Details of Today's hearing

[Original post date: 09/11/09 10:40am PST]

Events today at the Hearing to set a re-trial date for william hamilton ayres for charges relating to the molestation of many young male children:

Most of my “quotes” in this will be close to verbatim, or a very near paraphrase. I was writing very quickly; my fingers still hurt.

There were three people present known to support the victims, including one juror from the first trial. There were two other people present, and appeared to be possibly reporters. One of the supporters had a bit of a conversation with ayres after the hearing. We will tell you a BIT about that BRIEFLY later today, but will not get into any detail, unless that person wants to tell the story from their perspective.

As of 8:36AM, ayres and his wife Solveig were already waiting on a bench around the corner from the courtroom. Ayres has a new walker. It is the sporty model with a seat and four large castor wheels to allow him to zip around between court engagements.

At right around 9am, the Judge entered, and Defense attorney Jonathan  McDougall introduced himself as ayres’ “substitute” representation, and declared that all of the appropriate signatures from ayres, Weinberg, and McKowan were on file. McDugall is a former DA, and his personality is somewhat brash, a bit chatty, and seems like he’ll be prone to interrupt at will. He claimed to not have come very much up to speed yet, and that he had had “Brief discussions” with both Weinberg and McKowan, but not much more than that, and then with a bit of a complaining demeanor exclaimed that his “investigator had picked up six boxes of material” relating to the trial. I wonder if those boxes included some reading material? Perhaps a picture book or two for him to peruse whilst enjoying an evening at home.

[Update 9/11/09 5:30pm NOTE: There has been some confusion created by the San Mateo County Times. Earlier today, they reported that McDougall was not paid for by ayres, that he had accepted [the San Mateo county equivalent of] a "public defender." They have since changed their article, and it now reads: 

"Ayres has retained McDougall, which means the doctor is paying the attorney to defend him"

They have further confused the matter by posting the ORIGINAL article here at a later time yesterday evening. (but not later than the latest update at the original site.) I think that the most current reporting, that ayres has RETAINED McDougall is probably correct, but still, this seems to me to be the type of detail that would be difficult to report incorrectly.] [Further Update, 9/12/2009: As of 2:12pm PST, they have updated the site, and it now matches the Mercury News posting, and the first one that I linked to (contracostatimes) appears to no longer be working. To wit: According to their research, ayres IS PAYING for his new representation.]


McDougall wanted a four to six week continuance to try to come up to speed before they start talking about setting a date.

He promptly (and brashly) asked for a trial date of April with a “February readiness hearing.”  You could feel the litany of excuses about coming up-to-speed welling up over on his side of the courtroom, and they started to spill out, but the Judge interrupted him.

“This trial is about ayres, not about you.” The Judge stated that she did NOT think April is a reasonable date, and that the court is NOT obliged to allow the defense to come up to speed [to the extent of an entirely new investigation], in this case especially, as it is a retrial, and it was NOT the court’s decision to change representation mid-stream. She stated that he should NOT have to start the investigation all over again, and implied that his come-up-to-speed time should be MINIMAL, and that anything otherwise was unreasonable.

McDougall then stated that he felt that under the case law, Weinberg’s strategy was not necessarily appropriate. (The implication that he may indeed need to start the investigation all over again. And employ a better strategy.)

Judge Freeman interrupted him again and said: that his “Request for a readiness conference in February suggests to me that you are ALREADY PLANNING a continuance.  She then asked for McKowan’s input.

McKowan stated that she DOES want to have a “FIRM DATE TODAY,” and she said that she does agree that McDougall should have SOME time to come up to speed, but that she NEEDS TO SET A DATE TODAY.

Judge Freeman indicated concern that if she sets a date today, that McDougall will come back and say that it was not a date that he agreed upon.  She suggested that she was willing to continue the decision on a court date until as late as October 2nd, and that she would expect him to come in at that point with a firm and reasonable request for a trial date.

McDougall: “I don’t know if I will be ready in a month to pick a date that I’ll be ready.”

Judge Freeman then tossed out October 9 as a date, stating that date was in line with the four to six weeks that he had requested.  She said “I will expect by that time you will be able to map out a strategy that gets [you a good date.]”

Judge Freeman warned McDougall that she can NOT postpone the October 9th date, and that if he needs to change it, he will have to call the court very early so that the new date can be scheduled to occur BEFORE October 9th. She also told him that she expects to have a reasonable estimate for the amount of time he will require for the trial.

In all, it was not an overly surprising day.  The DA clearly wanted a firm date, but as usual, the court seems to have its hands tied with the delay tactics for which ayres’ representation is so skilled.


It did seem that the Judge is aware that the ENTIRE strategy of the defense at this point is to delay and continue until a time when either everyone forgets what the trial is about, or ayres is dead, and that THAT’s the expertise that ayres is paying for. She seemed to be not as willing to put up with the nonsense, and clearly gave the impression she thinks that setting a trial date as late as APRIL is fantastically unbelievable nonsense.

[Update: September 11, 2009, 9:30pm PST]:

After the hearing was finished, a small group of us were standing outside discussing various aspects of the justice system,  when ayres went scooting by over to the place where he waits for his wife to come pick him up after one of the plethora of court appearances he makes.

It is fairly well documented that ayres and Solveig both enjoy approaching victims and their families and friends and greeting them cheerfully, asking them if they’re Scientologists, or other even more bizarre questions. One of our group was greeted cheerfully by ayres, and she decided that she’d take him up on his conversational opener, and went over to talk to him.

The conversation was not surprisingly pretty off-axis.  Our understanding is that she asked him questions relating to how it is that he could engage in such behaviors, and he kept replying something to the effect of: “I’m a psychiatrist.” After awhile he began to move away from her, and asked her to stop talking to him.  Everyone agreed that this was odd, since he was the one who approached her, with a friendly greeting.  Soon Solveig arrived with the vehicle, and got out to see what was going on. Even with the dark sunglasses, she is capable of exuding an attitude of vapid confusion, with just a hint of malice. Must be all that theatre experience.

Ayres then saw a San Mateo Sheriff’s Deputy walking by, and frantically started to flag him down. “Help, Help, There’s a WOMAN talking to me!” was written all over the desperate look on his face.  The Deputy gave him one of those “Get a life” looks, and at that point, our conversationalist friend began to walk away, and ayres gestured to the Deputy that everything was OK now, the woman wasn’t going to hurt him. The Deputy looked way and rolled his eyes.

Our conversationalist friend seems to be one of those people who live for the moment, grabbing the bull by the horns at every opportunity.

I have to admit that for me, today, the hearing ended with an exuberant laugh.

It’s a good thing. 


Also wanted to mention that Trials & Tribulations also had some commentary on our hearing today!