[Original Post by DS: 09/07/2011 11:10AM PST]
[Updates: 09/08/2011 06:10AM PST]
On September 7, 2011 william hamilton ayres had a placement hearing to establish the "treatment" he would receive for the dementia that he claims is preventing him from defending himself against charges relating to his molestation of many young boys, while they were entrusted to his "care" for alleged psychiatric treatment.
Last month, in a hearing with an un-announced time change probably designed to prevent the public,the press, and a county supervisor from witnessing the spectacle (and reporting it without the approved Wagstaffe Spin), the DA caved in and conceded to his claims of dementia in spite of the fact that two of three neutral, court appointed shrinks state that he is competent. (The third mysteriously changed her report moments before a competency trial was to start.) And in spite of the fact that the DA was presented with privately funded surveillance evidence that the molester ayres is out and about acting very competent, and even joking about his "dementia" claims with shrink pals Robert Kimmich and Larry Lurie, who has published a paper on Alzheimer's related dementia and its symptoms.
Prior to today's hearing, the DA and the prosecutor told several different stories about what was expected in terms of placement (As many as seven different stories if you count different press reports and reports from victim's families.) These ranged from minimal outpatient care locally, to permanent lockup (unless conditions improve) in state mental health facilities.
At 9:00am, the prosecutor, the defense attorney and Judge Grandsaert quietly discussed the fact that the court needed to hear information on a few other cases first, so they delayed the start time slightly. The Judge was overheard discussing the importance of the start time, and all three appeared to be amused with themselves and had a little laugh about the distress they caused at the last hearing. (Must be sweet to be an impartial judge.)
Once things got underway, Grandsaert mentioned ex-parte information received from a non-involved party, (We can safely assume that this is private investigator’s report.) He stated that it was non-admissible and possibly unlawful for him to review, and that it can’t be taken into consideration. (NOTE: Technically, Grandsaert is just blowing smoke up people's arses here... the information was provided to all sides, and thus, it is not ex parte. )
Grandsaert stated that if the public is not happy with their officials, then they should change their officials at election time. (Grandsaert was apparently already pissy because a bunch of the people from the un-related preliminary hearings didn’t show, didn’t do what they were told, etc…) The judge is right: the public has to decide if they want to keep bending over and letting people like him blow smoke up their asses or not.
Once Grandsaert stepped down off his lectern, McDougall, the defense weasel, indicated that he wanted a delay before commitment (we think he was asking for 90 days.) He submitted a report from Amanda Gregory, stating that it agreed with findings from Kirshner, (who felt that ayres’ condition was likely Alzheimer’s disease.) McDougall wanted it to be part of the record for “future hearings.” McKowan agreed to making it part of the court record, the judge agreed that the documents were relevant.
Discussion then centered around 1601A, which has to do with mandatory 180 day locked-up commitment in cases in which people have been harmed by a defendant who is claiming incompetency, insanity etc. McDougall seems to have had some alternative to Napa State in mind, but McKowan argued that there were no such alternatives with the required lockup indicated in McDougall’s report, and that if another facility were to accept him, they could lose their license (in light of 1601A) and therefore there were no alternative locations.
McDougall wanted a delay to make sure that paperwork was in order and properly accepted by Napa State before commitment. (I guess he learned from the Youshock snafu.) McKowan wanted ayres to be remanded to Napa today, and said that there was no basis for continuation.
McDougall seemed agitated about statements that McKowan made “outside of court” about Napa having all the information that they need, and insisted that it would not be right to transfer ayres today.
The judge ruled as follows:
The parties have 30 days to get paperwork to Napa and accepted by Napa doctors, (that they have the ability to accept and treat ayres) (9/8/2011 NOTE: According to the San Mateo Daily Journal, DDA Karen Guidotti is claiming that this 30 day delay is so that ayres' can deal with "his myriad medial issues." However, people who were at the hearing did NOT report this as the stated reason for the 30 day delay. Guidotti appears to be a bit of ditz though, having warmly greeted one of the parents of victims - who she had recently had a contentious meeting with - asking gregariously: "How are you doing!?" immediately after Guidotti's employee McKowan had just conceded ayres' incompetence at the start of the August 22nd competency re-trial. In either case, we now have yet another story from the DA's office about what's happening with ayres, and, as several people have pointed out, it's entirely feasible that "medical issues" are yet another loophole that the ayres/DA folks are working on to keep ayres out of lockup.)
Ayres is to be committed to Napa State on October 6th, 2011.
Hearing on October 13th 2011 to exonerate ayres’ bail, once notified by Napa that ayres is locked up and in treatment.
Report is due back from Napa in 90 days. (Not sure what the point of this report is.) (UPDATE: Joshua Melvin at the Mercury News reports that there may be some potential that at this point, if the doctors report that ayres is incurable, that he may then be eligible for a hearing to place him in some other care facility, potentially cutting his stay in Napa from 180 days to 90 days. )
Ayres must be locked up for 6 months. If the doctors decide he is competent after 6 months, then the DA and court can decide if they’d like to have a criminal re-trial. If the doctors decide that he’s still incompetent, then there will be another hearing to determine ayres’ placement at that time. The law does not appear to require indefinite lockup. (But also, note the update on the 90 day report from Napa...)
The hearing wrapped up at about 9:30am, so given the delays to the start of the hearing, it took about 15 minutes.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Several of us think that there is enough wiggle room in Grandsaert's ruling (Napa's review of the report to see if they're going to be able to "treat" ayres, the 90 day review, etc...) and with reports that getting a bed in Napa is very difficult, that it is fairly likely that ayres will never get to Napa, and that he'll end up with some other alternate arrangement. So please don't bank on even this insignificant incarceration as any kind of consolation.
McDougal also fussed over a 2005 case, the “Vargas” case, and/or a related 2010 case that has not been published yet. As best I can tell via Google searches, this appears to be a reference to the Vargas case in Fort Bragg, in which a man killed the man who molested him as a child. After the boy was molested, as an adult, he allegedly became the “lover” of the man who molested him. There is another "Vargas" molestation case in which a girl was molested by a man who was known to be a molester, but the details were somewhat convoluted... Both cases seem to discuss consent issues, essentially relating to the defense trying to shift some of the blame to the victims because the defense claims that they, as adults, or their adult guardians made the decision to put themselves at risk. Not sure what this was all about, or if one of these are even the correct “Vargas” case, but regardless, McDougall appears to be maneuvering to protect his child molesting client from further criminal/civil lawsuits by entering all of this detritus into the record.
By the way, the court and/or the DA's office has been looking at the blog all morning since the hearing, so I'll take the opportunity to say that I think it's pretty lousy that you all (including the court) didn't look a little harder at the conflict of interest you have, given the long incestuous relationship you've had with the molester.
I'll add that Grandsaert's slap in the face to the frustrated victims and their families by suggesting that their only recourse is through elective process is only exacerbated by the fact that the public finds this kind of crime too icky to focus on, and therefore any kind of public uprising, no mater how justified, is unlikely to happen. This kind of cheap shot is about as clever as the tactics of a schoolyard bully, and you should be ashamed of your performance today, Grandsaert. Time to grow up.
Thanks for takin' my money, assholes!