Friday, August 3, 2012

william ayres: Lying, Malingering Child Molester

More detail about today's hearing in the matter of the Lying, Malingering, child molesting, william hamilton ayres:

Today, August 3, 2012 william ayres was in the courtroom for his hearing about the report issued by the Napa State Hospital on his mental condition.

In brief: The report indicates that william ayres has been malingering; feigning his dementia in order to avoid prosecution for molesting young boys.

Everyone is shocked and surprised! The defense is shocked at the report! The DA's office is shocked at the report! And the press is ESPECIALLY shocked at the report! It's Goddamned Shocking!!

NONE OF THESE people should have been shocked!  The shock is all a bunch of bullshit.

PRIOR to the point that the DA conceded that ayres was not competent, and tucked him away at Napa, families and friends of the victims of ayres had a private investigator's report to find out what ayres was up to. They filmed ayres having lunch with shrink pals Larry Lurie and Robert Kimmich of San Francisco. Lurie has written papers on Alzheimer's and its symptoms. At lunch, they discussed Alzheimer's and the advantage of talking about it in front of your lawyer... everyone had a jolly laugh.

The reports were provided to the DA, and the defense, and the court, as well as the press.  Days later, the DA conceded that ayres is demented. Everyone rolled their eyes at our claims that ayres was faking.

Including the press.

In the Court today:

Judge Grandsaert presided over the hearing. Grandsaert was also the judge who heard the competency trial, and who was enraged that the Private Investigator's report was provided to the court.

Solveig and Barbara were present, along with a granola-flake older hippie chick and some guy with a stupid hat and a cane (maybe HE's pretending to be blind...) the child molester was also present. The press seems to want to paint a picture that he's falling apart and unkempt, and frail. His hair was neatly trimmed, his beard was neatly trimmed. He's thin, but not gaunt. He used to be a fatty, now he's a healthy weight. Yes, his hair is white, and slightly balding.  Lockup has done him some good. (And apparently has cost you taxpayers WAY more than it would have to put him on trial again to begin with.)

The hearing opened with the judge summing up the defense attorney's motion to release ayres on his own recognizance, and motion to seal the report,  Prosecutor McKowan agreed with sealing the Napa report, and asked for the original bail amount to be re-instated.

The judge chided the loser defense attorney  McDougal because, in contesting the certification of competence, he asked for jury trial. The judge clarified that it was a court hearing, not a jury trial, according to the 1372 statues. McDougall  acted contrite, and said that's what he really meant. He also wanted a later hearing date in the November timeframe;  September 10th was the judge’s preferred date.

McDougall claims that he will need to testify at the hearing, as the report apparently contains  information about statements that he made to doctors, which he alleges are “categorically incorrect.” He states that he has subpoenas out for 14 people related to the report.  He claims that this preparation, and review by another attorney of transcripts and statements in the report will necessitate a longer delay before start of the hearing.

McDougall says he needs another attorney because: “As much as I’d like to, I can’t see myself avoiding taking the witness stand”  He also whined about needing all of the paperwork from Napa State.

McKowan clarified: She's already talked to doctors, and has been assured that all documents are ready to be sent on moment’s notice,  so the hearing  date should be expedited. She says that McDougall’s other attorney doesn’t need to be fully briefed on case, but only the specific areas relating to statements attributed to McDougall in the report.

Grandsaert reminded McDougall that he was the judge at the competency trial… there is not as much need to “gild the lily” (*wow *-- Just wow...)  as there would be with another judge.  He also states that McDougall is VERY well briefed on the case.

McDougall would not agree to a September 10th hearing. He whined more about the new information that he'd have to review:  “Clearly this new report is in complete contradiction to ALL the other testimony that this court heard." He made the implication that the report was not valid, because it was based on this “one doctor’s findings” countering all of the other doctors.

After McDougall objected to Sept 10th date, Judge had a long pause.

Then he hemmed and hawed, basically asking if McDougall was really, really sure.  There are other trials soon after that  McDougall has to “resolve” first, possibly causing even greater delay.

McKowan said she’d make effort to continue two October trials if necessary to make whatever date gets picked, but that she’s ready for the September 10 date, as are all of the doctors who need to testify.

Judge dissembles for a bit, then set the 1372 Competency Hearing for October 1st, 9am, expected to last 7 court days. He appeared to be really struggling, but ultimately caved to the defense requirements.

Next up were bail discussions:
The judge states that 1372 calls for bail hearing upon court’s approval of the competency certification, as there is not going to be an approval due to McDougal contesting the certification, and so bail is not necessary until the hearing is completed. He seems to have put McDougall in his place, then asks McDougall for his arguement, and instructs him to keep the requirements of the 1372 statue in mind.

McDougall: (pregnant pause) then:  "I.. I...I.. I..  guess your honor, I haven’t seen case law,…. " [blah, blah, blah] McDougall does a really lousy job of coming up with lawyer-speak when he's under the gun.   

The judge reminds McDougall  to keep in mind that the statute assumes that in most cases there won’t be an objection by the defense, and the court will immediately accept the certification, and proceed to criminal proceedings.  (And therefore set bail immediately.)

McDougall claims that he wants ayres to return to Napa “for continuing treatment”.  If they won’t impose bail.  McDougall makes lots of arguments about how the child molester ayres is not a flight risk or danger to society.

The judge then expressed concerned that return to Napa will cause more of the same kinds of things that ended up in the report, resulting in YET MORE need for additional discovery and more delay. He was looking for some kind of indication from  McDougall that further continuance  would not happen; McDougall pinky promised that continuance would not happen FOR THAT REASON.

McKowan then objected to the idea of ayres' return to Napa. According to 1372 (e)  a patient is allowed to return to the facility IF treatment needs to continue to maintain competency.  McKowan says that this is  specifically addressed by Napa doctor McIlnay:

She states that the report says “There is no chance that he is going to degrade.”  It states that he’s malingering and that therefore there has been NO TREATMENT since he’s been there. “There is NOTHING  that he was doing at Napa” that he can’t do in Jail; there is nothing in 1372 that allows for return to treatment if it's not needed; It will be very expensive to the county to keep him there.

She goes on, stating that it's not possible to determine if ayres is a flight risk,  He’s been able to “carry out this big elaborate hoax” to fool doctors during their examination, all the while displaying normal behavior while not under examination. She states that the report says that it's obvious to people who are not involved in his evaluation, but who see him all day, every day;  He can’t be trusted.

She then stated that "We haven’t had opportunity to observe his behavior while out of custody" and she says that at Napa, lay people were watching him.  She calls the report "compelling" and states that nursing staff and custodial staff are cited in the report describing incidents that made them believe that ayres is "perpetrating a hoax."

McDougall spends a great deal of time pleading with the court to set  "reasonable" bail.

Another long pause from judge Grandsaert.

He claims that he was not prepared to set any bail until after the hearing,  based on his understanding of the statute.  But then he decided that he wanted to hear more from both sides.

There will be a bail hearing on August 8th at 11am. 
Briefs are due from attorneys on August 6th.

The Napa State report was sealed, but with the caveat that as the hearing nears, the report may be unsealed.

NOTE: My understanding at the time was that ayres would return to Napa, during which time the original court appointed doctors would have the opportunity to do follow up interviews with ayres , But the press is reporting that ayres is to remain in jail until the 8th, at which point the court will decide to either release ayres,  set bail or jail,  or send him to Napa until the competency hearing.

The prosecution asked for the court appointed doctors George Wilkenson and Paul Good be allowed to re-interview ayres , in light of the new report, so that they can be up to speed for the hearing.  Predictably, McDougall objected, and said that 5th amendment and other issues apply. He objected to “DA experts”  having access to ayres.  McKowan clarified: these are not DA experts... they are COURT experts.  McDougal said that he would refuse access without a court order. So Grandsaert issued the order that they be allowed access. Finally, we see someone stand up to McDougall's shyster tactics, if only for this one small thing.

In the Press:

The press has been looking at the blog frequently today. We've had the Mercury News visit,  The San Mateo Daily Journal, The San Francisco Chronicle, The San Francisco Examiner.

They all look here, but they're afraid to speak of us. They're afraid to believe the truth that we tell them, and instead they listen to what the DA is telling them. They report things like: "Guidotti acknowledged that there had long been suspicions as to whether Ayres was pretending to have dementia and memory loss." Guidotti and Wagstaffe and McKowan all believed that ayres is not competent, and they all reported this position to the parents AND TO THE PRESS!

This revisionist history is being bought hook, line, and sinker, but the press rolls their eyes when we tried to tell them that this is just a game to ayres, and that the DA is lackluster in prosecution because the cost of judicial review of all of the juvenile cases sent to ayres by the court and the county over the decades would be STAGGERING. Better to just let it quietly fade away.

I'm not getting my hopes up that the press will suddenly wake up... reporting is a dying art.

For Discussion:

In the hearing today, McKowan stated that no one has had the opportunity to "observe" ayres while he was claiming dementia.. he's been out on bail, and while he was successfully performing his act during the interviews with doctors, he was free to let his guard down while he was out and about. She claims that the pressure of being under constant watch while at Napa was what finally gave him away.

Why didn't they put him under surveillance then, when we told them that we'd seen him around town, when they were given copies of the Private Investigator's report? They worry about county money being spent housing him at Napa State, and that the cost of re-trial in the competency matter would be daunting, but they could have prevented all of that if they had sent someone to watch him for awhile.

Some press about the matter:

Mercury News (pdf)
San Francisco Chronicle (pdf)
San Mateo Daily Journal (pdf)


On April 5th, 2007, the San Mateo Police showed up at the house of the former president of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (an organization which is obviously a complete sham) william hamilton ayres, with a warrant for his arrest and dragged him out in handcuffs. The charges relate to his molestation of many young boys over the course of his career, in which he alleges to have been a psychiatrist. He has been accused of using that practice to gain easy access to young boys from both his private practice, and from the juvenile justice system. ayres was contracted to evaluate young children sent to him by judges in the juvenile system: ayres was the LOW BIDDER on these contracts according to one of the judges in the juvenile system, ensuring the coward a steady stream of boys who were not likely to be believed if they DID ever decide to report, even knowing the severe (and often frightening) legal and peer problems that reporting could cause them.


  1. From June 2011 to August 2011, prosecute Mckowan told a number of parents of victims as well as a sister of victim that Ayres was NOT competent, that he was degenerating, that he would NEVER be competent and that "no jury would ever find Ayres to be competent." She also stated REPEATEDLY that she would NOT recommend that he go to Napa as he would "NOT GET BETTER THERE." She refused to look at the surveillance video that showed Ayres joking about using Alzheimer's as a ruse in court.

    As she would not look at the evidence that Ayres was competent (and the police never acted on tips that Ayres had been seen lurking around his old office and then getting into a car and driving away and that medical colleagues reported seeing him acting normal around San Francisco)
    the surveillance video was sent to DA Steve Wagstaffe on August 19, 2011. Wagstaffe panicked when he got the video, hid out in his office and refused to return reporters' calls about the video.

    Finally, on Saturday August 20, 2011, just two days before a key hearing where the DA was going to announce whether they would retry Ayres, a mother of an Ayres victim got District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe on ethe phone. Her description of Wagstaffe's response to the surveillance video follows in the post after this one.

  2. Here is an email from a mother of an Ayres victim from August 20, 2011, at 6:06 pm, sent to an interested party, describing her phone conversation she had just had with DA Steve Wagstaffe on his views of the surveillance video and what he was going to do with Ayres.

    "I called Wagstaffe today and got a return call about 10 muinutes later.
    He talks faster than a machine gun, and I will try to relate here everything of importance.

    He said that he looked at the videos and read the transcript, and that the overwhelming,
    dramatic evidence we needed was a video tape of Ayres driving a car. He would
    have gone back and retried him for that. He also mentioned seeing him without a walker
    would have helped.

    He was very disturbed about McKowan telling people that Ayres would never go to Napa. He
    said he never knew that, and if that's the case it's a serious violation. He said that sadly, justice
    had not been served in the initial trial and mentioned that if the 11-1 count had been overturned,
    Ayres would have gone to prison for the rest of his life. He also said that delays weakened the
    trial, and Melissa was very frustrated after the trial.

    We talked about re-trial, and he said because of the 8-4 verdict on the competency trial, he could
    not justify a repeat since he has an obligation to the taxpayers against spending more money on
    a subsequent trial that can't be won.

    Here is the official plan for Monday: The DA's office will argue for committment to Napa
    State Hospital, and only Napa."

  3. The reporters from the San Mateo County Times need to start looking for new victims of Ayres and their parents to interview, instead of falling back on calling families of victims whose contact information was given to them by another reporter. County Times: find your own victims to interview.

    1. The press has been especially inept at reporting this case. I've heard them called "The Mouthpiece of Steve Wagstaffe" before, and frankly, I'd have to agree.

      The press has done a dis-service to the public and the victims in this case by not keeping the public aware of the audacity of ayres and the lackluster desire on the part of the District Attorney to prosecute this case.

      Power and money are embarrassed by this case, just as the management staff of Penn State was embarrassed by Sandusky. Those managers are gone, because the press and the public kept up pressure.

      Why are the DA, doctors who support ayres, politicians who lauded ayres, still around? Why has the press not had the gumption to dig into this story a bit?

  4. It's truly insulting that people like Michelle Durand from the San Mateo Daily Journal, who acts as a court reporter for Wagstaffe, checks out this blog. She NEVER does any original reporting; NEVER challenges the DA's office and to date has NEVER returned ANY calls from the mothers of Ayres victims.

    Yet she has time to write those sappy, sappy "columns."

    Also it is not clear why the "reporters" for the San Mateo County Times are checking in to this blog either. They have never bothered to go out and find victims and evidence on their own. Why don't they do their own investigative reporting instead of checking in here?

    The only good investigative reporter the County Times had was Michael Manekin, but he's long gone.