Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Saturday, December 4, 2010

San Mateo County: Come Have Sex With Our Children!

Michael Christopher Bellemur plead "No Contest" to charges relating to having sex on multiple occasions with a 12 year old child (a girl).

I've talked about this case a few times, but sentencing was yesterday. There are so many things wrong with this case I hardly know where to start.

Let's start with the place I read about this: The San Mateo Daily Journal

The writer of the article says things like: "The Burlingame man who had consensual sex multiple times with a 12-year-old girl..."  and "On their first date..." and "the pair proceeded to engage in sexual activity" What the fuck kind of twisted writing is this? a 12 year old does not have consensual sex with anyone, and these were NOT dates. How the hell many times do I have to say it?

Words fail me. I've re-written the next sentence many times, and you'll just have to settle for poorly worded thoughts: Maybe the reporter was trying to maintain a "neutral" or non-biased position in this story, or something similarly ridiculous. Maybe the reporter has never been, or doesn't know anyone who has been sexually battered, bothered, inappropriately leered at, or anything like it... it's the only way I can imagine a reporter choosing these truly inappropriate words to describe the case. It's utterly offensive.

It's sad to think about the mental/emotional struggle that the girl will face as she grows older, and that she'll have this reporter's words to look back on -- words that are essentially ascribing culpability to the poor girl for something really damaging that was done to her. This reporter is simply heaping hurt onto painful hurt. Great job.

Let's talk about the charges and the DA:
On multiple occasions the fucked-up creep had sex with a 12 year old girl. He could have been charged with multiple counts of "lewd and lascivious activity with a child under 14" with special allegations for substantial sexual conduct, resulting in decades of prison time (appropriate, given the facts.) The prosecutors wanted TWO YEARS IN PRISON for the no-contest to "felony unlawful sexual intercourse" plea.

The judge:
The "honorable" Judge Susan Etezadi opted to give him six months with credit for 56 days of time served. He's out and about on his $125K bond though, because the "honorable" judge gave him until the middle of January to keep molesting kids - er - report to the jail. Oh, and he doesn't have to register as a sex offender either. That way, he can keep committing the same offenses against children, and no one will be any the wiser!

Don't worry though, according to the article, Steve Wagstaffe respects Etezadi's decision, although he maintains that he wanted two years (again - What the fuck?).

SO, if you want to fuck kids, and get a minimum of time if you're caught, and aren't friends with the "right" folks, come to San Mateo County! We'll get you back on the street looking for victims in no time!

Friday, December 3, 2010

Another William Ayres - This One A Priest

A Philadelphia priest named Rev. William Ayres was removed from his parish due to allegations that he molested a child.

Story here: 6 ABC Action News

Looks like anyone with children would be well advised to steer clear of the whole ayres clan... 

Tuesday, November 30, 2010


When angry count four; when very angry, swear.
-Mark Twain

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

ayres' Competency Trial is Delayed

[Original post: 09/24/2010 09:29am PST by Deep Sounding]

 The ayres' competency trial has been delayed until January 10th.

The judge indicated that this would be the "LAST" time delay would be allowed. Just like all of the other last times.

What a crock of shit.
Fuck You San Mateo County.

[Update: 09/25/2010by DS]:
As commenters have noted: no word in the press about the delay being granted. People from The San Mateo Daily Journal DID pop in here yesterday afternoon to read about the results though.

[Update: 10/12/2010 by DS] (Never did post this update earlier, been busy and also pissed off):

Apparently, this time the beast's asshat attorney, Jonathan McDougall, really, really, REALLY believes that ayres has dementia or Alzheimer's or something, and he needs to have really REAL tests done. Good thing McDougall waited until just before the competency trial to realize this, otherwise they might have had the really REAL testing done by the time of the already scheduled trial and could have continued without delay. At least the judge has promised that this will be the LAST delay. For Reals.

Articles HERE and HERE.

Monday, September 27, 2010

Interesting Post on Salon.com

Over at Salon.com, Bonnie Russell has posted an interesting blog article on ayres and the court's delays. The commentary from viewers is spirited as well.

Bonnie Russell's Blog

Thursday, September 23, 2010

URGENT: Hearing on Motion to Delay Mental Competency Trial

[Original post: 09/23/2010 08:55am PST by Victoria Balfour]

Sept. 24, 2010, 8:45am, Courtroom 2A

Just checked with the court clerk. There is  indeed a hearing tomorrow, Friday, September 24, 2010 on Ayres' lawyer's motion to continue the mental competency trial date.

The hearing is scheduled for 8:45 am in Courtroom 2A in the Redwood City court house.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

URGENT: ayres asking for Competency Trial Delay

[Original post date: 09/22/2010 06:33am PST by Deep Sounding]

[Update: 09/22/2010 01:05pm PST by Deep Sounding]


According to the San Mateo Daily Journal, william hamilton ayres, accused of molesting many young boys while acting as a "psychiatrist," is now asking for a delay in his October 4th competency trial.

There is a hearing THIS FRIDAY MORNING to determine the outcome. No word as to what the piss-ant attorney's excuse is this time.

Read the shitty news here: San Mateo Daily Journal

[Update: 09/22/2010 01:05pm PST by Deep Sounding]
NOTE: I checked with the court clerk today just before 1:00 pm. There is no hearing on the schedule. The next court date is the trial on October 4th. Probably just a system glitch somewhere. Checked again in the later afternoon, still nothing listed. I'm sure there will be a hearing on Friday, just have no idea when, or if it's public. More info later today hopefully.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Another September 11th.

September 11

My prayers to the victims, their families and friends, and everyone else who was, and still is affected by the events of 9 years ago today.

On a personal note: I closely associate September 11, 2001 as a trigger event associated with "unravelling" due to the after effects of what ayres did to me. I hate this day on so many levels. And I'm entirely pissed off that this is the THIRD time I'm posting this September 11th message. I had hoped to be finished tracking this ayres crap by now, and locked the blog. I hope everyone involved in causing and defending BOTH situations burns in the fires of hell for a long, long time.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Ayres' Boston Records: The San Mateo DA Says They Don't Exist, But Children's Hospital and the Boston Globe Say They Do!!

Judge Baker told ME, unlike whoever keeps talking about what their records will show, said there are no records from that time period.

-San Mateo prosecutor Melissa Mckowan in comment on this blog, January 29, 2010

It's puzzling to me why the administration at Judge Baker Children's Center in Boston, where Ayres trained from 1959-1963, would have told the prosecutor on the Ayres case that " there are no records from that time period."
Because when I met with Judge Baker Chief Operating Officer Stephen Schaffer in August 2009 to discuss the Ayres case, he told me that records of Ayres' work at Judge Baker did exist . Furthermore, Schaffer said he had never received a call from anyone in the San Mateo District Attorney's office about Ayres' records. "Why didn't someone from the San Mateo District Attorney's office call us? " he asked. " We could have helped them look for them."
Granted, it is possible that either the San Mateo police or someone from the district attorney's office called someone else at Judge Baker about Ayres' records. But given the seriousness of the criminal case, one would have thought that Schaffer would have gotten wind of the request. But he told me last year he'd never even heard of the Dr. Ayres case.

Furthermore, in January, 2010, I was able to confirm that records of Ayres' work at Judge Baker DO exist. All of the case histories and notes on the boys who were inpatients when Ayres was there in the 1960s, are housed at Children's Hospital. This was confirmed to me by a staff member at Children's Hospital named Linda Lebel. These would include notes by the social workers' interviews with the children who were Ayres' patients and their parents; with the child care workers at Judge Baker; with the boys' teachers at the Manville School at Judge Baker; and notes by  Ayres himself.

In my interviews with 19 child psychiatrists and pscyhologists at Judge Baker as well as  four people who had worked as social workers when Ayres was there, I learned that if any child had complained about Ayres sexually molesting him, the complaint would be included in  these case histories, now at Children's Hospital. Many of the former Judge Baker personnel I talked to suggested that it was possible that a boy might have complained to a social worker that Ayres had touched him and that this would have been included in the notes.

Incidentally, Children's Hospital Archives  also has some interesting documents on other pedophile doctors who worked at Judge Baker and Children's Hospital. I saw an evaluation of Dr. Donald Lee Rife - another Judge Baker and Children's Hospital alum who would go on to molest boys - by his supervising physician when he was a resident at Children's Hospital("Rife is always available to work at all hours," it said.)

In January, 2010, I notifed Boston Globe reporter Mike Rezendes of the existence of Ayres' case histories at Children's Hospital. Rezendes included this in his front page story on the Boston hunt for Ayres victims, "California Sex Abuse Trial Spurs Hub Queries"
At the Judge Baker Children's Center, chief operating officer Stephen Schaffer said the organization does not have personnel records for Ayres because he was an employee of Children's Hospital when he was working at the Center. He said the same thing about another resident child psychiatrist, Donald L. Rife, who practiced at the Center immediately following Ayres, from 1964 to 1966. Rife has had medical licenses revoked in Massachusetts and Vermont, and has been reprimanded in Florida, because of child sex abuse allegations.

Schaffer said that the Center has the clinical records of children who were treated by the two child psychiatrists, but that privacy considerations prevent him from examining them without a specific patient request to do so.


So, now we know that ARE records of Ayres' work  from that time period, what I would like to know is how the prosecutor was given a story about the records that is at odds with the story that was given to myself and the Boston Globe reporter. Why would someone from Judge Baker tell her one thing and everyone else another? Furthermore, why does the prosecutor seem more intent on DISPROVING everything about Ayres' time at Judge Baker rather than trying to get to the truth and find out more about it?  Where is the curiosity about Ayres' training? Why has so much energy been spent in trying to beat down other people's discoveries about say, how doctors were trained at Judge Baker with information that is not just inaccurate, but just plain wrong? Why turn a blind eye and slam the door on inculpatory information that could help win the case?

To that end, I am calling for the San Mateo District Attorney's office to conduct an internal investigation on what was actually done to investigate Ayres' training in Boston.

The public is owed answers to these questions:

- Who called the four doctors I found in Boston: Stanley Walzer; Dan Ditmore, Joseph Mullen and Jacqueline Amati Mehler?
-When were these calls made ? What was asked ?
- In her January 29, 2010 comment on this blog, why does the prosecutor only mention speaking with two doctors instead of four? (She says there were three, but she made two doctors out of one doctor)
-Why did she get the doctors muddled and confused in her blog comment?
-Why did the prosecutor say that Dr. Amati Mehler was "physically unable to travel" when this has never been the case and is indeed a falsehood?
- Why did the prosecutor say on the blog that none of the doctors could confirm to her what they told me- that they were NOT trained to give physical exams to her but then in the same comment go on to CONTRADICT  her own statement and admit that one doctor confirmed she was not trained to do physicals?
- Why has the prosecutor given so many different stories to so many different people as to why she didn't call the Boston doctors? Stories such as "Ayres didn't talk about his training at Judge Baker" (which is false) or "Ayres lied about where he went to medical school and by the time we found that out it was too late to call the Boston doctors"(highly implausible story)
-On the issue of Ayres' records at Judge Baker, who from the San Mateo Police or the DA's office originally contacted Judge Baker?
- Who was their contact at Judge Baker? When was the call placed to Judge Baker about the records?  What were they looking for?
-Why has Judge Baker Chief Operating Officer  never heard of the request from the San Mateo DA's office about Ayres' records?
- Why did the prosecutor say that Judge Baker told her that "there are no records from that time period?" when in fact there are records?
-Why did Judge Baker Chief Operating Officer Stephen Schaffer tell me and the Boston Globe reporter that records did exist?

And finally, why did the prosecutor tell the mother of a victim that she had called Dr. Bert Brown, one of six doctors who trained with Ayres in that first key year of Ayres' residency at Yale, when in fact she never has? Why did the prosecutor then complain that Brown "never called her back " when in fact he has never been contacted by her in the first place ?
- Why would the prosecutor then,after saying she had contacted Dr. Brown, then go out of her way to try to make this prominent doctor who says he wants to help the victims and can help her win the case - look bad by falsely accuse him of doing something he has never done?

Again, I urge people who are interested in this case to contact San Mateo Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe and urge him to conduct an internal investigation. We are owed the answers to these questions. Wagstaffe's number: 650-363-4752.  Email:swagstaffe@co.sanmateo.ca.us

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

The Judge Baker Doctors Vs The San Mateo DA: More Questions

"For instance, the three (not four) Judge Baker Graduates who would allegedly have debunked Ayres' statements about being trained there -- did NOT confirm to the police or the DA what it was alleged in the blogs that they would say. One told me that she had told the reporter who talked to her that she didn't know anything about Ayres and was in school later than him and that although she could say SHE was never trained to give exams, she "couldn't say for sure what his training was." That is NOT helpful. Another one refused to testify and the last one is physically unable to travel and lives in Europe."

--Statement made on this blog on January  29, 2010  at 7:12 am by Prosecutor Melissa Mckowan from the San Mateo  District Attorney's office.
After my previous post on the controversy surrounding the Judge Baker doctors who trained with Ayres I found and the prosecutor's comments about them, I went back and looked at her comment again.

After reviewing her statement, I have even more questions. For anyone joining this blog for the first time, you can see the prosecutor's original comment in its entirety in the comments section under "Yale Debunks Ayres" from December, 2009.

My first concern is her remark that the Judge Baker doctors "did NOT confirm to the police or the DA what was alleged in the blogs that they would say." I don't know what blog the prosecutor is referring to, because back in November 2006, when I gave my information on the four doctors who were at Judge Baker when Ayres was there to Captain Mike Callagy in San Mateo, this blog did not exist at all. In fact, Ayres hadn't even been arrested and the prosecutor had not even been assigned to the case.

 I found the doctors and gave them to the San Mateo Police Department because I thought it would help their case. I still believe strongly that using one of the now 19 doctors who have either trained with Ayres at Judge Baker or trained at the same time he was there, would have helped the San Mateo DA's office to win the case. As I have stated, at least two jurors have told me that several jurors believed that Ayres had been trained in Boston to give physical exams to children.

I would like the readers now to look carefully at the prosecutor's words in her blog comment concerning these doctors I found at Judge Baker. There were actually four, but let's concentrate on the "three "she is referring to.  Actually, as she made the one female doctor I found into two doctors, it appears she is only talking about two doctors here.

The prosecutor starts off by saying that the doctors I found did "NOT" confirm to her or the police what they told me - that they were not trained to give physical exams in therapy.

But then in the next instant the prosecutor turns around and contradicts herself and confirms that a female doctor - that would be Dr. Amati Mehler - told her exactly what she told me - that   "SHE was never trained to give exams."  

Can anyone figure out why the prosecutor would say that they didn't confirm to her what they told me and then in the next breath admit that one did ? 

The prosecutor also makes an accusatory statement that the female doctor "couldn't say for sure "what Ayres' training was. Contrary to what the prosecutor said in her statement, I never said that Amati Mehler said that she could say "for sure" how Ayres was trained. I just asked her how  SHE  was trained.  The question I posed to Amati Mehler was: were YOU  trained to give genital exams to boys in therapy?  
What Amati Mehler told me was that she was not trained to give physical exams to children. "In the sessions with children, it was verbal only. If there was a physical problem, the on site pediatrics unit took care of it."
That is the information on Amati Mehler I gave to Captain Callagy.  As Amati Mehler was at Judge Baker the same years as Ayres, in 1963,  the information about one of Ayres' colleagues training seemed  pertinent. By giving over my information, I wanted the DA's office to know how others who trained at the same time as Ayres were trained. 

And furthermore, if you were a prosecutor, wouldn't you be interested to know that another doctor who was there when Ayres was there was not trained to give physicals to children in therapy?  Wouldn't that whet your curiosity if you were a prosecutor? Wouldn't you, oh, maybe put in at least one call to the top brass at Judge Baker to find out how doctors were trained there in the 1960s?

To find out the history of how child psychiatrists were trained at Judge Baker,  I went to the administration of Judge Baker. In August 2009, in an interview with Chief Operating Officer Stephen Schaffer told me in no uncertain terms that no child psychiatrists at Judge Baker were trained or allowed to give genital exams to child of either gender. Furthermore, he said that anyone caught giving a complete physical exam to a child in therapy would have been fired and the police would have been called. My question is: why didn't anyone in the DA's office think to call Schaffer and ask him this? Why rely on what another trainee said when you can go to the top?

Going back to the prosecutor's blog comment, what are we to make of her statement that Amati Mehler  "didn't know anything about Ayres? "  But what exactly does she mean that she "doesn't know anything?" That she doesn't know anything about Ayres molesting boys ? I never said in the information that I gave to the police that Amati Mehler knew anything about Ayres molesting boys. In fact, when I first told her about Ayres, Amati Mehler was very upset to hear the news about him. I never told the prosecutor anything other that Amati Mehler remembered him and where he was from in Ohio and that she was never trained to give physicals.

Or does the prosecutor mean that Amati Mehler had never heard of Ayres? We do know that this is not true, as in her first email to me in 2006 -which I gave to the police, Amati Mehler remembered meeting Ayres in her first week at Judge Baker and that he was from Columbus,Ohio.

The prosecutor then talks about another doctor, the one who was "physically unable to travel and lives in Europe." This actually is Amati Mehler again. Please note carefully: The prosecutor doesn't say that Amati Mehler could not confirm that she was not trained to give physical exams. It sounds in fact, as if they might have wanted this doctor to testify. 

But then for some odd reason, the prosecutor offers up the excuse that Amati-Mehler was physically unable to travel. We have seen in my previous thread that Amati-Mehler says this is false - that she travels all the time for her work. My question is: IF Amati Mehler was contacted and she did confirm that she was not trained to give physicals to boys in therapy, did the prosecutor just make up an excuse so she wouldn't have to use her ? And if so, why ? Why wouldn't the San Mateo DA's office use everything in their power to nail Ayres with people who actually trained at Judge Baker?

And what about the doctor in the prosecutor's comment  "who refused to testify?" Did that mean the prosecution wanted him to testify because he told them he wasn't trained to give physicals? Why would you want him to testify at all if he didn't have something useful for the case? 

Is anyone who is reading this as confused as I am by these contradictory statements? Can anyone please tell us what's going on here? 

Finally, if you go back to the original longer comment by the prosecutor on the "Yale Debunks Ayres" thread,  the prosecutor stated, "But take my word for it, any "credible" tip that has come in has been looked into." 

To the prosecutor: If that is true, then what's the  deal  with Dr. Bert Brown

To be continued..

Friday, September 3, 2010

The Judge Baker Doctors' Word Against the San Mateo District Attorney's Office: The Controversy Deepens

"For instance, the three (not four) Judge Baker Graduates who would allegedly have debunked Ayres' statements about being trained there -- did NOT confirm to the police or the DA what it was alleged in the blogs that they would say. One told me that she had told the reporter who talked to her that she didn't know anything about Ayres and was in school later than him and that although she could say SHE was never trained to give exams, she "couldn't say for sure what his training was." That is NOT helpful. Another one refused to testify and the last one is physically unable to travel and lives in Europe."

--Statement made on this blog on January  29, 2010  at 7:12 am by Prosecutor Melissa Mckowan from the San Mateo  District Attorney's office.


Dear Victoria Balfour,
I believe there must be some misunderstanding somewhere! I keep travelling all the time, because my profession and institutional offices at the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA) involve doing this as well.

Perhaps I am being confused with someone else.

I did train at Judge Baker Guidance Center and Children's Hospital, and I know many of the people that you mention in your letter.

I can certainly confirm that our training did not include at all, and at no time, genital exams or even corporeal exams of any sort of our little patients. If needed they would have been referred to the pediatric wards of the Children's Hospital.

- Email from Jacqueline Amati Mehler M. D., September 2, 2010 at 5:20 pm


Those of you who have been following this blog might recall that San Mateo prosecutor Melissa Mckowan unexpectedly posted a comment under her own name on January 29, 2010 under the thread Yale Debunks Ayres. It's a long comment and I am not going to post all of it here or comment on its entirety. You can read it here. http://williamayreswatch.blogspot.com/2009/12/yale-debunks-ayres-our-child.html

What I do want to focus on here today are the statements the prosecutor made concerning the doctors a "reporter" found - doctors who trained at Judge Baker in Boston - either directly with Ayres or who were trained there at around the same time.

 I am the reporter the prosecutor is referring to. To that end, I wanted to give you a little background on what  is threatening to become a growing controversy over the Boston doctors who trained with Ayres,  and  over who is telling the truth - the doctors themselves or the prosecutor.

Back in June 2006, almost a year before Dr. Ayres was arrested, I cold called a former medical partner of Ayres named Hugh Ridlehuber. In our conversation, Dr. Ridlehuber recounted a story about a boy patient he had inherited from Ayres in the 1970's, a "dentist's son", because, as the boy's father told Ridlehuber, the boy refused to go back because of all the physical exams Ayres had been giving him. Ridlehuber told me that he was concerned about this, as he had not been trained to give physical exams to boys in therapy. He said that when he confronted Ayres on this matter, Ayres told him that he had been trained to give complete physical exams to boys, including the genitalia, at Judge Baker Guidance Center in Boston in the early 1960s.

Ridlehuber said he did not challenge Ayres' statement about his training, but I decided to track down as many doctors who had trained at Judge Baker at the same time as Ayres to determine whether he was telling the truth about being trained to give genital exams to boys in therapy. In the summer of 2006, I spent many hours pouring over dusty old medical directories from 1959-1963, the years Ayres attended Judge Baker, at the New York Academy of Medicine Library.  As medical directories in the old days didn't list any doctors by their specialties, I had to pick out every doctor whose office address matched that of Ayres, on Longwood Avenue in Boston.  I started making calls. By August 2006, I had four doctors who either trained with Ayres directly at Judge Baker or whose stint at Judge Baker overlapped with Ayres.
Their names were: Dr. Stanley Walzer, who later became Director of Judge Baker in the 1970s; Dr. Joseph Mullen; Dr. Dan Ditmore and Dr. Jacqueline Amati Mehler. Walzer and Mullen lived in Massachusetts. Ditmore lived in Florida. Dr. Amati-Mehler - the only woman I was able to find who trained with Ayres, lived in Rome. All four of the doctors remembered Ayres at Judge Baker. Amati Mehler even recalled correctly, that Ayres was from Columbus, Ohio.

This is the question I posed to all four doctors:
During your training at Judge Baker, were you at any time trained to give physical exams to children as a routine and regular part of therapy - physical exams that would include an examination of the genitalia?

Here are their responses:

- Dr. Stanley Walzer:  Me, I didn't do physical exams on kids. To suggest we did at Judge Baker is crazy!!

- Dr. Joseph Mullen: We didn't do physical exams in psychiatric sessions with children. That's not part of the psychiatric treatment. No way!!

- Dr. Dan Ditmore: I worked at the outpatient psychiatric clinic at Judge Baker. I didn't do physical exams on children and neither did anyone else there. Why would they do that when we had pediatricians on staff and the best pediatricians in the world right across the street at Boston Children's Hospital?

Dr. Jacqueline Amati Mehler: In the sessions with children, it was verbal only. If there was a physical problem, the on site pediatrics unit took care of it.

I turned over my interviews in November 2006 with the four doctors in person to Captain Mike Callagy of the San Mateo Police Department in San Mateo, California.  Callagy said these interviews would be helpful to the prosecution.

But those of you who attended the first Ayres criminal trial in the summer of 2009 may recall that none of these doctors were called to testify. In fact, the prosecution didn't bring in anyone from Judge Baker to testify about how child psychiatrists were trained there. And to the surprise of many, the prosecution failed to challenge Ayres' lawyer's assertion that physical exams were part of the "therapeutic model" when Ayres was trained in the 1960s. I found this to be puzzling, as in addition to the Judge Baker doctors, I  had interviewed child psychiatrists who were trained at Yale, Harvard, and Johns' Hopkins during the same period that Ayres was, and I couldn't find a single doctor who said they had been trained to give physical exams to boys in therapy. In fact, what they told me was that any child psychiatrist who did ask a child to take off his clothes would be a cause for serious concern.

During the trial, several people who knew that I had found the doctors who had been at Judge Baker during the early 1960s, and who had debunked Ayres' claim about being trained to give physical exams, asked the prosecutor why she had not called the doctors.

Mystifyingly, the prosecutor offered up different reasons to different people. To a mother of an in-statute victim, she said that she had not called the Boston doctors because Ayres had "lied about where he had gone to medical school, and by the time we found this out, it was too late to call the Boston doctors."  This statement had people scratching their head. I know that in my eight year research into Ayres that I have never seen a single instance of him lying about where he went to medical school. Furthermore, Ayres talks quite a bit about his training in Boston in his 2004 civil deposition. And Judge Baker, for that matter isn't even a medical school.
To myself and another victim, the prosecutor stated after her closing argument that she had not called on the Boston doctors because Ayres had not talked about his Boston training on the stand and that he had said he had trained at Yale. Those who attended the trial and those who have a copy of Ayres' testimony will tell you that Ayres did indeed talk about his Boston training at the trial. He even talked about treating a 15 year old boy who had murdered his mother.  Additionally, I had told the prosecutor just minutes before she was to cross examine Ayres for the first time that Ayre had NOT trained in child psychiatry at Yale, and that the only place he had trained in child psychiatry had been at Judge Baker in Boston.

At the time, her conflicting statements confused several of us, and still do to this day.

In August 2009, after the mistrial, and still not understanding why the Boston doctors had not been used at the trial, I called Dr. Joseph Mullen and Dr. Ditmore to ask if they had been contacted by the DA's office. Dr. Ditmore said he had not and Dr. Joseph Mullen could not recall. During my conversations with these doctors, they both confirmed with even more conviction that they had not been trained to give physical exams to children in therapy and didn't know anyone who had.

Then, from August to December 2009, I proceeded to track down and conduct interviews with still more child psychiatrists who had trained with Ayres at Judge Baker during the years 1959-1963. I also did an in person interview with Judge Baker Chief Operating Officer Stephen Schaffer in Boston in August, 2009.  Schaffer told me that in the nearly 100 year history of Judge Baker, that they have never trained or permitted child psychiatrists to give complete physical exams to boys in therapy, and that if they had caught anyone doing this they would have called the police. Furthermore, Schaffer said that if only the San Mateo DA's office had contacted him, he would have set the record straight.

I posted  my interview with Schaffer and the other doctors on this blog in 2009 , and so if you are interested in their full interviews, go back and read them.

I asked the doctors the following question:

During your training at Judge Bake, were you at any time trained to give physical exams to children as a routine and regular part of therapy -- physical exams that would include an examination of the genitalia?

Here is a sampling of some of their responses:

- Dr. Lee Willer: I trained with Ayres. Neither he nor I nor anyone else in our training group was trained to give physical exams to children as part of therapy. In fact, we were advised NOT to do physicals on children.

- Dr. Milton Shore: Never, never, never did you touch a child in therapy! It was very implicit. Period. You didn't do physical exams. If the child at Judge Baker had a physical need to be examined, you got a pediatrician.
In all, I conducted 19 interviews with psychiatrists and psychologists who either trained with Ayres directly or were trained at Judge Baker at the same time. I couldn't find a single doctor who said that they had been trained to do physical exams or who did physical exams on boys in therapy.

And then, out of the blue, on January 29, 2010, the prosecutor posted a comment on this blog about the original Boston doctors I had found in 2006.  For reasons that aren't clear, she stated that I only found three doctors and then proceeded to get the doctors I found muddled and confused with each other, making Dr. Amati Mehler into two doctors. When I read the prosecutor's statement that the doctors I found would not confirm that they had not been trained to give physical exams to children at Judge Baker, I was surprised and confused - especially as I had just completed my 19 interviews  with the Judge Baker doctors  from the 1960s. They had all been adamant with me that they were not permitted to touch children in therapy. Indeed many of them who knew Ayres and had even been to dinner at his house expressed outrage and disgust that Ayres had been getting away with molesting boys under the guise of bogus medical exams for decades.

What I couldn't figure out was: why were the doctors telling me one thing, and yet the prosecutor said they told her another story? Why had Dr. Joseph Mullen and Dr. Dan Ditmore RECONFIRMED their statements to me after the trial that they had not been trained to do physical exams on boys in therapy? And yet why had the prosecutor stated that they had told her another story? As they couldn't recall being contacted by anyone in the DA's office, I decided to leave it alone for the time being.

But then, when I read a news story this August that the San Mateo District Attorney's office and the prosecutor in the Ayres case were being sued for allegedly lying to a judge in another child abuse case, I decided it was time to fact check the prosecutor's statement on the Ayres blog from January of this year. I already knew that Ditmore and Mullen had reconfirmed their statements to me last summer. As Dr. Walzer now has Alzheimer's, he was out. That left Dr. Jacqueline Amati Mehler.

I emailed Amati Mehler, who still lives in Rome, this week, to ask if she had been contacted by the DA's office; whether she remembered telling me that she had not been trained to give genital exams to children in therapy; whether she had NOT been able to confirm to the prosecutor that she had not been trained to give physical exams to boys in therapy and whether she had been at any time physically unable to travel. In her response, which I posted  at the top of this post, her first words were "I believe there must be some misunderstanding somewhere!! I keep travelling all the time...."

And on the issue of her training, Amati Mehler wrote, "I can certainly confirm that our training did not include at all, and at no time, genital exams or even corporeal exams of any sort on our little patients. If needed they would have been referred to the pediatric ward of Children's Hospital."

Amati Mehler said that she "cannot remember if anybody or the police contacted me" and said she would check her emails on her home computer in Rome after she returns from travelling (!!!)

The question is: who is telling the truth here? The Judge Baker doctors or the prosecutor?

Why would, for example, the prosecutor say that Amati-Mehler was "physically unable to travel?" Is the prosecutor just misremembering or is there something else at play here?

Why did the prosecutor say that none of the original doctors I found could not confirm to her what they originally told me in 2006- that they were not trained to give physical exams to children in therapy - when in fact three out of the four doctors have since reconfirmed to me with conviction that they were not trained to give physicals to boys in therapy?

Why do the prosecutor and the doctors have different stories?

And why did the prosecutor muddle the doctors and get them confused in her own blog statement?

Does her boss, Steve Wagstaffe who admits in an interview to the San Mateo County Times on December 28, 2009 that he is a micromanager with his prosecutors and pretty much oversees everything they do- know that one of his prosecutors posted a comment under her own name on the Ayres blog and got a lot of her information wrong and made misstatements?

Why did the San Mateo District Attorney's office not investigate Ayres' training either at Judge Baker or at Yale?

Why didn't they think to challenge Ayres' bogus statement that physical exams of children was his "therapeutic model?" -especially as at least two jurors I spoke to from the trial said that several jurors actually believed that Ayres was trained in Boston to give physicals to children and their failure to do so may have very well prevented them from winning the case?

Why has the prosecutor told so many different stories to different people about why she didn't call the Boston doctors to testify?

For those who would like answers to these questions, I would  strongly urge you to contact San Mateo Chief Deputy DA Steve Wagstaffe himself at: swagstaffe@co.sanmateo.ca.us or call: 650-363-4752.

One would hope that the San Mateo DA's office would pursue with the same zeal the confusing and conflicting statements made by a member of their own office as  they would with a defendant they are trying to convict.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

San Mateo County: Come have sex with our children!

Today, the trial of Tarquin Craig Thomas is slated to start.
Read a full summary in the San Mateo Daily Journal.

Tarquin was in the process of adopting the young boy that he was molesting on a DAILY basis, including having him pose nude with Tarquin and other adults.

I want you to pause and sit with this for a minute: These molesters have a particular gall: not only do they commit devastatingly evil acts against children, but they use things like professional training, public resources, political relationships, ALL for the goal of getting away with damaging the psyche of children, for their own perverse gratification. They become experts in the manipulation of people who should know better.

This is sheer evil, of the darkest kind. These people are not human beings. They are the evil putrefied excrement of human society.

According to the San Mateo Daily Journal, Thomas was originally charged with 25 counts of lewd and lascivious behavior, and a misdemeanor showing pornography to a child. (for daily molestations and posing nude with adults.)

Judge Craig Parsons reduced it down to 5 counts of lewd acts on a child under 14 and one count of showing pornography - only one count due to a change in the law that doesn't allow charging based on number of images. A boon to the evil dregs and their equally horrendous supporters, I'm sure.

Let's just hope that they get conviction on all 5 remaining counts, assuming the facts in the case are true! (Note that the cleaning lady found photos of  several boys, some of the images including "contact with an animal," and the police also found the GPS tracking device that the perp had hidden with a photo that the child had with him. I'm betting the facts in the case are true.)

Saturday, August 14, 2010

"They Essentially Have No Expertise"

I recently received this email from pediatrician Dr. Howard Pearson,who has been on the staff of Yale pediatrics for more than 40 years. Pearson, who wrote a history of the Yale Pediatrics Department, debunked Ayres' testimony that a Yale child psychiatrist named Al Solnit had trained first year pediatric interns to do physical exams. I thought I'd share it here:

Hi Ms Balfour:

I'm responding to your recent note re pediatrics at Yale.

In the 1950's, the Department was Chaired by Dr. Milton Senn, a psychiatrist who was also head of the Child Study Center - Yale's Child Psychiatry Service. Dr. Senn had very little pediatric training or experience and appointed a Clinical Chief, Dr. Nelson Ordway, an excellent clinician and teacher who was responsible for all clinical activities, including house staff recruiting, teaching and supervision. At that time, Dr. Solnit came to New Haven with a primary appointment in the Child Study Center. Although he had a joint appointment in Pediatrics, I'm confident that he did not instruct or teach anything except psychiatric subjects. He certainly would not have instructed in physical examinations.

Most physicians who want to be Child Psychiatrist sake a year post graduate internship ( PL1 ) in a pediatric service although some do a internal Medicine internship.

I am puzzled why a physician providing psychiatric consultations should perform any physical exams - that should probably have been a,"red flag." There is really no medical reason for a psychiatrist to physically examine a patient. They have essentially no expertise.

Although I have no hard data, I think that most pediatricians today and in the '50's try to have a parent in the room when they examine young children of either gender.. Adolescents are often embarrassed to have their parents in the room, although many pediatricians try to at least talk to their adolescent patients alone.

A female adolescent is almost always examined with a female attendant present; less frequent is having a chaparone in the room when an adolescent boy is examined - but in this day when the issue of sexual abuse is so prevalent some pediatricians do, particularly if the genitalia are examined.

H..A. Pearson.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Interesting New Comments

I see that there are some new comments on an older posting here that are interesting.

I think these are spurred by the recent rally.

Sunday, August 1, 2010

Advertisement in Patriot Ledger

Advertisement found in the Patriot Ledger July 31, 2010

[Original post: 08/01/2010 07:00am, PST]
This advertisement about william hamilton ayres (accused of molesting many young boys under the guise of practicing psychiatry) appeared in the Patriot Ledger paper yesterday, July 31, 2010.

If you saw this advertisement, and then came to this site because you were a victim, you now know that there are others of us out here. (I am one of them, and there are plenty of others.) Go ahead and call that number - it's not me, but it's safe to call. And if you were in the Boston area at the time, contact Sgt. Detective Robin Demarco as well. If you were in the San Mateo area, (later in ayres' "illustrious" career) please contact Detective Rick Decker at the San Mateo Police Department as well.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Civil Trial Dates Vacated

The civil trial dates in four of the lawsuits against william hamilton ayres relating to his molestation of many young boys under the guise of providing psychiatric care have been VACATED due to the pending competency jury trial and criminal trial.

There is a trial setting conference in these four cases scheduled for:
10/22/2010 9:00 AM DEPT. PJLM.

Calendars and court dates page will be updated soon.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Civil Trial Update

[Original post: 07/15/2010 01:15pm ]
Well, I haven't seen any reports of exactly what happened during the hearing for the most recent civil case against william hamilton ayres relating to his molestation of young boys, but the Open Access court documents have been updated.

The Case Management hearing scheduled for today, July 15, 2010 has been continued.

The new Case Management hearing date for THIS case is on September 16, 2010, 9am.

As always, see "ayres' Court Dates" for schedule updates. You can also subscribe to the google calendar, and it will send you email alerts.
(but you know... give me a few minutes to update them... )

San Mateo County: Come have sex with our children!

[Original post: 07/15/2010 08:15am ] 
The San Mateo Daily Journal reports that the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury is saying that The County is at greater risk for child sexual abuse because we're just not doing a very good job monitoring sex offenders.

I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I tell you!

According to the article:
Sexual predators are not investigated to the same degree as they were previously and a coordinated countywide effort to monitor sexual predators is inadequate, according to the report.
The civil grand jury report states that the average sex offender will victimize between 50-150 children before coming to the attention of law enforcement and that at least 50 percent of all convicted sexual predators will re-offend. 
The article reports that because of funding problems, many of the Sheriff's Office programs that used to monitor known sex offenders have been cut, under the management of San Mateo County Sheriff Greg Munks. Good thing we got rid of that guy this past election! (What?? OH... Well, at least he didn't get 100% of the vote right?)

San Mateo County: Come have sex with our children!

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Hearing Reminder

[Original post: 07/14/2010 01:45pm ]
For those following the civil cases in which william hamilton ayres is being sued relating to his molestation of young boys:

There is a case management hearing TODAY, Thursday, July 15, 2010 9am in the latest suit filed against him. There is no trial date scheduled for this case yet, and there don't appear to be any specific motions listed in the open access court documents.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to go to this one. If you need to know what happens first-hand, get your butt down to the courthouse, pronto, or have someone you trust go! And report back here too, if you please!

Note: I haven't re-confirmed the date/time yet. If you're planning on going, give the court a call to make sure it's still on... Info below:

This is very likely one of those "bulk" hearings where they have a whole bunch of quick stuff to schedule, and the order that they take the cases is not necessarily set. The case could be heard at 9:00am or anytime thereafter. I've never had to sit past about 10:45 before it was wrapped up. 

Because they won't be using names, you'll have to keep the case number handy to find the correct courtroom: CIV492658  vs. John Doe 1 et al (John Doe 1 is ayres.)  I'm just guessing, but probably this is just a meeting to schedule the next meeting while everyone waits for criminal trial results, and now competency results, as well. 


First Case Management Conference
Info: 650-363-4576 CIV492658
Thu Jul 15 9am Pacific Time
400 County Center, Redwood City, CA Dept. 7 (map)
williamayreswatch Events

See "ayres' Court Dates" for more detail

Also see post below. I've added testimony from ayres' first criminal trial about the design of his office building and suite.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Charming Office For Lease

[Updates: 07/13/2010 09:00pm  Added william ayres' testimony about his involvement in the design of his office suite.]
Awesome location

Separate Entrances & Exit

Complex offers 26 off-street parking spaces


Fresh interior Paint

Carpets and window coverings

Charming professional office space available within walking distance from downtown San Mateo. Two units available: Suites 5 & 6 are 2nd floor office suites with separate entrance & exit, carpets and window coverings; both units offer shared mens (sic) & womens (sic) bathrooms. The 2nd floor suites are perfect for small medical, therapist or buisiness (sic) professional. The complex offers an elevator an (sic)  26 off-street parking spaces.

The property is conveniently located within walking distance to Mills Hospital and downtown San Mateo. The location offers easy access to public transportation and highways 101 and 280.

I suppose the most charming of the features is:

Separate entrances and exit. That way patients who are waiting for their appointment can't see the traumatized look on the faces of the prior patient as he's leaving the office, plus it minimizes the odds that there will be "note comparing" about the child molestation going on within,  leading to possibly costly lawsuits or prison time.

They forgot to mention the wood paneled hide-away area that the parents won't notice while they're being interviewed, and then when the young boy comes in, the doors can be opened to show all kinds of exciting models and toys, and a table where the boys can be conveniently molested from time-to-time.

Also for sale this week only: 
Slightly used freezer. Contact Mr. J. Dahmer.

Everything you didn't want to know about Office #5, 
from the molester's own mouth:

Cross examination on July 9, 2009, from the testimony of William Hamilton ayres during his first trial on charges relating to his molestation of many young boys:

Prosecutor McKowan (Question): Now, you talked about at the beginning of your career in San Mateo County that you actually built the building that you spent the most years of your career in? I mean not personally, but…
Molestor william ayres (Answer): Well, not personally, but a group of us built a medical office building.

Q: Can you tell me what the address of that building is?

Q: And that’s in San Mateo County?
A: Yes.

Q: In the city of San Mateo also?
A: Yes.

Q: Okay. And how did you go about building that building? Did you hire an architect?
A: Yes.

Q: And you had input on the design of the building?
A: Yes.

Q: And you knew that your office was going to be in that building?
A: Yes.

Q: You had already been practicing, and you had come from the Judge Baker and had been in another office here in San Mateo County prior to that?
A: Yes.

Q: And you already at that time knew that doing a physical examination was, in your mind, an important part of doing psychiatric treatment on adolescents?
A: Yes.

Q: So when you had your office built, did you not have an area in your office specifically designated for conducting physical exams?
A: I had in mind using a particular area in my office for doing physical examination, yes.

Q: And are you talking about the area behind the accordion doors?
A: Yeah.

Q: And, in fact, that turned out to be a table where you had the kids build models?
A: Yes.

Q: And you said play cards, and there were games and things like that?
A: Yes, but this was not only in my office. It was in several offices.
[DS Note: I wonder if Etta Bryant used her area for the same purposes?]

Q: Okay. And you did not have a traditional examination table anywhere in your office, the kind you would –
A: No.

Q: -- normally see in a doctor’s office with a padding, or with paper on it or anything like that?
A: Correct.

Q: You did not have a light in that area that would be specific for focusing on aspects of the body, like you would see normally in a doctor’s office?
A: Well, you wouldn’t see the kind of light you see in surgery, that’s moved around.

Q: Right.
A: But there were lights on the top, inside the – that shined down. So there was a light for the area whether they were building a model or having a physical.

Q: Like a light bulb or fluorescent light or something like that?
A: yeah, fluorescent lighting. Yeah.

Q: And it didn’t have any place in there for the storage of medical equipment or anything like that?
A: No, it did. I had a drawer that was off limits to children patients, and that contained an ophthalmoscope – and I’m going to have trouble with thinking of – stethoscope, and blood pressure equipment and various kinds of medical equipment.

Q: Okay. Now, you said you had another table in your office also?
A: Yes.

Q: And instead of reserving this area behind the accordion doors to be a dedicated medical examination area, you instead chose to use it for sort of a play area for the kids as well?
A: Yes.

Q: And prior to doing examinations, would you wipe down the table?
A: Yes.
[DS Note: This is certainly a qualified lie. I don't recall ever seeing it wiped down, and in fact I recollect being somewhat concerned about getting model glue or paint on me.]

Q: Right before you would do it?
A: Yes. I mean, in the sense that it would be like the first time that it would be used that day. I would wipe it down, yes.

Q: And you would wipe it down after you were done doing an examination?
A: Yes.

Q: Did you have a place where the kids could undress in privacy, like behind a screen or anything like that?
A: No.

Q: Did you have another, like, closet or any place in there where kids could go to be private while they undressed?
A: No.

Q: Did you have gowns that they could wear, you know, like even the little paper kind that you put on when you go to the doctor?
A: No.

Q: Nothing like that. No paper shorts?
A: No.

Q: How about draping, anything that a child could put over their lap prior to the time, like, while you were examining their head, and their neck, and their chest that might cover their genital area?
A: No.

Q: Okay. And you didn’t use gloves at all?
A: No.

Q: Not ever during the entire course of your career?
A: Well, if you doing something – I don’t know. I’d have to think, because there are very few reasons why, with just general physicals, you’d ever use gloves.

Q: You didn’t –
A: And that’s the way it was taught at Yale, so…

Q: Did you have gloves in your office?
A: Yes, I had gloves.

Q: So sometimes you would use them and –
A: I mean, somebody came in with a cut and they were bleeding all over, I certainly would use gloves.

Q: Okay. But you would examine the genitals of a boy without using your gloves?
A: Correct.

Q: And you didn’t do any genital examinations of girls?
A: No.

Q: And you didn’t invite the parents in the room during the time that you were conducting the physical examinations?
A: No.

Q: Did you ever ask the child if they wanted to have their parent brought in the room?
A: No.

Q: When the examinations were completed, did you ever call the parents in to discuss with them the results of the physical examination with the child?
A: The parents were frequently not there. The parent would come and drop off the youngster, and the youngster would come up to the waiting room and come into the office. So the parents were not necessarily around. If they were in the waiting room, generally speaking, I might speak to the mother on the way out, particularly if there was no, up, particular finding in the – in the exam. If there was nothing, you know, I would say that everything was fine and that would be that. But – But no.