Tuesday, March 5, 2013

ayres Child Molest Hearing Update

[update 03/06/2013: Links to news stories on the bottom of the post]

Update in (very) brief:

As we warned, the hearing times seem to move around mysteriously in the San Mateo County court system, so some of the times changed slightly since our update last week:

At 8:30 Judge Freeman heard  Shyster McDougall’s motions to compel discovery. Topics were wide-ranging, covering essentially what McDougall listed in the document that we put up last week.  McDougall apparently filed another document with some specific points for which he wants discovery, but we didn't have access to that document, and details were not spelled out in court.

The Gist: The judge essentially instructed McDougall that the prosecutor has properly disclosed everything that she was required to disclose, with the exception of witnesses that the prosecution has yet to identify. (And therefore can't disclose)

Freeman told McKowan that she’d need to disclose those witnesses as they were identified – a little show to placate the prissy little boy, I guess.

For the discovery of the specific items on McDougall’s delay-list, the prosecution will need some extra time do dig through paperwork, and so the trial is tentatively delayed until May 13th, 2013. 

At 9:00, Judge Foiles was to hear motion to continue, presented by Defense Shyster Bentley who ran defense on the last competency hearing, so that McDougall could hear himself talk on the witness stand. The Freeman hearing was finished at 9:10am, and the ayres case had not come up yet in the other courtroom, so everyone trotted over and McDougall ended up arguing that one too.

The Gist: The judge asked where ayres was, (ayres was not present) and McDougall said that he was out on his 977 health waiver.

The judge told the Shyster that he was concerned about flight risk, and that ayres needs to be there.

Shyster McDougall whined about ayres' medical condition preventing flight for a little while.

The judge told them to come back WITH AYRES on the 11th of March, and then they’d chat.  I assume Bentley will be babysitting the molester, since McDougall has scheduled another trial already.

Trial is tentatively delayed until May 13th, 2013.


There are articles up in the Merc and in San Mateo Daily Journal.

Mercury News: One line blurb followed by summary of stuff you already know. Not even worth clicking the link. They weren't there apparently, and their info is based on the document they had a copy of, not what was said in court. The delay is the ONLY new content that they're reporting, and they don't even get that right. (Well that's not entirely true: they also reported that McDougall had no comment.)

The blurb is a waste of electrons, as is the fact that I've even mentioned the blurb. Don't waste more by clicking the link... (Trust me... you'll just end up saying: "asshole blog dude was right....")

San Mateo Daily Journal:
Summary of the hearing. (pdf)They used a photo of ayres from the mid-point of the Napa incarceration to perpetuate this false image that they are painting that ayres is in fact crazed and frail. As soon as ayres knew that Napa had his number, he cleaned himself back up, and he looked NOTHING like the photo.

I'm sure that since the press has bought into the malarkey and is foisting it on public opinion for the defense, he'll probably be instructed to re-up the crazed look.

Nevertheless, read the article as there is some information there.

I was hoping that the press would pick up my slack and provide more info than I did, while I'm running about being busy, but they can't even be relied upon for that....

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 KimmichLarry Lurie, Maria Lymberis, Richard Shadoan, Captane Thomson, and Harold Wallach.


  1. It is the duty of the prosecutor to furnish the defense with a list of witnesses in a timely manner . That the DA's office has not done so SIX DAYS before a major trial defies belief. Not that this is new for the DA's office. Dysfunctional, chaotic, corrupt and incompetent office, run by a weak and corrupt manager.

    1. As mentioned above, the DA did not furnish information about the witnesses because the DA has not identified those witnesses yet.

      While I agree that it seems dysfunctional for the DA to not have identified those witnesses yet, it's not therefore a problem that names have not been provided to the defense. (And the Judge said so, apparently...)

      What concerns me is: It would seem that the DA knew that there was not going to be any rush to identify witnesses, as there apparently was not going to be any trial on the 11th, and I guess they all knew that.

      It seems to me to be yet another indication that neither side is really interested in pursuit of a conclusion.

      Napa interrupted their little dream world when it didn't fall for the crap.

  2. What happened to the change if venue pleading and the Bar complaint issues?

    1. McDougall didn't file the paperwork correctly, I think. But only assume that I'm about 40% sure about that at this time....

      The judge told McDougall to refile if he wants to, and he said that he already had... just not sure what it is that's getting re-filed, but apparently it was along the line of the venue/Bar/recusal argument.

  3. I don't know... The judges tried to "puff up" a bit today by acting stern about ayres needing to be present for the hearing, but frankly, they're just a bunch of emasculated functionaries.

  4. The San Mateo Daily Journal says, " McKowan has stated in writing that Balfour has been “fabricating dozens of allegations,” according to the motion which also points fingers at the parents of alleged victim, Orion B. as having contaminated the prosecution witnesses."

    So now the DA's office is trashing the poor VICTIM'S families ? Isn't that the job of the defense attorney?

    Way to stay classy, San Mateo County District Attorney's office.

  5. Regarding victim Steve S: it wasn't the DA's decision to drop him. It was the other way around. He made the decision to drop out of the case way back in 2009, after he went through enormous hardship to testify and the the DA's office treated him and his mother like shit. That's the reason he is not testifying - not some bull crap offered up by Guidotti and co about a statement he made about
    whether he though Ayres had molested him in
    juvenile hall.

  6. By going on this blog and making false statements about what the Boston doctors said about their training: by branding the Ayres victims and their families and advocates as liars who have contaminated the case: the ayres posecutor has through her false allegations now given Mcdougall a huge gift.

    She's essentially sabotaged her own case by calling
    the prosecution witnesses liars. Mcdougall is no dummy. He would be a fool not to pick up on her
    public statements that blame
    victims and families and he will use it to go after her and the case.

    If anyone is aware of another DAs office branding and attacking victims as liars during an open case-
    -please post it here.

    The prosecutor is acting like a defense attorney !

    This is insanity.

    It would be one thing if this was just an isolated case. But this not the only case where the prosecutor has done a bizarre 180 and cruelly attacked the victims, filies and even expert witnesses for the PROSECUTION as liars.

    Thanks to her bizarre comment on thos public blog about her actions in an open case, she has now given so much ammo to the other side that it is impossible to see how this mess could be straightened out.

    Other prosecutors in other parts of the country have been fired for writing on blogs. Doesn't the San Mateo DA have rules against their prosecutor writing on public blogs

  7. In the summer of 2011, a San Mateo Supervisor went to District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe to express his concerns about prosecutor Mckowan's work on the Ayres case. DA Wagstaffe told the Supervisor that he "knew all about the California Bar investigation into Mckowan."

    So HOW did Wagstaffe know all about the California Bar investigation ? One would think that as boss he would have asked to see a copy of the complaints against his prosecutor in a high profile case. Stakes would be high, and he would want to see what his office was up against.

  8. Addressing McKown's heitation in court; she was probably following the common idea that lawyers should not answer any question they haven't prepared for. That said it is likely she was thinking about whether or not she had covered her tracks well enough to deny the file had been shared, and not be caught. I'm sure there are other implications for her and the DA's office if others have read the file.
    The litigator's adage; When in doubt delay. When you are ready, delay, delay, delay.
    I made that up but in my experience this is how all lawyer operate.
    I think just this one thread provides enough evidence for a skilled person to make an argument that the San Mateo DA's office is intentionally throwing this case. As a tactic it appears they have landed upon attacking those whom have held their feet to the fire and using some of the accusations made to undermine their own credibility to set up grounds for appeal if they lose. Right now they seem to intend to get the case tossed on account of incompetently handling it by compromising the evidence and the witnesses.