Friday, January 4, 2013

Ayres Settles Molestation Lawsuit With Second Victim

This blog has learned that Ayres has settled a molestation civil suit with a second victim, this past December.

The victim, named as "Greg Doe"in the suit,  first filed a police complaint against Ayres in 1987. In the police investigation, child psychiatrist Dr. David Schwartz told the police that back in the 1970s, he  had inherited a  patient from Ayres, a Hispanic boy,  who he believed had also been molested by Ayres.

But the police did not arrest Ayres in the 1987 case. Seems like the County believed Ayres' lie in 1987  that he had been trained to give genital exams to boys in therapy. No one bothered to check whether this was in fact true.

When another victim filed a police complaint against Ayres fifteen years later, in 2002, he was told that the file for the 1987 victim had been "lost" and that the police were unable to locate the man.

Fortunately, a relative of the victim saw a news story in December 2004 about a lawsuit filed by the 2002 victim, and the 1987 victim came forward.

We hope that this settlement offers some measure of peace for the victim. We applaud him for his bravery in coming forward in 1987, even if the outcome was unsatisfactory at the time. 

Those wishing to view the case can go to Case number: CIV467743. Or put in the name "Greg Doe." (DS Note: if you click the link, you'll have to do it three times... court system is messed up.)

Here's a San Francisco Chronicle story from 2007, "Stain Doesn't Wash Off" in which Greg Doe talks about his case:


  1. Ayres' insurance paid for the first civil suit. But he had his medical license then. Now that his license has been revoked, will the insurance company refuse to pay out?

  2. I have no specific knowledge but logic says that if he were covered at the time the crime was committed the insurance has to pay.

  3. Another thing just occurred to me and that is I do not think it is legal for a party to a lawsuit to settle if he cannot pay the amount he offers. I have the idea that the party which offers a settlement must have the amount offered in hand.
    I may be wrong but.....