We received a copy of this email from a quite reliable source. [LATER NOTE: This letter was later independently verified in the press, some time after we reported this originally, and at least one of the letter's authors confirmed to the press that it was valid. Our source indicates that the letter went out to the psychiatric community at large.]
Link to later San Mateo County Times article (pdf)
Link to later San Mateo County Times article (pdf)
From: Lawrence Lurie [Lawrence.Lurie@ucsf.edu]
To: Undisclosed recipients:;
(williamayreswatch received it this way)
Sent: Sat, Jun 13, 2009 11:08 am
Subject: Supporting the William H. Ayres MD, Legal Defense Fund
Bill Ayres is currently on trial. As fellow psychiatrists, we are concerned that he receives a fair hearing. We are writing you in the hope that you will share our concern and perhaps contribute to insuring that his trial is open and unbiased.
The William H. Ayres Legal Defense Fund has been set up exclusively to support Dr. Bill Ayr es' defense and appeals. It is managed by Solveig and Bill Ayres and is not linked to any organization or group. Funds received will be used in order to provide financial support for expert testimonies in the current trial and in appeals, if necessary. Pre-trial referrals to the State Court of Appeals and the State Supreme Court were rejected with notice that they could be re-submitted if he lost the case at the trial level.
We all have known and worked with Dr Ayres for over twenty years and have had the highest respect for him as a dedicated clinician for children and adolescents. He has been a community and a professional leader in working to improve the mental health care for younger adults at local, state and national levels.
Underlying issues in this case that are of concern to us include:
1. The unprecedented, and clearly illegal, search and seizure of confidential patient files;
2. The invasion of the privacy of more than 600 patients through the use of their confidential files to identify them and inquire, without any prior evidence, if they had been molested by their psychiatrist;
3. The use of highly suggestive interview techniques to elicit evidence of misconduct; and
4. The substitution of the judgment of law enforcement officers for the considered medical opinion of a highly respected psychiatrist.
Bill and Solveig are running out of money after spending two million dollars in their own defense. If Dr. Ayres is going to have a chance at an unbiased trial, he is going to need to use expert witnesses. We are therefore encouraging colleagues who want to make sure that Bill gets a fair trial to send contributions to the William H. Ayres Legal Defense Fund. The trial is currently underway, so a prompt response is important.
Checks should be made out to:
[Legal Defense Fund name and location
REDACTED by williamayreswatch -
Nothing of use here unless you want to send money.]
Bart Blinder, M.D., APA Assembly Representative 1990-Present
Etta Bryant, M.D., President Northern California ROCAP 1986-1988
Peninsula Psychiatric Assn., Partner with Dr. Ayres 1983-2003
Mel Blaustein, M.D., President Northern California Psychiatric Soc. 1991-93
Harry Coren, M.D., President, Northern California ROCAP 1994-1996
Tom Ciesla, M.D., President of California Psychiatric Ass 2000=2002
Robert Kimmich, M.D. President Northern California Psychiatric Soc. 1993-1995
Larry Lurie, M.D., President Northern California Psychiatric Soc. 1981-1982
Maria Lymberis, M.D., Secretary of American Psychiatric Assn., 2000-2002
Richard Shadoan, M.D., President of California Psychiatric Assn., 1994-1996
Captane Thomson, M.D. President of California Psychiatric Assn., 1992-94
Harold Wallach, M.D. President of California Psychiatric Assn., 1990-1992
Deep Sounding's commentary on the "Underlying Issues" points made in the begging for cash letter:
1) The search of patient files was not "unprecedented" and was not "clearly illegal," In fact, a similar case was just wrapping up being vetted by the supreme court as the ayres matter went to trial. The ayres trial was held pending outcome of the other earlier matter. The method was found to be legal, and the ayres trial proceeded. (All of this happened well before the letter was issued.)
2) Patient privacy was protected through use of Special Master - The Master's job was to identify patients only, and contact them; access to medical information was not used or provided to law enforcement or prosecution. The people contacted were asked if they had any particular recollection of their "treatment" by ayres, They were not asked if they were molested.
3) I was an out-of-statute victim of ayres who contacted the police independently after these initial interviews were conducted. "Highly suggestive interview techniques" were not used. In fact, I did most of the talking, the only direct questions were points of clarification about unprompted statements that I made to the interviewing officer.
4) "Considered medical opinion of a highly respected psychiatrist" as presented in trial was that the "highly respected psychiatrist" and his expert witnesses claimed that the molestations were actually "medical examinations" misunderstood by the young patients.
Manual stimulation of the penis until erection is achieved with the goal of ejaculation is not a known medical examination technique, and neither is repeated, forceful manual stimulation of the prostate gland to achieve the same result.
The shrinks who wrote the letter were telling their colleagues outright lies about the situation in order to garner sympathy for a (now convicted) prolific serial child molester. The shrinks listed above should not be trusted by their colleagues, and should not be trusted to care for patients.