break.
Surprisingly, Guess challenged
the judge's direction, explaining that she would be surrounded
by deputy sheriffs and bodyguards for the entire 15-minute break.
"I don't want you to discuss
your evidence with anyone," Justice Donald repeated courteously,
betraying a hint of exasperation.
"I don't think that's
a lawful order to put me under," Guess advised the judge.
Three lawyers fighting to preserve
the not-guilty verdicts of their clients in a high-profile 1995
murder case -- which were rendered by Guess and her fellow jurors
-- have fared about as well as His Lordship in their quest to
get simple answers from Guess.
The lawyers for Gill, Michael
Kent Budai and Ho Sik (Phil) Kim are hoping to convince an Appeal
Court panel Guess is not believable and her claims of having
an affair with Gill during the murder trial -- not after it --
are false.
Crown counsel Mark Andrews
is arguing the acquittals of Gill, Kim and Budai were tainted
by Guess and Gill carrying on a sexual relationship, and should
be overturned.
Guess, herself, was convicted
in 1998 of obstructing justice and sentenced to 18 months in
jail, but is free on bail pending her appeal.
Budai's lawyer, Ian Donaldson,
asked Guess why, if she was convinced Gill was stalking her,
didn't she didn't tell deputy sheriffs, the trial judge or her
co-workers at North Van RCMP detachment.
Guess repeated she preferred
to be a friend of Gill rather than incur his wrath as his enemy.
She also detailed the great
lengths she went to researching whether the law on intimate contact
between an accused and juror. It is not illegal, she surmised.
"If the judge asked me,
I would have loved an opportunity to get off that jury,"
she said. "I was scared stiff [of Gill]."
Scoffing at her reply, Donaldson
suggested, "In the relationship you had with Gill after
the trial, you had all the power."
"How can you say that?"
she responded indignantly.
"He had an appeal pending,"
said Donaldson.
He continued: "Even if
you had a relationship during the trial, you held all the power."
"I had no power at all,"
replied Guess.
"Pick up the phone and
dial 911?" offered Donaldson.
"And get killed! Or get
my kids killed!" countered Guess. "I had no street
smarts whatsoever."
The hearing concludes today.
A five-judge Appeal Court panel
will then decide how much of the evidence heard over the past
two weeks is admissible and whether the three respondents should
be retried for the murders of Jim and Ron Dosanjh.
Crown to push Guess,
Gill link in appeal
Mark Hume National Post,
March 26, 1999
VANCOUVER - New evidence including cellular telephone
calls allegedly made between accused killer Peter Gill and juror
Gillian Guess will be introduced in a murder case appeal, a prosecutor
said yesterday.
Bill Berardino, representing
the Crown in appealing the acquittal of Gill and two co-accused,
told the British Columbia Court of Appeal that he intends to
bring in fresh evidence concerning the relationship between Gill
and Guess.
He said he will show that seven
or eight cell phone calls were made to Guess during the trial
and one was made to her on the day the jury she was serving on
voted to acquit Gill, Michael Budai, Bindy Johal, and Ho Sik
(Phil) Kim, for the 1994 murders of Ron and Jim Dosanjh.
Mr. Berardino said the calls
were made "where Gill had access to the phones and the owners
said they would not have made calls to Miss Guess."
He also said the court will
hear about "what was going on between Guess and Gill in
court" with transcripts and video tapes being entered as
evidence.
Mr. Berardino said he will
argue that the murder trial was "contaminated" by the
relationship between Gill and Guess.
Five judges and nine lawyers
spent the day in court yesterday trying to sort out the process.
One key question raised by the judges was whether the matter
should be heard by the appellant or trial courts.
"We've never had an appeal
based on anything like this," said Justice Katherine Ryan.
The next time you get called
for Jury Duty, read up on what happened to Gillian Guess before
you go on down to the Courthouse to get picked! So, it was unwise
of Ms. Guess to get involved with one of the accused. Well, you
knew that. But what other "unwise" things might you
do that you don't now know are "unwise?" The court
was well aware of Gillian Guess's "unwise" act almost
as soon as it began. It was their obligation to stop it and they
didn't. Only upon not receiving the verdict they wanted did they
move against Gillian Guess. They moved against her with charges
which don't even exist! If her reactions to all of this seem
somewhat extreme, perhaps it is because you've only been reading
the media hype. If you follow her story carefully, you will quickly
see that what has happened to her could happen to anyone who
happens to sit on a jury where the Crown fails to prove its case
beyond a reasonable doubt. Are the officers of the Court (cops,
crown and judges) trying to get rid of what is left of the jury
system by making a total mockery of our right to be tried before
a jury of our peers? Get rid of juries, get rid of our right
to full answer and defence (disclosure)
and what are we left with? Ever heard of a police state? injusticebusters | 10MLawsuit
| Back to Top of Gillian Guess Story
The Crown v Gillian Guess
Her Majesty the Queen v. Gillian
Guess
March 3rd, 1999
Dear Ms. Guess;
I saw the report in the Vancouver
Sun on Friday, February 26, 1999. The report that the Attorney
General met with the brother of the accused, Peter Gill, raises
some very interesting questions and further brings into question
the verdict in your case. 1) Did the Attorney General and Mr.
Gill discuss jury selection in the Gill or in the Guess case?
2) Did the Attorney General and Mr. Gill discuss the selection
of the judge in the Gill or in the Guess case? 3) Did the Attorney
General discuss anything about the Gill or Guess case? 4) What
was there about the secret meeting between Gill and Dosanjh that
prompted the Crown to ask that the wiretap evidence be kept secret?
It is now very obvious that
the secret meeting was critical information and evidence from
the wiretaps would have assisted you at your trial. Justice Paris
denied you access to it and kept it secret from you because he
was acting on instructions from the Crown and because they both
knew the information would have influenced the jury.
Both Justice Paris and the
Crown wanted to keep the information from your jury because it
would have raised a reasonable doubt about your guilt in the
mind of any fair-minded jury.
Justice Paris may say that
the information was irrelevant but, if it was irrelevant, then
why not just let your lawyer present the facts to the jury. The
simple answer is that the information was relevant and, if it
was presented to your jury, it would likely have led to a dismissal
of the charges against you.
Relevance is a matter of factual
determination; it is not a matter of law. In a jury trial, the
jury is supposed to determine which facts are relevant to prove
guilt and which are not. The judge rules on the law.
By keeping these facts from
you and from the jury, the trial judge denied you the right to
fair jury trial. Justice Paris also denied each member of the
jury the right to hear evidence and decide its relevance to your
guilt or innocence.
The jurors should be outraged
at Justice Paris for taking away their right to try you fairly.
Remember, the Attorney General
administers the Courts and the Office of Crown Counsel. He gets
to select the judges who sit on the cases, not you.
The newspaper reports that
the RCMP and Ernie Quantz, the Deputy Attorney General, are investigating
your alleged breach of a court order.
These guys move very fast when
caught with their pants down. They are obviously working in concert
to protect the key to the whole system which is the office of
the Attorney General and its tentacles of control into the courts.
Do not be surprised if the
Crown lays further charges against you just to teach you a lesson.
However, the Court Order of
Justice Paris was a nullity. It was wrong in law, in principle
and in practice. It was contrary to your ancient and constitiutional
right to retain and instruct counsel. It was contrary to all
generally accepted legal principles. As it was a nullity at law,
you have done nothing wrong. At law a nullity does not exist.
Any charges against you resulting from your publication of your
lawyers notes would be more harassment to prevent more embarrassment.
Do not be surprised if the
Attorney General asks the Courts for a gag order. This would
be an order restraining you from speaking to the press, using
your website and possibly restraining the Canadian media from
reporting on your case. As you are getting legal advice from
Harvard, (as well as many other web sources) any order to prevent
you using the web would be interferring with your right to retain
and instruct counsel. It would also offend your right to free
speech and the freedom of the press but it would not be surprising
judging from the Gestapo-like tactics used thus far.
Go forward in the cause of
truth and justice against the power of forces in high places.
A supporter.injusticebusters
| 10MLawsuit | Back
to Top of Gillian Guess Story
GIBBONS RITCHIE (client
unaware of partnership!!!) Associates in the Practice of Law
File No. 656 Letter to the Law Society Re: Secret Courts Attention:
General Counsel, Mr Jeffrey Hoskins
Dear Sirs/Mesdames,
I write to you in your capacity
as the Law Society's general counsel with respect to an unusual
matter that has arisen in a case which I am involved as counsel.
Peter Ritchie and I represented at trial Gillian Guess, the juror
who was convicted in June of attempting to obstruct justice.
We are troubled by certain matters that arose during the course
of the trial of this case, and which continue to pose difficulties.
Mr. Justice Paris was assigned
the trial judge for Ms. Guess's Supreme Court trial. In the months
leading up to the selection of the jury, the trial judge heard
a number of pre-trial applications as well as a lengthy wiretap
voir dire. Mr Joseph Bellows and Ms. Diane Weidemann represented
the Crown at the preliminary hearing and at trial. During the
preliminary hearing and again during pretrial proceedings and
the void dire, Mr. Josiah Wood and Mr. Peter Juk, of Mr. Wood's
office, also appeared in Court on the matter.
Mr. Wood and Mr. Juk urged
the Provincial Court Judge at the preliminary hearing and the
Supreme Court trial judge at the pre-trial motions and void dire
stages not to provide the defence with disclosure of many of
the intercepted private communications obtained through a police
wiretap investigation of our client. They asserted that these
communications were not relevant. Ultimately, in October, 1997,
Mr. Justice Paris ruled that Mr. Ritchie and I were permitted
to see the previously non-disclosed wiretap interceptions on
the condition that we not disclose the content of those interceptions
to anyone, including our client, without the consent of the court
or the consent of the Crown. With reluctance, we began to review
the previously-withheld wiretap interceptions, in the hope that
should anything relevant arise in those materials we would be
able to persuade the trial judge to permit us to share the information
with our client and use it in the defence of the case.
In the spring of 1998, as the
trial date approached, and as we continued to pore through the
many thousands of wiretap interceptions, additional Court applications
were made by us to the trial judge in which we sought permission
to share with our client some of the information we had learned,
and in which we also sought disclosure of certain additional,
related, documents. Mr. Juk made submissions with respect to
these issues.
The trial judge then ruled,
on the urging of counsel from Mr. Wood's office, that in order
for us to make the appliactions to him regarding these materials
(the wiretap interceptions and related documents) the courtroom
must be closed and our client directed to leave the courtroom.
She was accordingly ordered to leave Court while these matters
were dealt with. Our client's exclusion was over our strenuous
objection, as we took the position that she had a right to participate
in her trial and to be present for all proceedings. On subsequent
occasions she again was ordered to leave court. The transcripts
of the proceedings that took place in the absence of our client
and the public were ordered sealed. With respect to these proceedings,
the trial judge ordered that neither Mr. Ritchie nor I share
the information that we learned through these proceedings with
our client, our spouses, with our law partners, or with anyone
else. No similar order was put on the Crown, on Mr. Juk or Mr.
Wood, on the court clerk, or on court reporters who were present
in court for the secret proceedings. Certain "secret documents",
which we were not permitted to keep copies of, were also ordered
sealed. Those documents were placed in the custody of Mrs. Lambert,
Deputy District Registrar. The Learned Trial Judge further ordered
that the defence could not use the information that we had learned
through secret court proceedings to conduct defence investigations,
in or out of court.
I note that I must be circumspect
in describing herein the circumstances of "secret court"
because of the nature of the orders which bind Mr. Ritchie and
me.
We are troubled as to how to
order appeal books when we have sealed transcripts. We are gravely
concerned at the prospect of a secret appeal from which our client
may be excluded. We fear the possibility of an appeal in which
the secret court matters may not be fully aired. The writing
of a factum is not presently possible due to the secrecy orders.
It is our view that the invocation
of secret court proceedings in which an accused is barred from
attending her own trial and in which counsel are prevented from
discussing matters with their client, or conducting investigations
of information received, are issues of serious implication for
the profession.
Marilyn E. Sandford - GIBBONS
RITCHIE
B.C. attorney general
rejects conflict accusation in Guess case
February 25, 1999
VANCOUVER (CP) --British Columbia's
attorney general has rejected suggestions a high-school friendship
has placed him in a conflict of interest bind over the Gillian
Guess case. Guess is an ex-juror tried and convicted over her
fling with accused killer Peter Gill while sitting on the jury
that acquitted the man and five others.
On Thursday, Dosanjh said his
friendship with Peter Gill's brother had no impact on the Guess
case.
"There is absolutely no
conflict of interest, real or apparent," said an exasperated
Dosanjh.
"I've known Paul Gill
since he was a kid at high school, since 1978, '79, but that's
the end of the story."
During an appearance on cable
TV, Guess said she had documents to show that Dosanjh was in
a conflict of interest because of his friendship with Paul Gill
while running the province's justice system.
Dosanjh says he's seen the
Gill family about six times in the last 30 years. A senior official
in Dosanjh's ministry noted that all matters related to the prosecution
of Guess were handled by a special prosecutor.
The prosecutor, Josiah Wood,
is considering the possibility of charging Peter Gill with obstruction
of justice.
Guess, 43, was convicted following
a sensational trial last summer. Although sentenced to 18 months
in jail, Guess is now free pending an appeal.
The Tip of the Iceberg
- A portion of "The Star Chamber" proceedings
February 25, 1999
The following are excerpts
from documentation regarding some of the "Star Chamber"
proceedings in the Gillian Guess proceedings.
Document 1
Feb/16/98
- Reviewed wiretap log entries
at Crown Counsel Office.
- One was dated January 23,
1996 and referred to Ujjal Dosanjh
- The first time police notes
were disclosed was Feb/11/98.
- Mr. Barry Salmon - aide to
Attorney General Dosangh was subject of an investigation by the
police.
- One of the police notebook
entries refers to "Mr. Dosanjh" calling "L/W",
or "L.W.". The individual corresponding to those initials
is not identified.
- Crown counsel Liz Wolfram
was involved in many aspects of the Guess investigation.
The substance of the call was
that Mr Salmon was asking Mr Paul Gill to keep his distance from
Mr. Dosanjh because of the police investigation relating to Paul
Gill's brother, Peter Gill. It was apparent from the content
of the log entry, that the investigation being referred to was
the investigation which ultimately lead to the charges against
the accused herein (Gillian Guess).
It was evident from the log
entry relating to the Gill/Salmon call that Paul Gill was a personal
friend of Mr. Ujjal Dosanjh, and Gill visited his house two or
three times a week.
- Some of the disclosure material
refers to Barry Salmon by the name of Barry Symmons.
- On Jan. 22, 1996 Paul Gill
tells an unknown female in this conversation that he will talk
to Mr. Dosanjh about the entire matter in person - Gill will
go to his house
- The defence wishes to persue
an avenue of inquiry based on the "black book" material.
- Request to cross-examine police
officers concerning their investigation of the "Attorney
General Issue".
- Request to conduct inquiries
of Paul Gill, Mr. Salmom/Symmons, Mr. Dosangh relating to any
steps taken by Mr. Dosanjh relating to the prosecution herein
of Gillian Guess.
- Police notebook refers to
a meeting in May/96 where attendees included Mr. Josiah Wood,
Mr. Joseph Bellows, Ms. Diane Weidemann, and officer Brendan
Fitzpatrick.
- The subject matter of that
meeting was "interview" re: Barry Salmon aide to Attorney
General Dosanjh.
- Details of that meeting were
not disclosed.
Document 2
Matter had to do with ?Taylor
- destroying documents wiretap or jury documents.
As well, some other aspects
- special prosecutor brought in upon phones calls - aide - Mr.
Wood, who prepared report re: Criminal Investigation.
Writer "mystified"...
Juk had edited transcripts.
I saw material that I was not
supposed to see.
To Judge Raymond Paris, "You've
directed that we cannot cross-examine witness or discuss with
anyone".
Defense perplexed - we cannot
discuss with client.
Not only Salmon call - special
prosecutor - burning documents - c/c arose from investigation.
Feb 12/98
Morning Session - Judge orders
court closed.
Next point is it appears AG
contacts a person only mentioned by initials.
Notes of FITZ. pp222 - call
from Dosanjh.
Salmond interviewed by police.
Investigation went on other
avenues.
Involvement of AG & charging
Peter Gill.
I thought we had all transcripts
of intercepts - surprise to me that call of Salmond transcribed
and withheld also conversations with unidentified female and
Paul Gill.
Also I want to develop illegal
wiretap argument.
Material in Black Binders interwoven.
"Can I say to client -
What about rlsp AG and Paul Gill?"
"Can I ask GG what she/others
may know about Paul Gill/AG/police
Client never said phone call
from aide. But general discussion - difficult for defense to
persue.
Involvement of AG in entirety
- I wish to investigate call to Cr. Co - Special Prosecutor brought
in to advise police - JOE Wood prepared report - no criminal
investigation.
Also if clerk burned documents
because shredder broken for desensitzing.
Afternoon Session
Gillian Guess present.
Request that the records reflect
Gillian Guess is here - she is very concerned re: this matter.
I don't know if I can continue
to act for her.
She is concerned re: her exclusion
from trial and her Charter of Rights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb/16/98
I don't think I've ever been
in camera ex-parte without my client.
Crown says all calls of Gillian
Guess disclosed.
We found 80 calls of GG that
they had not disclosed.
I want other materials, first
calls of room bugs.
Another category - my client's
life in danger - dozen calls - Dosanjh crowd, Johal crowd.
Secret Materials
Fitz. Notes (Brendan Fitzpatrick
- RCMP)
96-01-23
14:20 Barry Simmons & Paul
Gill
Listened to cassette tape.
14:32 taped over Barry Salmond
1 of 2 assistants to Ujjal Dosanjh.
14:20 out of men's room - turned
cassette and transcript over to Rinn.
96-05-09
HQ - File main
Spoke with L.W. re: call from
Mr. Dosanjh.
96-05-23
Interview Salmond.
Rinn's Notes - Jan 23/96
To moniter room - picked up
transcripts of Paul Gill/Barry Simmons
Appears Barry Salmond knows
more - have to establish how much the AG has been told.
Intercepts indicate Paul Gill
will be approaching the AG tells him of the call he received.
May 21/96
Fitz, Joe, Kiloh to review
logs for "AG" info.
Bass advises Barry Salmond
is on a leave of absence - working on NDP campaign.
May 23/96
Black Binder - Bob Wright says
hire Special Prosecutor and Joe Wood is hired.
Burning of exhibits
Denial in Paris
The Globe and Mail - June
20/98
[excerpt]
In another twist, Judge Paris
made a statement in court yesterday dismissing a CBC report that
Ms. Guess was excluded from a part of her trial, which her lawyer
was ordered not to discuss with her. Some legal experts suggested
that a "secret trial" may be grounds for an appeal
or a mistrial."
"No part of this trial
was held in the absence of the accused," the judge said."
Last Updated:Same Day Coverage
- Thursday 25 February 1999
OPINION
Board members (incl. Paul Gill)
pay for see-no-evil policy - "damning evidence of lies and
coverups"
Michael Smyth:
Prospect of testifying
frightens juror who slept with an accused killer
By CP from Ottawa
Sun Thursday, February 11, 1999
VANCOUVER -- Gillian
Guess, Canada's most famous juror, fears for her safety and plans
to fight efforts to force her to testify in the appeal of a double
murder trial.
"The Crown has announced
that they intend to apply to have me subpoenaed to testify against
alleged murderers," Guess said yesterday outside the B.C.
Court of Appeal.
"I feel anybody in this
situation, forget about it being Gillian Guess, certainly is
at high risk at having their own and their family's lives in
danger."
Surrounded by the usual phalanx
of reporters, Guess, 43, had represented herself in an effort
to try to change her bail conditions. She has severed ties with
her lawyers and appeared alone before Justice Carol Huddart on
the bail application, pending her appeal of her conviction of
obstruction of justice.
The judge adjourned the bail
matter to Feb. 17.
Guess was convicted last summer
for having an affair with accused killer Peter Gill while she
was on the jury that acquitted him and five other men in a pair
of gangland slayings.
Wiretaps of her home and witness
testimony confirmed she and Gill were having sex, although it
wasn't clear whether Gill urged her to acquit him.
The Crown is appealing those
acquittals and Guess believes she will be subpoenaed to testify.
The thought of testifying terrifies
her, she said.
She said her former lawyer
wanted to have her relocated under the federal witness protection
program.
"I decided to stay because
everywhere I go in Canada people will know me, unfortunately."
She was in court yesterday
because she doesn't want to have to report to a bail supervisor
four times a month.
Prior to her conviction, she
had been reporting once a month in person, and once a week by
telephone.
That was changed after her
conviction to once a week in person.
"Basically, it's become
a mind game," she told reporters. "They (bail officials)
keep me in there up to an hour. I've had unsavoury characters
phone me as a result of sitting in that office.
"It's very frightening
for me."
The judge ruled there was a
discrepancy between Guess's understanding of her bail supervisor's
recommendations and what the Crown was told.
The court ordered the bail
supervisor's version to be filed by affidavit and a decision
would be made Feb. 17.
She also told the judge she
wants to have her own appeal moved to another province because
she worries she won't get a fair hearing here.
But the judge said she couldn't
rule on that and advised Guess to apply in writing to the court's
chief justice.
|
Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell
