[Original Post Date: 02/25/2012: DS]
[Note: Please see post below this one as well.]
Apparently there was a hearing last Friday (02/24/2012) in the ayres case. Surprise!
(I'm not sure why the victims who filed police reports are not told ahead of time about this shit. Seems like we should be. In fact, it's very likely this blog wouldn't even exist if the victims had ever received consideration from the DA, and been treated with a modicum of dignity before the trial. I know, I know... it's not the DA's job to treat people with dignity. Wagstaffe is Aces. )
According to articles in the Mercury News and the San Mateo Daily Journal:
ayres' attorney, Scumbag McDougall is still alleging that his client is demented (in spite of video and reports showing otherwise.) BUT: Scumbag also claims that ayres is having such a difficult time at Napa, that the doctors should be forced to report on his condition earlier than their planned August evaluation.
There will be a hearing on April 27, 2012 at which Scumbag McDougall will apparently argue that william hamilton ayres is so demented that he needs to be NOT tried for for molesting many young boys while alleging that he was practicing child psychiatry, AND he needs to be released from Napa because he's SO demented that he needs to have non-locked-up, outpatient treatment.
Sounds like a logical argument right? My money says the court is going to eat it up.
According to the Mercury News, Karen Guidotti from the DA's office - the who jauntily greeted the mother of one of the victims outside the courtroom immediately after her office conceded to ayres' bogus dementia defense - said that based on her take from reading initial reports, it's too early to release ayres. She also speculates that ayres is not having a great time at Napa (fucking Sherlock Holmes working in San Mateo, we have...) She also tells the Merc that she is sure that Scumbag McDougall "will do whatever they can to get him out of there, just as strongly as we feel that he belongs locked up."
The San Mateo Daily Journal says that Guidotti says that the DA's office will " “absolutely” argue vigorously against any change" " Note that the Journal included air-quotes around the word "absolutely."
By "Absolutely" I'm sure that what is meant is that they'll have an underling stand up in court, rather than have Wagstaffe himself show, and say that they really, really, really would like ayres to stay locked up, and then the court will shrug and say: "nutin' we can do," and then, POP, there will be another child molester roaming the streets of San Mateo again.
Both articles seem to be unclear about what happens after the 6 months of by-law lockup, but the San Mateo Daily Journal article says that Scumbag McDougall has the burden of proving that ayres can be adequately "treated" outside of lockup.
Child molesters should be "treated" to long-term prison beatings in my thinking, but alas, I live in San Mateo county, and molesters here are most frequently "treated" to a slap on the wrist and slobbering praise over their military service.
Anyhow, put April 27, 2012 in your Disappointment Book. We'll post times when we get them.