--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..