PWAC Victoria: Sid Tafler, Writing Sample

The Reading Room

Guess Who's Guilty But Still Talking

by Sid Tafler © 1998

The made-for-movies world of Gillian Guess, Canada's most famous juror. This column was published in the Globe and Mail Provinces section, July 10, 1998.

Inquiring minds want to know: why does Gillian Guess, Canada's most famous juror, keep on talking--apparently against her better interests?

I think there are three answers, maybe more. She's hoping her high profile in the media offers her some protection from two powerful forces that have her in their sights--the justice system and the criminal underworld.

She also thinks she has a valid case, that she was unfairly and vengefully targeted by police and prosecutors who needed someone to blame for losing a high-profile murder case.

And, with all her talk about movie and book deals, Ms. Guess can't get off the media merry-go-round that surrounded her trial this summer. Her crime was sleeping with Peter Gill, one of six men accused of murdering two drug dealers, while she sat on the jury that acquitted him three years ago. She was found guilty of obstruction of justice June 19 and is free pending sentencing August 20.

Witnesses at her trial said she flirted with Mr. Gill from across the courtroom and had sex with him after hours. Her guilt seems hardly in doubt to anyone but herself, but it seems a twisted irony that the accused murderers all walked, while one of the people who decided the case now faces a jail cell. Ms. Guess, 43, is a small fish swimming in an ocean of sharks--the Crown and police must be embarrassed that she's all they caught in their nets.

The Crown is appealing the murder charge against the six men, and if they do get Mr. Gill and his cohorts back in court, Ms. Guess could be called as a witness. She believes her life would be in danger as a result. After a lengthy period of surveillance and wiretapping leading up to her trial, she's hoping the police are still watching as she fears for her safety at the hands of those who would prefer she didn't testify.

Her lawyer has gone public with his advice that she keep a lower profile to avoid annoying the judge as she awaits sentencing in her North Vancouver townhouse. The maximum term is ten years, although Ms. Guess will probably get much less than that. But she won't be silenced. "I simply cannot compromise my value system at this late stage to placate a judge," she said in an interview. "If in fact I was guilty as pronounced, now would be the time I'd be majorly placating. I'm prepared to go to jail to stand up and fight for justice."

Ms. Guess, a twice-married single mother, admits to a terrible weakness in carrying on with the accused while she served on his jury. The two are no longer involved. "I am guilty of exhibiting very poor judgment and trusting a man I should never have trusted." But she insists she didn't break the law because she didn't try to influence her fellow-jurors to acquit Mr. Gill. She plans to appeal the verdict.

Of course we know the court dockets are full of "innocent" people. Ms. Guess must realize that the jury system couldn't function if jurors behaved like she did. Judges specifically tell jury members they must inform the court if they have a personal involvement with the accused, so they can be excused from duty. It seems common sense to assume this also means personal involvement during the trial itself, but Ms. Guess used little sense of any kind once she began exchanging glances with Mr. Gill.

But the people who run our justice system have a lot to answer for as well. During the murder trial, police and court officials caught wind and sight of the budding affair between the juror and the accused. Crown counsel and police apparently discussed the liaison, but nothing was done to reprimand Ms. Guess or get her off the jury.

Sex seems to have run rampant at the murder trial. Ms. Guess says two others jurors and a lawyer and an articling student were also romantically involved and the latter couple now has a baby. It was a long trial, and Ms. Guess will be remembered for her comment that, after eight months, even the judge started to look attractive.

It's unfortunate Ms. Guess's flamboyant behaviour deflects attention from the serious legal issues raised by this case. During her trial, she met the media outside the courthouse wearing provocative clothes and sunglasses, spouting candid comments, her little dog George perched under her arm (even he mated this month). Her identity is also part of the intrigue: Guess is not her real family name, but a name she assumed.

But the trail leads back to her. If, as she says, the court should have acted to remove her from the jury, she should have been woman enough to ask to be excused as soon as she was compromised by her behaviour. She tried to, she insists, but was dissuaded by the jury foreman. She says he told her, "I need your brain on this jury."

Snicker if you will, but don't be surprised if she gets the last laugh. If this sounds like a made-for-movies story, remember Ms. Guess has been directing and starring in the real-life event. And the offers from Hollywood are already rolling in.

Sid Tafler
| Author Profile | More Writing Samples |

Last updated: April 23, 2001 http://www.islandnet.com/pwacvic/tafler02.html