Saturday, November 3, 2012

Malingering Child Molester ayres POSTS BAIL

ayres Posts Bail.

Well, that was fast. 

Apparently the claims that the ayres family would be facing hardship over a higher bail were grossly exaggerated. Judge Grandsaert should have listened to Prosecutor McKowan when she asked for $2M in bail.

According to the San Mateo Daily Journal (pdf), the sick and disgusting ayres clan ponied up $900K on Thursday. As before, it appears that the bail was posted directly, not through a bond, but the article doesn't specify that directly.

[UPDATE November 5, 2012: 
According to the rather belated article in the Mercury News (pdf) on 11/5/2012, ayres posted bond, not bail, so the family is now permanently out another $90K.  Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah! ]

I'm impressed with reporter Michelle Durand lately. I think she could be doing a better job on the background (ayres' long relationship with the County) but otherwise, she's been pretty on top of the current stories, more so than any other news professional.

Here's the bail history according to the SM Daily Journal:

Arrest on $1.5M warrant.
1 day later reduced to $250,000 with no explanation.
After more charges added: $750,000

Interesting Note:
According to the Mercury NewsPeninsula child psychiatrist to be tried again for molesting patients, judge says, 2012-10-31 (pdf Judge Grandsaert raised the bail because he was worried "that Ayres could try to "manipulate" witnesses in order to avoid prosecution.

If this is so, then why did the court or DA or County NOT notify all of the victims who have filed reports with the police, and are identified as potential witnesses at trial? This oversight by the County of San Mateo appears to be standard practice. Why haven't the County Supervisors done anything to ensure the safety of the county's constituents?

On the up side: if ayres hasn't gone into hiding yet, there appears to be some money left for the (at least) three lawsuits that appear to still be active and scheduled for the same timeframe as ayres' new criminal trial.

I would strongly urge that anyone in the area with young boys be watchful for this criminal.

Families of anyone that ayres victimizes while out on bail should focus their lawyers on Barbara Ayres of Sacramento, who is now ayres' legal conservator, and who should be held directly fiscally responsible for any and all behavior of the child molester while he is out of custody.

Let's hope Barbara keeps the child molester on a very short leash.

william hamilton ayres was arrested on April 5, 2007 on charges relating to his molestation of many young boys while he was alleging to provide psychiatric care to private patients as well as referrals for evaluation from the juvenile court system in San Mateo County. ayres has been delaying his way through the system free from custody until this latest gambit to skirt prosecution by playing demented for the courts. ayres is currently under the conservatorship of his daughter Barbara Ayres of Sacramento, CA

ayres has had significant interaction over the years with local politicians on boards like the "Children and Families First Commission,"  including the DA who was serving when prosecution began Jim Fox and Assemblyman Rich Gordon. In fact, Gordon nominated ayres for a lifetime achievement award for his "Tireless effort to improve the lives of children." ayres has also been vocally supported during his criminal trial by local head-shrinkers like Bart Blinder, Etta Bryant, Mel Blaustein, Harry Coren, Tom Ciesla, Robert Kimmich, Larry Lurie, Maria Lymberis, Richard Shadoan, Captane Thomson, and Harold Wallach.


  1. Guess Barbara had better be paying attention to the criminal 24/7 for the duration. Otherwise she will also be sued when he molests another kid. Wonder if she thought about that?

  2. Flipping unbelievable.

    I'm not surprised the criminal can easily afford $900K bail, but I'm shocked that he has been released. The criminal should not be released under any circumstance.

    Wouldn't be surprised if the criminal has a lot of money deposited in offshore accounts. Also wouldn't be surprised if his assets have not been frozen.

    The criminal is mentally competent and able to physically move independently. His conservator will not be able to lock him up or supervise him 24/7. I'd guess that the criminal will waste no time grabbing the first vulnerable person whom and opportunity that he sees.

    Will the criminal be legally required to register as a sex offender in Sacramento?

    The County of San Mateo has been derelict in its duty to protect the public from the safety and flight risk that is this criminal.

    From the San Mateo Daily Journal ([Criminal] posts $900K bail, by Michelle Durand, November 3, 2012):

    "Dementia is a progressive disease and Ayres may have different mental circumstances in a couple months, McDougall said."

    The parties never give up, do they? Shameless and aggressive.

    Again, dementia lasts for only a year or two before it progresses into Alzheimer's Disease. You can't predict the exact course of the progression. If the criminal had dementia two years ago (as he'd then claimed), today he would have full-blown Alzheimer's Disease (AD). The criminal has never had dementia, so he is not going to develop AD "... in a couple of months."


    "Judge Grandsaert raised the bail because he was worried "that Ayres could try to "manipulate" witnesses in order to avoid prosecution."

    Manipulate ... or intimidate? Same difference, I guess.

    Grossly disappointing.

  3. I followed up a very good lead that Ayres called Hon. Judge Marta Diaz twice from jail the day he got arrested. Steve Wagstaffe said he couldn't tell me because of the ongoing trial etc.

    Judge Smith reduced bail from $1.5 M to $250,000 that day. Judge Smith should have recused himself because of his relationship with both Ayres and the Juvenile Court.

    Michael G. Stogner

  4. Guess Mcgowan had the right idea at 2 million. The judge should have listened. Wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear that ayres did what was mentioned in the latest trial -change his name and disappear. Guess that would leave San Mateo with a cool 900K wouldn't it. Maybe that's the whole plan.

    1. yeah. Surprised I hadn't thought of that. Save a lot of politicians some face, not having a re-trial. $900K would be a sweet motivation.

  5. So are the San Mateo pollce going to put Ayres under surveillance? They used to back on 2002 -and then again right before he was arrested in 2007.

    The county should reimburse the victims' families for what they paid the private investigator who tailed Ayres and found him to be competent.

  6. Anonymous November 3 @ 12:12 PM: You are probably right; this outcome (the criminal paid a fee to go free and flee) has probably been the plan of certain parties all along. I wish I’d thought of that, too.

    The budget of County of San Mateo has received a $900,000 infusion; it no longer pays to jail the criminal in Redwood City; and it will be spared the cost of a third trial and the potential cost of supervising the criminal once he hides. The County might still be housing the criminal had his bail been set at $2 million and the third trial and lawsuits would have been more certain to happen. Alternatively, the criminal might have been able to pay $2 million bail, but he would also have less money to pay his remaining expenses. The criminal won assured freedom for a fraction of what a third trial and the pending lawsuits would have cost him financially and potentially his freedom. Bailing him - and for an amount that looks impressively big to most members of the general public yet it is one that he can readily afford - appears to be a brilliant strategic move for some of the parties who are involved in his case.

    I assume the criminal will go into hiding (as he says he will do) and the third trial and the pending lawsuits will not proceed.

  7. OMG! It just goes on and on. He deserves NO BAIL! The pain and suffering he has caused sooooo many...time he got more pain and suffering back on himself. Gutta' get him locked back up...and toss away the key! Round 109 continues...he'll probably croak before eveything is done/decided! But, he does NOT deserve his freedom now...I really don't understand how they can do that? A lifetime proven child His connections are just too strong...I do the right thing...lock him up! Let him die in jail...where he belongs. Keep on keepin' do great work...tnx...Joel (former Ayres patient...'62 in Boston)

    1. Lock his ass up! He is sick sick. I totally agree Joel!
      I find it hard to believe at this point how he gets bail. I can not go into detail but he is such scum! He one hundred percent deserves to rot in jail. I nearly went broke trying to pay for my son to go to him. His office would harass me about payment while harming my son. I am beyond sick! Thank You for this blog! He totally did all these things to my son too. It has made our lives hell and finally my son has stopped blaming me. I blame me for forcing him to see a monster.

  8. Will Ayres be voting today? Will he vote to keep the death penalty?

    1. I assume he probably voted, as his conservatorship paperwork specifies that while he is demented, he is still allowed to vote.

      Death penalty is not on the table for ayres. In California, you pretty much die of old age on death row, and you get a private room, your own TV, more yard time, etc... so probably he'd vote to keep it, I'm guessing.

  9. The latest Palo Alto Daily News' article about the criminal (below) says that, "He posted a bail bond, which typically requires a 10 percent premium, or about $90,000" in this case.

    I don't know anything about bail bonds, but does this mean that the criminal paid the County of San Mateo only $90,000 - and not $900,000? If so, he got off cheaply!

    Palo Alto Daily News
    Tuesday, November 6, 2012
    Page A3

    Ayres released from jail after posting bond

    Ex-child psychiatrist faces retrial for alleged molestation

    By Joshua Melvin
    Bay Area News Group

    A former child psychiatrist facing retrial on the Peninsula for allegedly molesting patients has been released from jail on $900,000 bail, authorities said Monday.

    William Ayres, 80, was released from Maguire Correctional Facility in Redwood City on Thursday morning, less than 24 hours after a judge ruled he was mentally well enough to again be tried on nine counts of child molestation. He posted a bail bond, which typically requires a 10 percent premium, or about $90,000 in Ayres’ case, Chief Deputy District Attorney Karen Guidotti said.

    Prosecutors say Ayres used the cover of genital or physical exams to molest young male patients in his San Mateo office. A handful of those former patients testified to the alleged abuse, but a trial ended with a hung jury in July 2009.

    After prosecutors decided to retry the case, the apparent onset of Alzheimer’s-related dementia led mental experts to declare him unfit for trial.

    But a forensic doctor at Napa State Hospital, where Ayres was committed in October 2011, declared the former head of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry had faked or exaggerated his symptoms.

    © 2012, Bay Area News Group

    1. Early news reports (San Mateo Daily Journal) stated that he posted $900K BAIL. When the Merc reported, they stated that the ayres secured a bail BOND. (Note my "Update" comment.)

      So here's how it works: The court tells you: "If you want out of Jail, you have to fork up $900K. (And it can't be from money obtained criminally.) The reason for the money is to STRONGLY encourage you to return for your court appearances.

      You then have some options:

      1) Get $900K of "clean" cash out of your bank, and turn it over to the court. If you show up for all of your court dates, at the conclusion (Plea, Guilt, Acquittal, whatever...) you get ALL of your $900K back, whether you're in prison or free, or whatever.

      2) If you don't have the $900K, you go to a bail bondsman, and essentially secure a loan for the amount. Typically, a bondsman will charge a 10% fee. So, on a $900K bail amount, you give the bondsman $90K in cash, and the bondsman provides the court with a bond in the amount of $900K. If you don't show up, the court cashes the bond, and the bondsman is out $810K.

      If you DO show up, then no money changes hands, and the bondsman keeps your $90K as his fee.

      SO: The rub is this: If you BOND out, you're always out a decent chunk of cash. If you BAIL out, you get ALL your cash back (...could have been earning interest, but probably not as much as the bond would have cost you.)

      AND: If you go with a bondsman, you actually become their PROPERTY. They normally leave you alone unless you miss court dates, but they COULD make you meet all kinds of other requirements since they own you. In most states, if you skip court, the bondman can break and enter to come get you, no warrant necessary. Reasonable use of force against you and whoever is assisting you in hiding is allowed, as they are retrieving their property and enforcing the will of the court.

      Basically, you do as they say, or they come and hurt you as much as is necessary to make you comply.

      If you post BAIL, and are found guilty, AND if the court assesses any fines or fees, they can pull it out of the Bail money, so you might not get ALL of the money back.

      IF you skip out on a bondsman, and the bondsman has to pay the court, they will send a bounty hunter after you, or the person who co-signed your bond and EXTRACT the funds.

    2. Ah, OK now I understand the difference between bail and bail bonds and how bonds work. You explained this well. Thanks!

      Your description of bondsmen sounds scary. With that in mind, the criminal would be taking a huge risk if he flees or goes incognito. He might be cocky enough to do it, anyway. Why not? How much does he have to lose at his age? He seems to win every time.

    3. According to some stats, bounty hunters in the US have at least a 90% success rate. If they bring their prey back to court, they get their money back, so the incentive to make the perp comply is very high.

      In many ways it's better that ayres bonded: If he had the money to make full bail, $900K might not have been incentive enough to keep him from going into hiding. This way, there's a 3rd party with a vested interest in seeing that the pervert doesn't go into hiding. Secondly, he's now out another $90K. The less cash available to his supporters after he drops dead the better.

      It's also POSSIBLE that the bondmen will have their ear to the ground looking for any further indiscretions that ayres commits while out... Better deal for the bondsman if ayres is locked up or has bail raised... easy, worry free $90K if he's sitting in jail, and more money for them if he bonds out again. I don't know the likelihood that they'd actually devote any resources to watching him, but I'm sure they'd let the cops know if they heard any tips.

      The downside is that there are multiple lawsuits pending, and it would be better to drain the estate that way, and get some money to the victims who are willing to go through the added considerable stress of testifying against him. Also, the fact that he bonded out this time does indicate that his resources are depleting.

    4. Oh... also: Bondsmen usually require a co-signer. If you hide, the co-signer is the first pressure point. In ayres' case, he said he wanted to go into hiding with his wife, and she'd probably be the co-signer, so that might be a wash, but the daughter is his conservator, so now she would make a good pressure point as well.

      ayres probably doesn't actually care about either of them, but if he does, running becomes much more of a complicated mess...

    5. Wow. I'm starting to understand something about the bail bonds process. Thank you for taking the time to explain it - and so clearly. (Btw, now I finally understand what Dog the Bounty Hunter does for a living; I'd never before watched his program until right after you wrote the above comment, which prompted my curiosity.)

      I'd started to get optimistic that the criminal might actually show up for his March 2013 court dates until you wrote:

      "[The criminal] probably doesn't actually care about either of them ..."

      Uh, oh. I doubt that he does. Now I'm back to wagering that he won't show up. Given his age and arrogance, he really has nothing to lose.

      Does the criminal wear an ankle bracelet? Might be worth the bondsmen's time to monitor him. I'd give the criminal inside of three months for him to resort to his sexual compulsion.

    6. I don't know if there is any ankle bracelet requirement, but I strongly doubt it. Ayres was always seen as a pilar of the community, that's something that's too hard for people to shed their perception of.

      I guess I feel about 50/50 on the whole thing... won't be surprised if he doesn't show up, won't be surprised if he does.

  10. Justice can apparently be amazingly swift when one is not as socially well-connected as the criminal. To wit:

    Palo Alto Daily News
    Tuesday, November 6, 2012
    Page A4

    Principal convicted of failing to report suspected child abuse
    Judge: ‘Bad judgment’ not to go to authorities with girl’s allegations in San Jose case

    By Tracey Kaplan

    In a verdict hailed by childabuse experts, a San Jose jury Monday found a principal guilty of the extremely rare charge of failing to report suspected sexual abuse to authorities, despite being told by an 8-year-old girl in vivid and explicit detail about a possible sexual act performed on her by a teacher.

    The conviction of former O.B. Whaley Elementary School principal Lyn Vijayendran was only the second time in two decades that Santa Clara County prosecutors had brought such a misdemeanor charge— and the first time they’d won.

    Vijayendran, 36, dabbed at her eyes with a tissue while the clerk read the guilty verdict.

    She later wept when Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Deborah Ryan took the unusual step of immediately sentencing her. “I agree with the jury’s verdict,” Ryan told Vijayendran. “You did what you thought was right ” but I do think you made a very bad judgment that day.”

    Vijayendran faced up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. But noting the principal’s spotless record, the judge sentenced her instead to two years on court probation. She also ordered her to perform 100 hours of community service, preferably by training educators to comply with California’s mandated-reporter law.

    The verdict came as a relief to child-abuse experts, who were worried when the jury announced Friday that it was stuck after deliberating for less than six hours. The vote was stalled 8-4 in what jurors later said was in favor of conviction.

    A mistrial “would have sent the wrong message,” said Margaret Petros, a commissioner on the Child Abuse Council of Santa Clara County. “This verdict is important for all mandated reporters to heed. There are so many who don’t take it seriously.”

    It was unclear Monday whether Vijayendran’s school district, Evergreen Elementary, had gotten the message. The district, which has been sued by alleged victims of the teacher, Craig Chandler, hadn’t trained Vijayendran or the human resources director she consulted in how to carry out their legal obligation to report suspected abuse or neglect, both women testified. In a statement late Monday, the district said it “understands that the jury in the trial of Ms. Vijayendran had a very difficult decision to make and while we are disappointed with the outcome, we respect the process and remain committed to our mission of working to ensure that each of our students receives a highquality education in a safe and nurturing environment. We will continue to work with our community to accomplish this.”

    School districts in California are technically required to provide training for educators but can avoid doing so by simply submitting a letter explaining why they didn’t.

    Prosecutor Alison Filo said the District Attorney’s Office made the rare decision to try Vijayendran because her lack of judgment in October 2011 had devastating consequences. Another child reported being molested in a similar fashion by the same teacher about three months later.

    Chandler was subsequently arrested in January and ultimately charged with committing lewd and lascivious acts on five children. Tests by the Santa Clara County crime lab found his semen on a classroom chair. The 35-year-old teacher, in jail pending his trial, faces a maximum sentence of 75 years to life if he is convicted.

  11. Article, cont'd.

    “The bigger picture is we want mandated reporters to understand to always err on the side of caution and report, never investigate,” Filo said.

    The only other case in the past two decades involved allegations in 1999 that the head of Hillbrook School in Los Gatos failed to report a bruise on the face of a student. A judge ultimately dismissed the case. Some argue violators are rarely prosecuted because the law works as intended: Those who are supposed to report suspicions do. Others, including many child-abuse experts, disagree.

    Several jurors said the panel reached consensus after listening to the court reporter read back some of the testimony.

    Juror Kathy Eriksen called the case “tragic,” but said the verdict was “absolutely necessary” to ensure educators, coaches and other mandated reporters don’t shirk their obligation.

    The jurors all felt for Vijayendran, a relatively young principal who had consulted with the head of human resources and was told to question the teacher. But the administrator left the ultimate decision about what to do up to Vijayendran.

    Juror Christina Rodriguez, who initially voted to acquit the principal, said, “There’s a lot more people to be blamed for this. She’s a good person. We all saw that.”

    In the end, the strongest evidence against the principal were her own notes from interviewing the child. The girl told the principal that Chandler blindfolded her in a room with no one else there, made her lie down on the classroom floor, told her to open her legs, touched her feet with something that felt like a tongue, inserted something gooey in her mouth and then wiggled her head around until she tasted a salty liquid. Chandler told Vijayendran that he called the girl into the classroom to prepare a lesson on Helen Keller, which he had been using for years.

    Juror Susan LaGaffa said the incident was obviously sexual and the teacher’s explanation ludicrous.

    “I think she didn’t want this ugly thing to be true,” LaGaffa said. “But when you have responsibility for hundreds of children, you can’t afford to drop the ball.”

    © 2012, Bay Area News Group

  12. Jerry Sandusky was as connected and prominent as they come. He was convicted just seven months after his arrest.

    If the DA's office had really wanted to convict Ayres, they would have done so years ago.

    Incompetence and corruption at its finest.

    1. Agreed, but with two caveats:

      1. Perhaps it is easier to try, convict, and imprison someone who is affiliated with a college, and to fine said college - especially when that person's case revolves around a nationally popular team and sport - than it is to try, convict, and imprison an obscure County employee and to fine a County?

      2. Perhaps too the Sandusky case received more publicity than this criminal's case has received because the general public perceives college football to be more fun and relatable than the depressing and academic field of psychiatry - and so the Sandusky case received more media coverage and more public pressure. The famous football team angle distinguished that case from all other molestation cases.

    2. Just a point: While PUBLIC perception may not be as big a deal in the ayres case, PUBLIC SECTOR perception has him placed on a very high pedestal. He is well regarded and well known in the local political sector, having worked closely with judges, the DA, politicians, in not just his job but also in volunteer boards that he/they served on. He was personal friends with many of these same people, traveling in the same social circles. He was also well known and regarded in the psychiatric community as well.

      It is true probably that the ayres case would NEVER have reached the media coverage that Sandusky did, but it is also true that the media has drastically undercovered this case.Right from the get-go, cameras of any kind were forbidden, resulting in greatly reduced interest by the press. Add on the unfounded trust in the DA to feed them news, and you have a media brown-out.

  13. Have ANY victims been notified by the DA's office that Ayres was released on bail? Around the country prosectors are required to notify victims when a perpetrator is released to the public. Prosecutors are civil servants and it is their duty to the taxpayers to uphold the requirements of their job.

    Other victims in other cases have also complained
    that the San Mateo DA never notified them when plea deals were made, when hearings occurred or
    anything at all with their case.

    To the San Mateo DA, victims don't matter.

    It is the job of the San Mateo Supervisors to address the failures of this DA's office. Time for an audit of their management.

    Dave Pine is one Supervisor who has spoken to the press about the Ayres victims. He needs to be made aware of just how bad the problem is at the DA.

  14. about Sandusky - I have heard he was connected with a pedophile ring. Maybe the reason his case went so fast was to keep the attention off of other perpetrators.