Friday, September 7, 2012

Defense Tactics Are Working

[Note: for info on today's hearing, see the post below this one.]

San Mateo Bay Area child molester william hamilton ayres, during his 2009 criminal trial, made the claim that he was trained to do “medical exams” of the young boys for whom he was alleging to provide psychiatric care.

The criminal trial ended in mistrial when a single holdout juror -- a recently graduated lawyer -- refused to find ayres guilty of any of the charges.

Even before the criminal trial started,  ayres’ lawyers were masters at delaying proceedings. After the mistrial ayres’ new attorney went into delay overdrive and has been very successful with delay tactics, with the prosecution tepidly insisting on expedited proceedings, and the San Mateo County Judges continually kowtowing to defense attorneys; repeatedly allowing just this one last delay.

Once ayres’ attorney began floating the idea that ayres was suffering Alzheimer’s Disease, everyone ate up the perpetrator’s claims that he was demented and couldn’t defend himself in court --  if there were to be a retrial for his disgusting crimes.

Ever wary of the potential for staggering lawsuits against the county for the decades and decades and decades that ayres went unchecked despite multiple molestation reports, and in which the county continued to farm out potential victims to ayres in the form of referrals from the juvenile justice system , the prosecution appeared eager  -- hungry even -- to jump on the incompetency bandwagon.

I’m sure they thought they’d be able to tuck their child molester away at Napa State until he was dead.

To everyone’s shock (please!) Napa State Hospital booted ayres, saying that he is competent, and in fact, according to the prosecution, the report from Napa indicates that child molester was malingering; deliberately deceiving his doctors in order to avoid prosecution.  Indeed: according to the prosecution, the report indicates that ayres actually told the doctors that he was refusing treatment at his attorney’s instruction.

Unfortunately, this kind of delay seems to be a tried-and-true -- if disgusting and desperate, tactic:

Delay for so long that the victims suffer so much stress and hardship that they shy away from further involvement, in interest of their own health.

Delay for long enough that potential witnesses against the perpetrator die off. 

Well it’s working:

During the criminal trial, the prosecution didn’t seem to think it was important to have people who trained with ayres testify as to what they were trained at the time – people who were there, at places that ayres claimed that he was trained to do “medical examinations” of his young male patients. 

The reason that these people were not brought in to testify were not entirely clear at the time, but implied reasons included: not being able to introduce these doctors because ayres wasn’t specific about where he was trained  and that the expense and complication of bringing out-of-state witnesses was too great; another reason was that the doctors WERE contacted and were not willing or able to testify (This has been disputed by Victoria Balfour, who talked to these doctors and reported about it on this blog – more in a moment.) Lastly, the prosecution claimed that it would not have been helpful to have the doctors testify that THEY were trained not to give medical exams if they weren’t able to state conclusively that they were with ayres at the time and that ayres was trained that way too…  even if they were there at the same general places and times. .

And yet the prosecution DID call local Stanford psychiatrist Anthony Atwell to testify about what HE was trained back then. Atwell was a great witness – fantastic really, but he didn’t train at the same place that ayres did. 

It is quite a contradiction that the prosecution was allowed to call a local witness to testify about the general nature of psychiatric training, when they were making claims that it wouldn't be admissible for them to do exactly that same thing with people who had trained at the same place as ayres. (The argument was that ayres hadn't specifically said that he was trained to do "medical exams" at Judge Baker, and therefore they would have no grounds to call these doctors. -- There's another whole layer of confusion when you look back at the transcript and realize that ayres DID talk about being trained to do exams there.)

It seems that even if they had called doctors who trained at the same times and places as ayres, and asked them if they were trained in these “techniques” – the same questions asked of Atwell -- Even if they weren't able to state that they trained with ayres -- their testimony that they were NOT trained to do “medical exams” at the very places and times ayres was “training” would have be devastating to the defense.  

When one member of the Jury was asked by the Mercury News about their deliberations, the Juror stated:  "there was no doubt Ayres' exams were fishy, but unanimously deciding they were sexually motivated was too much. More experts, or someone to talk about Ayres' clinical background, would have helped." 

It would seem that in preparing for a criminal re-trial, it might be a good idea to reach out to those doctors and ask them to participate. Nobody seems interested in making it clear that the medical exams were "fishy" because shrinks ARE TOLD NOT TO DO THEM. It wasn't just the nature of the exams, it was the fact that ayres was claiming to do them at all.

Unfortunately the defense delay tactics are working against the prosecution's ability to make the defense stop using the "medical exam" excuse.

The potentially damaging witnesses are beginning to pass away – They are, after all, the same age, or older than the evil ayres. 

Almost three years ago to the day, award winning investigative journalist Victoria Balfour interviewed Dr. Joan Zilbach, who worked with ayres at Judge Baker. She stated in no uncertain terms that psychiatrists were not trained to do medical exams at Judge Baker at the time that ayres was there. 

In November of 2010, Joan Zilbach passed away.  [Obituary (pdf)] Others are facing (actual) issues with Alzheimer's, and other health issues.

I don’t know that there is any stopgap measure that can be taken. 

Perhaps potential witnesses could participate in recorded interviews, but even if the defense attorney were allowed to cross-examine; I suspect that defense could claim that as ayres was “incompetent” to assist in his own defense at the time of the interview, therefore any such testimony and cross-examination would not be admissible.  I don’t know what kind of leeway judges have in this situation, but I suspect that San Mateo County judges, who have allowed great delay already, would not allow such testimony.  

Either way, the defense delay tactics are slowly working their magic.

It is imperative that I impress this upon you: ayres was NOT doing medical examinations of young boys on the toy model table and lounge chairs in his office: he was molesting us. There is to be no misunderstanding or confusion here.  

Nevertheless, testimony at trial revolved around ayres’ claims that he was “trained to do medical exams” as part of the therapeutic process, and therefore the question of the validity of psychiatrist “medical exam training” becomes unfortunately and distractingly central.

Let’s see if we can clarify for everyone:

From June 2006 through September of 2009, Victoria Balfour interviewed some 30 of the doctors who trained at the same times and/or places that ayres was trained – some remembered both ayres and his wife Solveig very well, others were simply there at the same time, or were intimately familiar with the history of the institutions where ayres was trained. 

Here’s what just a few of them had to say about being trained to perform “medical examinations” as part of the psychiatric process:

➲ Dr. Morton Kurland [ Did his child psychiatry residency at Yale New Haven Children Center during  the same time frame that ayres was getting his “training”]: 

Kurland was shocked at the notion of giving physical exams to children and states: “We were taught not to put even a hand on the shoulder of a child” and “For him to use this as an excuse for his behavior is pathetic. The idea that child psychiatrists do this sort of thing is just off the boards."

➲ Stephen Shaffer, [Judge Baker Children’s Center COO]:

"The idea that our psychiatrists were trained to give physical exams like that in therapy is just preposterous. It's absurd. It's horrifying. I've been in the field for a long time and I have never heard of child psychiatrists being trained to do this. We've trained close to 1000 psychiatrists and we have never taught this. I just can't imagine it."

➲ Gordon P. Harper MD, [Did his residency at Judge Baker Children’s Center in early 1970’s]:

"In my Judge Baker training, we didn't even do a neurological exam on children." And "It's a dodge that other child psychiatrists use who are molesting children."

➲ Dr. Lee Willer, [trained WITH ayres at Judge Baker Children’s Center in the 1960’s]: 

"In fact, we were advised not to do physicals on children"

➲ Psychologist Nicholas Verven, [ at Judge Baker at the same time as ayres, and knew both william AND Solveig ayres]: 

"Physical exams of children would not be supported by the training we had. Ayres was certainly not trained to do this at Judge Baker."

➲ Psychologist Irving Hurwitz, [supervisor at Manville School and also remembered both ayres and Solveig]:

“There were very strict rules as to how therapy with children would be done, and physical exams were not done. Any hint that any therapist would be doing physicals would raise serious concerns."

➲ Psychologist Roger Bibace, [worked at Judge Baker in the same time frame that ayres was there]: 

"Nobody was trained to give physical exams at Judge Baker, " he said. "This is revolting! This sounds just like that Mel Levine case!"

➲ Dr William Beardslee, [professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and Children’s Hospital]: 

Said he “knows of no child psychiatrist either at Judge Baker or anywhere else who was ever trained to give physical exams to kids in therapy.”

➲ Dr. Pauline Hahn, [psychologist and research director at Judge Baker for 54 years recalled "Bill" Ayres]:

States that child psychologists were "NEVER trained to give physical exams."

➲ Dr. Joan Zilbach, [(deceased) worked with william ayres at Judge Baker]: 

Stated that “Neither she nor Ayres nor anyone else in their group was trained to give "physicals" at Judge Baker.”

➲ Dr. Milton Shore, [On staff at Judge Baker in the general time frame that ayres was there]: 

"Never, never, never did you touch a child in therapy!" he said, forcefully. "It was very implicit. You didn't do physical exams. Period.You just didn't do it !

➲ Dr. Richard Hinckley Wolff, [Did residency at Judge Baker with william ayres]:  

"I never heard of anyone doing a physical at Judge Baker. I never did one myself and I never remember anyone presenting a case where they had done a physical. I've never heard of it."

➲ Dr. David Reiser, [Trained at Judge Baker in 1954-1956]:  

“If there had been any instance in which a child needed a physical exam, the physical exam would have been done at Children's Hospital, which was right across the street.”

➲ Dr Jacqueline Amati Mehler, [Trained with ayres, and remembered him well]: 

"At Judge Baker, child psychiatrists treated the children's minds only.  The pediatricians examined the children. "

➲ Dr Stanley Walzer, [at Judge Baker while ayres was there, Director of Judge Baker in the 1970s]:

“Me, I didn't do physical exams on kids. To suggest we did at Judge Baker is crazy!!” 

➲ Dr. Joseph Mullen, [at Judge Baker while ayres was there]: 

“We didn't do physical exams in psychiatric sessions with children. That's not part of the psychiatric treatment. No way!!” 

➲ Dr. Dan Ditmore, [at Judge Baker while ayres was there]:  

"I didn't do physical exams on children and neither did anyone else there." 

Maybe this would have helped clear up any confusion?

One More Thing:

Right after the criminal trial, the prosecutor made various statements to this blog and to parents of victims about having contacted these doctors and that they were unable to travel, or that their statements to her didn’t shed light on the nature of ayres’ training.  

Victoria Balfour and some of the families of victims contacted some of the doctors in question, wanting to know why the prosecution was reporting this, and the doctors contacted stated that the prosecution did not actually contact them – that they were still eagerly awaiting contact though.  

Further, the doctor who was “physically unable to travel and lives in Europe” had travelled to Chicago -- from her home in Europe-- to attend a medical conference at very nearly the same time as the criminal trial.  In fact, that doctor told 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." 

I hope that the prosecution will take the Mercury News interview with the juror to heart, and provide some clarity about the training that ayres received – IF the case ever actually makes it to court again. 


  1. By the way...

    Here's what Joel, a patient of william ayres while he was at Judge Baker had to say about his treatment at the time:

  2. In the transcript of the criminal trial, Ayres talks for several pages about doing his child psychiatry training at Judge Baker in Boston. He also said while he was at Judge Baker he worked on weekends and evaluated juvenile boys at a detention center in Boston. That would be the Roslindale Detention Center.

    He clearly testified that he did his child psychiatry training- the only place where he did any training in child psychiatry at Judge Baker in Boston.
    Perhaps the prosecution team wasn't listening to his testimony?

  3. Ohio pediatricians Dr. Scott and Dr. Mark Blankenburg:

    Indicted: March, 2009

    Charges: Molesting dozens of young male patients, paying them hush money to keep quiet and possessing child porn.

    Conviction: November 2009 for Dr. Mark Blankenburg. His brother Scott pleaded guilty shortly after the trial.

    Length of time between indictment and conviction: EIGHT MONTHS.

    Delaware Pediatrician Dr. Earl Bradley in what is believed to be one of the most prolific cases of child abuse in American history.

    Indicted: December, 2009 on charges that he raped more than 200 of his patients- many of them toddlers.

    Convicted: June, 2011. 14 life terms plus 165 years of a life sentence

    Length of time between indictment and conviction: ONE AND A HALF YEARS

    Jerry Sandusky:

    Indicted: November 2011

    Convicted: June, 2012

    Length of time between indictment and conviction: SEVEN MONTHS.

    William Ayres:

    Arrested: April 2007

    Conviction NONE.

    Length of time since arrest: FIVE YEARS AND FIVE MONTHS


    Dr. Scott and Dr. Mark Blankenburg and Dr. Earl Bradley were ALL PEDIATRICIANS whose job required them to physically examine children.

    Ayres is not a pediatrician and never has been and his child psychiatry training forbade him from touching children in sessions. Never mind giving them a physical exam.

    Why have other district attorney's offices been able to swiftly convict these other pedophiles in far more complicated cases, yet the San Mateo District Attorney's office has been unable to get a conviction in an open and shut case of pedophilia? All of the above pedophiles were arrested long after Ayres.

    Why has the San Mateo DA not made sure that the Ayres case proceeded in a timely fashion as other district attorneys around the country have been able to do? Why such bungling and incompetence?

    Why such gross negligence and indifference toward the victims and the truth?

  4. Once again I have to say that the medical examinations defense has no merit. I was an ayres victom and my father was my pediatrician, so there was no need need at all for a physical exam. Even if there was, what physical exams include masterbation by the physician, come on people this guy molested so many kids don't let him get away with it.
    David Gross

  5. Deep Sounding and David Gross:

    You were victims. Both of you say that Ayres did not perform medical exams. He was masturbating and molesting. One victim who is dead was raped.

    Why then did the prosecutor tell the Boston GlObe in 2010 that the victims were molested under the
    guise of well disguised physical exams? It's obvious
    he was blatant about the abuse and that nothing about what he did resembled a medical exam

    Why didnt Steve Wagstaffe's office try to determine
    as their first order of business as to whether doctors
    at Judge Baker were trained to do physical exa

    Ayres never did any child psychiatry training at Yale,
    but Wagstaffs office didn't know this.

    Sure wish the victims had a prosecutor like the one on the Sandusky, Blankenburg or Bradley cases.

    The San Mateo Judges ( except for the early one who recused himself out of antipathy for ayres' first attorney Doron Weinberg) have been a disgrace. Kowtowing to the defense and liimiting the number of victims who could testify because they don't want to appear as if they're "piling on" Ayres - you'd never see this happen in the Sandusky case. The San Mateo DA's office has lacked the ferocity, passion and outrage necessary in this case.

  6. For god's sake - all the San Mateo DA had to do was look at the case of Maryland chilld psychiatrist - who was busted AFTER Ayres for molesting young boys in therapy. The first thing the cops asked Frontera was whether it was normal for a shrink to be doing physical exams in therapy. He told them NO and that what he had done "was way out of the norm and was not done by other child

    Why didn't the DA look at other cases of pedophile child psychiatrists from round the country?

  7. Here it is, right on Page 38 of the transcript of Ayres' testimony at the criminal trial in 2009.

    Ayres: And I applied to Harvard and was accepted at Harvard, so I moved to Boston and was then trained at Judge Baker Guidance Center, which is part of Harvard Boston Children's Hospital Unit.

    Ayres' Attorney: What is the Judge Baker Guidance Center?

    Ayres: Well, the Judge Baker Guidance Center was an outpatient, and it also had an inpatient part where there were children inpatients. And it is attached right across the street from Boston Children's, so we would have some work with Boston Children's. And also outpatient work and worked with the youngsters who were inpatient.

    Ayres' Lawyer: And what range of issues did the inpatient have?

    Ayres: Well, the inpatients were- particularly research was being done on learning disabilities, but there were a wide variety of children. They would be up through eighth grad, and they would start about fourth grade, I guess. There were no high school students, and they were -- most of them had learning disabilities.


    Lots more about Judge Baker further along in the transcript.

  8. During the 2009 criminal trial, the prosecutor quoted extensively about physical "exams" he did on boys from a deposition Ayres did on October 27, 2004 for a molestation civil suit. The prosecution had another person take part in the reading of the deposition aloud for the jury.

    ALL of the depo was allowed into testimony.

    And even prior to the trial Ayres talked even more about his training at Judge Baker in Boston in the depo in 2004. So if the prosecution allowed lots of other testimony from the depo into the record for the criminal trial, it makes no sense that anything ayres said in the depo about his training in Boston at Judge Baker could not be allowed in.

    Why does the prosecution make no sense on this matter whatsoever?

    Page 8 of Ayres' deposition taken Wednesday, October 27, 2004, lines 4-10:

    Ayres: And then I went to Harvard, one of the branch- Harvard as several hospital programs, and I was involved in the Judge Baker Guidance Center in Boston's Children's child psychiatry training program for two years. And the dates of my internship would have been '56,'57. Adult psychiatry, '57, '59. Child psychiatrist, '59, '61.

    Then on Pages 34 and 35 in the depo, more discussion of Judge Baker.

    Bob Tobin, Attorney for Victim: All right. When you were back at Judge Baker Institute, were you doing a residency there?

    Ayres: Yes.

    Attorney: All right. In doing your residency, were you doing a lot of clinical work?

    Ayres: Yes.

    Attorney: What did that entail?

    Ayres: Well, we would be assigned cases of families. We would interview the families. We would interview children, and we would then treat the children if they - if it continued on into treatment, which it usually - I think they were initially screened by the social work department as to whether it was an appropriate case. And then we were supervised twice a week by two different senior faculty members.

    Ayres: And so they would - and we had to attend lots of conferences, some of which were didactic to learn about various things. And we were - so we were exposed to a lot of what was then current, you know, child psychiatric.


    So he discussed his Judge Baker training. If I had been a juror, I would have been interested to know if giving a boy a genital exam in the therapeutic setting was something Ayres learned at those conferences, and whether giving genital exams to kids in therapy was a treatment that was considered "current" then in the child psychiatric field.

    As Deep Sounding has noted in his reprinting of the interviews with the doctors who trained with Ayres at Judge Baker, giving genital exams to kids was not part of his training or anyone else's there, and in fact was forbidden.

    At least two child psychiatrists just after Ayres worked at Judge Baker were fired for molesting kids in therapy..

    In in another instance, one child psychiatrist at Judge Baker was caught by a janitor showing a porn movie to a boy, and he was fired.

  9. Deep Sounding:

    The exact quote from the prosecutor in the Boston Globe regarding ayres was, "Much of the conduct was well-disguised as medical treatment."

    But as child psychiatrists in the United States do NOT DO physical exams on children, and in fact have been fired and/or arrested from places like Judge Baker for doing so, how was what Ayres doing "well disguised as medical treatment?"

    1. The disguise was twofold:

      1) He kept telling everyone that he trained that way.

      2) He made medical notes about his "examinations." As was revealed during the trial, these notes were minimal and incomplete at best. Enough to cover his ass if someone was asked why a kid was naked in his office on thus-and-such a date. He noted during the trial that he did not need to take comprehensive notes, because he had a good memory, and because nobody ever asked him for his notes.

      I don't know that I'd go as far as to say that they were WELL disguised. Nor would I venture to say that they were really disguised as MEDICAL examinations.

  10. It's common sense and obvious to any who aren't prone to making conclusions based on that by now, that this dodge is just that. It should also be clear that the SM DA's office has a conflict which it is not hiding well at all. It is almost as shocking how openly they have thrown this case as it is for how badly all the Governments players have played in the prosecution of it.

    I think one solution may be to encourage these people whom are willing to testify to write Friend of the Court letters detailing what they were trained to do and addressing any other questions that arise from ayers testimony to which their testimony would be applicable. I'm not legally trained so I wouldn't know specifically what they should or could reasonably make assertions about.
    I think the I'm demented excuse has been quashed and no assertion for being demented at the time any testimony was taken in deposition by people back east can be used since Napa State has declared he was malingering so the Court's ruling notwithstanding he was not actually demented when the court applied the label and thus was able to assist.

    I'm thinking some sort of recorded interviews may be in order and a lawyer may be needed for consult so the questions are structured correctly.

  11. The debate over whether the training provided by Judge Baker or Harvard included genital exams looks like a red herring to me. Even if such individuals or institutions provided training that included genital exams – which they apparently did NOT – what kind of training would include masturbation or rape?

    What I'm about to say might sound irrelevant, but bear with me; I have a point. Gil Garcetti had Simpson tried in downtown L.A. rather than in the Brentwood district in which Simpson had murdered two people. Garcetti knew that Simpson would be much less likely to be convicted by a racially mixed downtown jury than by a predominantly white Brentwood jury. Moreover, Garcetti could have had Vincent Bugliosi prosecute the case – and I think if anyone could have got Simpson convicted, it was Bugliosi – but Garcetti tellingly hired two attorneys who were frankly not up to the job of prosecuting Simpson. Garcetti feared that a repeat of the 1992 riot would ensue if Simpson were convicted. So, Simpson was acquitted and there was no new riot. Garcetti’s political gambit apparently paid off – for Garcetti.

    Likewise, I suspect that the County of San Mateo could find a way to get this man convicted, if it genuinely wanted to do so. Based on what I’ve read here and elsewhere, too many County employees are trying to protect both their own professional reputations, plus the County from potential lawsuits and settlements, by obstructing and delaying a potential conviction. If they are, their efforts will only be of short-term benefit. They should be more concerned about their long-term personal legacies, plus lawsuits against the County that will come up in the future. Are you sure the apparent incompetence or bungling that you’ve seen in this case has been unintentional? If this man is never convicted, other predators will see San Mateo County as a save haven in which to molest and/or rape children. If more predators come (and they probably will, pending the outcome of this case), the County will eventually see more lawsuits and trials. At some point, a County employee (or a team of County employees) will have to clean up the mess that their predecessors should have cleaned up. The legacies of the today’s employees will be tarnished and the County will have to pay far more money to settle future, similar cases than it would pay to settle lawsuits related to this case today.

    San Mateo County, protect your long-term legacy, reputation, and future budgets. Be proactive, convict this child molester and rapist, and be done with it now. Send a message to other would-be predators not to do business in San Mateo County – a County that protects children above all.

    How can this man be so powerful? Am I missing something here? He is just a shrink – that is, someone who is versed in the studies of logic, philosophy, and anthropology (the sum parts of the study of human psychology) – who had attended Harvard when Harvard’s admissions were not nearly as selective as they are currently. You can’t shame the shameless. But you sure as hell can convict and imprison them. It's really not that hard.

    1. ayres IS powerful: he was not JUST a shrink. He was THE shrink that juvenile cases and schools sent kids to for evaluations for DECADES. Judges and people in county offices have for DECADES had their reputations invested in the child molester -- people who served with him as board members for places like the Children and Families First Commission are CURRENTLY still holding political office and are active in community service agencies like the Service League of San Mateo County, and they are in office at the State Assembly Level.

      These people all have reputational stake in what happens to ayres. The press coverage of the case has been DISMAL compared to other blockbuster molest cases of similar magnitude.

      I'm sure that these people of power and influence in San Mateo County would like for nothing more than for ayres to have been QUIETLY tucked away at Napa State for a good long time; it's the optimal solution for them: No ayres out and about on the street, and yet no ayres in jail, with the spotlight on all of the people who farmed him victims for decades in spite of a continual undercurrent of accusations.

      These people in San Mateo County are doing EXACTLY what Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, Graham Spanier, Mike McQueary and Joe Paterno were doing... trying to appease an evil person to keep them out of the spotlight for long enough that they were able to continue their political aspirations without the pall of this kind of scandal hanging over them.

      THIS is the power that ayres has, and it should come as a surprise to no-one. A great many pieces of literature and notorious sayings have evolved from the way Satan has done his work for time immemorial -- get people involved in just a little bit of evil, and after they give an inch, they'll give a mile more to protect their ego from bruising.

      Pleased to meet you
      Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
      Ah, what's puzzling you
      Is the nature of my game, oh yeah
      I watched with glee
      While your kings and queens
      Fought for ten decades
      For the gods they made
      I shouted out,
      Who killed the kennedys?
      When after all
      It was you and me

      -Rolling Stones

    2. Protecting and appeasing Sandusky worked out well for Curley, Schultz, Spanier, McQueary, and Paterno, didn't it? And there I'd thought Sandusky took them right down with him. Sh*t always comes out in the end.

      So, this man was THE shrink of all godly associations? Not impressed. This just means he had ingratiated himself with the right people and talked his way into grand places and lofty positions, but the record shows that he is an incompetent (not to mention arrogant and unempathic) shrink who had absolutely no business to do business with children. He is not god. In fact, no one is god and thereby above being punished for crimes that he or she commits. There is nothing highfaluting about psychology or psychiatry, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychology (or any other so-called professional body), or this self-important, self-entitled criminal. For as long as members of the associations and boards to which this man is linked protect and enable him, they are guilty by association. If I were any one of these individuals, I'd want to dissociate and extricate myself from any and all associations that I have with this man ASAP. To them I'd say protect your personal legacy and get out before he takes you right down with you. See him for the criminal he is.

      Convict and imprison this so-called shrink and be done with it. And three cheers for John Manly!

    3. "To them I'd say protect your personal legacy and get out before he takes you right down with you."

      Oops. This should have said:

      To them I'd say protect your personal legacy and get out before he takes you right down with HIM.

  12. Wendy Murphy, a legal analyst on the Today Show and Fox News, has been saying for two years that the San Matep DAs office has thrown this case on purpose.
    If DA Wagstaffe had truly cared about a conviction in this high profile case, he would have put a highly seasoned, emotionally stable, hard working, empathic and ethical prosecutor on the case. He did
    not. He gas ignored all complaints about the prosecutor( including from a San Mateo Supervisor
    last year. ) on the case for two years.

    We don't think writing friend to the court letters will
    work. Grandsaert the judge is big pals with
    Wagstaffe. A year ago, the SM County Times wrote
    about the judge's suspicious actions when he
    secretly changed the timing of a hearing at which
    the DA was going to announce whether it was going to retry Ayres

    Also Grandsaert reamed a person for sending him a friend of the court letter last year. He went on a rant
    that it was crimInal and illegal for the person to have done so and that if idioms didn't like what the DA was doing, they should vote him out. Classy!

    The Judge was a prosecutor in the DA's office for years.

    The DA; the judges and the courts in San Mateo County have shown no interest in policing themselves.

    People should write to Jonathan Smith head if he Special Litigation section of the Civil Rights Section of the Justice Department in Washington DC and ask for an
    Investigation of all of the the government players. That includes Wagstaffe for refusing to cooperate
    with am investigation into Juvemile Judge Marta Diaz for tryIng to he the policr to stop investigating Ayres in 2002- despite the fact that Wagsaffe had seen fit to tell two reporters this in 2005.

    Of course the issue of whether Ayres was trained to genital exams at Judge Baker is a red herring. But it's a lie he'd been telling his medical partners and parents if victims for 40 years. Everyone fell for it, including two San Mateo police officers who were investigating a molestatation coolant in 1987.


  13. Also Ayres had the first ever sex education for children on television, on PBS in the 1960's ( although he tellingly failed to disclose thi to attorney Bob Tobin attorney for the victim in the civil suit.

    Ayres had also been President if the American Academic of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

    I don't know If he was powerful. He did know how to
    ingratiate himself to those in power who could give him access to kids- like the head of the San Mateo YWCAr the head of Hillcrest juvenile Hall and all of the judges.

    He also treated those who could not give him access to kids like shit. He especially bullied and
    was demeaning to women - such as the secretaries at the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
    One female reporter fir the County Times stated thst Ayres belittlled her on the phone and was mimicking her.

  14. The San Francisco office of the FBI is looking for former employees of the San Mateo District Attorney's office to come forward with any information about corruption and wrongdoing by San Mateo District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe.

    Specifically, the FBI is looking at whether Wagstaffe has covered up crimes - including felonies - by
    employees of San Mateo County. This would include
    crimes by police; deputy sheriffs ; the Sheriff and others in the
    San Mateo County Sheriff's office; judges; prosecutors and more

    One former employee of the San Mateo Sheriff's office has already stepped forward and has been
    interviewed by the FBI. Another longtime employee of the Sheriff's office has expressed relief that at
    long last the FBI has begun to take a look at the
    corruption in San Mateo. The person in the Sheriff's office has said, " What took the FBI so long? Tell
    them to keep digging."

    Anyone who has any information about DA Steve
    Wagstaffe and his covering up of crimes and
    misconduct by San Mateo County employees should

    FBI agent Joe Schadler: 415-553-7656.

    The FBI needs hard, cold facts on wrongdoing by Wagstaffe and his cronies.

    Do not contact Agent Schadler simply because you are unhappy, say, with your child custody case in San Mateo County.

  15. ayres one perv like to fondle troubled little boys dicks. James Fox, former SMCDA, was a counselor at Hilcrest 1966. He may have referred boys to ayres. I get ayres "physical" 1966. This perv need to be in deep isolation cell, cannot have any exposure to other inmates. Just give this sicko 4 walls, a sink, a shitter, and a bunk, and lousy prison food. FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  16. Here's another whopper from Ayres at his October 27, 2004 deposition:

    Page 92, lines 4-6:
    Ayres: "There are a lot of psychiatrists who do physical examinations."

    Every psychiatrist in the country would dispute this.
    Even pedophile child psychiatrist Miguel Fromtera told coos when he was busted in Maryland that his
    giving physical exams to kids was " out of the realm of normal behavior" for a psychiatrist.

    Why didn't the SM District Attorney's office bother to fact check this?