Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Howard Wallach: Dead ayres supporter; Also: New Hearing

NOTE: New Hearing Scheduled for May 9, 2013 - See Below

Howard Wallach
Heartless Coward: Deleted April 1, 2013
Buh bye, now. Satan will enjoy your services in Hell.

Howard Frederic Wallach, head-shrinker and past president of the California Psychiatric Association, kicked the bucket on April 1, 2013.

Wallach, lauded for his many super-great skills like running a hotel and being a shrink, as well as volunteering for stuff and liking to play golf and bridge, was a true April Fool; he had a major and insurmountable character flaw: He was an adamant supporter of child molester william hamilton ayres.

Wallach was a co-signator of a letter pleading for cash for ayres to fight the charges against him during the criminal trial. The letter went out to the psychiatric community at large, and when some members complained to the Northern California Psychiatric Society, they were reported to have sent out a "rather tepid email to the membership, disassociating the organization from this letter."

You can read his Obit here (pdf) and another in the "Newsletter of the Southern California Psychiatric Society" (pdf)  Note that Captane Thomson and Maria Lymbris, two other idiot shrinks who signed the ayres pleading letter, each wrote brief tributes for Wallach.

Much like the Sandusky / Paterno case: reputation seems to be the key issue in cases like this, once the evil gets under your skin, it's hard to get rid of it without admitting failure and guilt. Rather than risking a reputational hit, weak people refuse to see the evil, and instead make the poor choice to exacerbate the problem by offering their support to the perpetrator.

Shame on you Wallach , and good riddance.


There is another hearing scheduled for the ayres criminal matter before the (scheduled) start of trial.

Hearing on May 9, 2013 to hear "Motions."  Topic is unknown.

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 BlinderEtta BryantMel BlausteinHarry CorenTom CieslaRobert KimmichLarry LurieMaria LymberisRichard ShadoanCaptane Thomson, and Harold Wallach.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Al Giannini: Hired

San Mateo County Board of Supervisors – Board Meeting 4/23/2013

Hire of Al Giannini as second chair in william hamilton ayres prosecution:

San Mateo County Supervisors Pine, Groom, Horsley, Slocum, and Tissier voted unanimously to approve Item #7 on their agenda, adding former deputy district attorney Al Giannini as second chair to prosecutor Melissa McKowan in the william ayres child molestation criminal case.

Other agenda items of note:

National Crime Victim's Rights Week:
Item #3 on the Agenda was a proclamation declaring the week of April 21 to be National Crime Victim’s Rights Week. Don Horsley noted that DA Wagstaffe and his deputy Karen Guidotti had done a good job for victims of crimes in the county. Both Wagstaffe and Guidotti were present. Wagstaffe and Guidotti left after the vote for Item #7.

One of the other agenda items before Item #7 was set to approve the upcoming Mental Health Awareness Week (month? – whatever…)


Thursday, April 18, 2013

Motion to Quash: Granted!

April 18, 2013 Hearing: Motion to Quash Subpoena: Granted!

Defense Shyster McDougall was denied access to the State Bar complaint against the prosecutor and her response. While it is a good ruling, from a good of the public point of view, it does not move the case anywhere near a change of venue. Remember that while the defense Shyster argues that he wants a change of venue and prosecution, this is not what he really wants... he's after the delay only.

Hearing on April 18, 2013: State Bar Motion to Quash McDougall Subpoena:

Attorneys were in court today to argue motions in the criminal child molestation trial of alleged psychiatrist william hamilton ayres, accused of molesting scores of young boys.

State Bar Attorney Mark Torres-Gil was in court to quash defense Shyster McDougall’s subpoena for information in the complaint and disciplinary finding against the prosecutor in the ayres case.

Positions had been submitted prior to the hearing, and Torres-Gil’s opening statement was brief and succinct:

He states that the law demonstrates that the defense has no right to pre-trial discovery from the privileged information related to the Bar complaint, specifically but not limited to use for the purpose of attacking the credibility of witnesses, and in light of that, his motion to quash should be granted.

McDougall's folly:

McDougall states that he seeks only narrow and specific information about the complaint against McKowan.

He says he’s “not on a fishing expedition.”

He wants access to the submitted complaint and all related exhibits, and the prosecutor’s response “only.”

He’s not interested in the findings or disciplinary action.

Specifically he says that the prosecutor has indicated that witnesses were corrupted and therefore removed before the start of the first criminal trial (by the complainant) and that witnesses were corrupted at trial and after trial, and he want access to that information.

McDougal states that because the complainant and McKowan have spoken publicly about the complaint, he should be granted subpoena access to the information.

Judge Freeman's Ruling:

Freeman spoke a large about the integrity of the Bar complaint process, and specifically she spoke about protection of the public interest. She stated that McDougall has failed to identify any public interest in the release of this information.

In detail, judge Freeman explained that law is there to protect the interest of the public --  that it would not be in the public interest if a future complainant (in any matter) was afraid to complain to the Bar about an attorney a knowing that their compliant could be made public against their will, and having no say in the matter. That the complainant in THIS case may or may not be willing to expose their complaint is irrelevant.

The judge stated that the Bar is not a prosecuting agency, and that the complaint is not related to the prosecutor’s prosecution of the ayres case itself. The material collected by the State Bar qualify as privileged information under the business and professions code, and this is upheld persuasively by several cases, including cases in Superior court, Supreme Court, etc…)

Freeman stated that at this time the defense has no right to pre-trial discovery in this matter, and the Motion to Quash was granted. (And again the decision was backed by a litany of court cases.)

Freeman told McDougall that it doesn't mean that he can’t make a similar motion once the trial is underway (and she emphasized: “which it very soon will be…”) and that it might be that the matter could be heard In-camera (a private hearing, held outside of pubic view), even by another judge possibly, during the trial.

However, at this time defense does not have right to pre-trial discovery.

Motion to quash subpoena is granted. 

The judge presented a specific example of precisely why this kind of ruling is imperative:

Freeman explained that an initial witness list is broad so that jurors can identify if they know any of the individuals (for example). But actual witness lists are a subset of that list once trial gets underway.

She said that she "doesn't know what will happen in the upcoming trial, but she does know what happened in the first trial":

Freeman noted that during the first criminal trial, when the witness list was presented to court, on the first day of trial, the witness list included Ms. Balfour, with no specifics about Balfour provided to the court, and then she was never called as a witness in the case, but her name was left on the witness list.

Freeman indicated that it is best to wait to determine whether a credibility or impeachment issue actually arises in the trial, and THEN open privileged material.  The court causes harm when it exposes and impeaches an individual, and then the need for it -- the impeachment value -- never arises -- (Which, I might add, is what BOTH sides seemed to be trying to do to Balfour during the first trial -- in fact Freeman indicated that the court knows more now about Balfour than the court really needs to know.)

It sounds like Freeman was subtly arguing that the court and attorneys should be very focused on the criminal matter, not worked up trying to involve Balfour, unless there is impeachment (or other) value -- and as the judge indicated… it didn't turn out that there was impeachment value last time.  I wouldn't be surprised if the subtlety was lost on two thirds of the attorneys present. Perhaps the judge would be better served poking them with a sharp stick:  


Having completed the ruling, the judge and attorneys started to discuss “scheduling issues” and at this point, the Mercury News reporter stumbled into the courtroom. The group decided to discuss the scheduling issues in chambers.  So there are likely to be further hearings and changes to court dates coming. We'll post any changes on our "ayres' Court Dates" tab as we find out about them.

Shyster McDougall’s Stumbley-Bumbley:

McDougall persisted in stating that the DA submitted responses to the Bar complaint. The Judge yet again admonished him to be very clear that he means prosecutor McKowan, not District Attorney Wagstaffe or his office.

After the Judge talked about the possibility of In-camera review at a later date, he immediately reacted like a nervous dog with questions about contacting another judge, etc… Freeman admonished him that while he would be free to file motion at a later date, SHE would decide if and when it was necessary to have an In-camera review, and would assign another judge if SHE deemed necessary.

Dude really wants to get in Judge's chambers...

A Final Note:

Prior to the start of the hearing, prosecutor McKowan was discussing additional potential witnesses with McDougall. She mentioned that she had found a doctor who had written about doctor Albert Solnit.

Solnit was the doctor that ayres was calling Al Songden during the criminal trial, and who, ayres claimed,  instructed students (ayres, at the time) to give physical exams and not to use gloves while doing it.

It turns out that Solnit was a bit of a celebrity in the psychiatrist training world, apparently, and even though he is deceased, it appears that there were some books written about him, and his methods. The doctor that McKowan was talking to told her that he'd let her borrow a few of the books which indicate that Solnit trained students NOT to do medical exams.

What a SHOCK.  

OK... Not a shock. Read Here. And Here.

Mind you -- Both sides have made statements of puff-uppery before and after public court hearings that are "hush-hush", but actually meant to be "leaked" to show prowess and cleverness. Most times we don't print these rumors, but they always appear a day or so later in the press attributed directly to the attorney, and often they are of little consequence to the trial.

So don't bank on this information appearing at trial.

An Update:

Note that as of 4/19/2013, there is a new article in the San Mateo Daily Journal (pdf) stating that DA Wagstaffe intends to add former deputy district attorney Al Giannini as second chair to prosecutor Melissa McKowan. (Note that SM Daily Journal continues to run the crazy/frail and incorrectly representative photo of ayres.)

Interesting. Wagstaffe wants Giannini for his "his experience trying “complicated and high-profile” felonies and in jury selection."

According to the "First Annual Report: Preventable Error —Prosecutorial Misconduct in California 2010", in case Ricardo v. Rardin, 189 F.3d 474 (9th Cir. 1999): The California Appellate Court reversed the murder conviction of Leonard Ricardo because Giannini engaged in discriminatory jury selection. (Among other overturned convictions.)


Wednesday, April 17, 2013

REMINDER: Criminal Hearing TODAY 4/18/2013

REMINDER: Criminal Hearing TODAY

April 18, 2013 8:30 am
Southern Branch, Hall of Justice and Records, 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA

UPDATE: State Bar motion to quash McDougall's subpoena for information about the Bar complaint and discipline against prosecutor McKowan has been granted. McDougall does not get court mandated access to the complaint information (at this time). 

The hearing is for "Motions" prior to the currently re-scheduled re-trial of william hamilton ayres on charges relating to his molestation of many young boys while he was allegedly providing psychiatric care. The re-trial was re-opened after Napa State Hospital told the San Mateo County court that ayres was NOT suffering dementia as the prosecution had conceded, but had in fact been malingering -- intentionally feigning mental illness to avoid prosecution -- as all of the rest of us kept saying.

We're not sure what the "motions" for tomorrow's hearing entail, as the submissions from attorneys have been held in judge's chambers, and therefore unavailable for review prior to the hearing. It's likely that they are all Shyster McDougall's motions related to all of the unfinished business when the re-trial was re-re-delayed last time.

Indication seems to be that the judge is weary of further delays, but that's been the claim for quite some time.

If you're planning to attend the hearing: SHOW UP EARLY. The DA has been known to start early in order to avoid making the proceedings public.

If you need court information, look here: ayres' Court Dates

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 BlinderEtta BryantMel BlausteinHarry CorenTom CieslaRobert KimmichLarry LurieMaria LymberisRichard ShadoanCaptane Thomson, and Harold Wallach.

Saturday, April 13, 2013

A Day on the Town

A Day on the Town 
    or: Why the F### is he free?

william ayres, accused child molester and confirmed malingerer, was out-and-about with his vapid wife Solveig yesterday afternoon.

Out on $900,000.00 bail, ayres accompanied his wife to the Trader Joe’s in San Carlos, CA.  He was spotted by astute Private Investigators from Moser and Associates: Surprised to see ayres  free from custody, they contacted us and graciously provided their photographs and video.

Click for Large Copy
As always, the sociopathic pair are unable to maintain the “demented” image they espouse in court for any length of time. Astute enough to maintain his usual disguise of a baseball cap and dark glasses, the molester peruses his latest news-rag while providing some driving lookout assistance to his barely-capable wife.

Click for Large Copy
Solveig is so obtuse, she looks over and smiles for the cameras recording the filth. Too bad she forgot to put on her bright red HussyBeacon lipstick from PriceCompany.

If you are one to believe that ayres is feeble minded, I know a person who might be able to sell you a nice bridge in New York.

It’s interesting to juxtapose the gaunt, Charles Manson-esque appearance that the press seems fond of displaying with these current photographs.
Ridiculous Press Photo
These photographs are clearly more consistent with the healthier weight, alert appearance, and careful grooming that I've been reporting for the last several hearings, while the news reporters have continued to fawn over the old frail, unkempt, man that ayres presented in his jail mug shots.

If you've believed the press reports of his frail state and looked at their pictures with sympathy, well, now you know that the press has led you around by your big brass nose-ring – Moo, moo, moo.

Click for Large Copy

New Car!

Looks like the $90K loss to the bail-bondsman is not an issue for the pair; they've picked up yet another new car!

Here’s a tip for police officers out there:  There’s a nice “Crystal Black Perl” Honda Fit driving around out there that likes to park itself

Click for Large Copy
(cockeyed) in handicapped parking spots with no handicapped tags on the plates or mirror hang-tag.

It’s Revenue Time, Boys in Blue!

Reality Check:

We’re hearing some initial evidence that there are men out there who are currently incarcerated, whose lives appear to have been made more difficult because when they were evaluated in San Mateo County for the juvenile court, they were exposed to sexual assault and child porn, and encouraged to participate on bribe of good reports to the court or required to participate on threat of damaging reports to the court.

The damage done by the molester is profound.

It is disgusting that many of us spend our lives trying to survive our mental and sometimes physical prisons, while this piece of shit and his whore are out enjoying a Friday evening jaunt to the local Trader Joe’s.

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.

-special thanks to Moser and Associates for their alert attention to detail!

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

San Mateo County: Come Have Sex With Our Children!

San Mateo County: Come Have Sex With Our Children!  
The Stuart Forrest Edition

Well, well, well. Here we find ourselves again, looking at the notable interest San Mateo County has in ridding itself of child molesters and pedophiles. (By "notable" I mean non-existent.)

I'll cut to the chase: This dude worked for San Mateo County in the juvenile justice system for decades (same place william hamilton ayres contracted to "evaluate" boys for many of those same decades.)

Today, according to the Mercury News (pdf), we found out that it is likely that the accused will likely serve NO prison time at all: "the case is being handled by the state Attorney General's Office and retired Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Robert Atack. "I think I would be hard-pressed to send him to state prison, unless there is more," Atack said during the hearing." 

The article goes on to tell us that Forrest has no previous criminal record, and that State Prosecutors have been "tight-lipped" and that the "evidence against him remains largely unknown to the public."

Not to worry though -- even though the Merc didn't seem capable of (...or willing to, he mumbled under his breath...) digging up the "evidence against him," the San Mateo Daily Journal (pdf) figured it out for us last month: according to their report, his house was searched: "the search turned up 400 images of child pornography on a USB drive and a laptop computer, according to a federal search warrant."

If you're not up to speed on this case, Forrest is being tried by the State rather than the local DA, and heard in front of retired Judge Atack in order to "avoid the appearance of a conflict."

DA Steve Wagstaffe told the San Mateo Daily Journal that "We asked to avoid the appearance of a conflict. We do not have one but I have served on so many different commissions and committees with him that we want to ensure the appearance of impartiality. That is why we asked an outside agency, the attorney general, to handle it" - Interesting that he didn't do this in the ayres case, for which many similar conflicts exist. In Fact: Wagstaffe and his Spokes-Hole Karen Guidotti told people interested in the ayres case that the only thing that could result in a change in venue/prosecution would be if there were jury pool issues.

According to an earlier Mercury News story (pdf): "The county further removed itself from the process when Robert Foiles, presiding judge for the Superior Court, asked for an outside judge to be brought in to hear the case, since the court appointed Forrest to his position in 2009." - (Note: in 2009, he was appointed to his most recent position of Chief Probation Officer.)

Although Judge Foiles was not working the Forrest case this afternoon, he WAS busy today:

This morning, Judge Foiles delayed one of the civil lawsuits that are filed against william hamilton ayres relating to ayres' molestation of young boys, pending outcome of the (delayed) criminal re-trial of the child molester. He will preside over further hearings in the ayres civil case later in the month:


Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Recent Blog Posts of Interest

News and Reader Comments:

Criminal defense shyster McDougall has filed some motions related to the criminal trial, and there will be an additional hearing on April 18th, 2013 at 8:30am. We'll update if and when we learn more.

On another note: In my last brief post on news that the ayres prosecutor has been sanctioned, there are many fairly comprehensive comments of interest posted by blog followers, and I thought it might be a good idea to move them up to the top, as many readers don't seem to look at comments to the posts.

I'd like to point out the tragic irony that the defense shyster is now (claiming) to desire a change of venue in the case; the very argument that more than a few victims and supporters of the victims have been pondering for some time. Make no mistake though... The shyster does not desire a change of venue, the shyster desires only the delay related to the hearings.

Q: What do have when a lawyer is buried up to his neck in cement?
A: Not enough cement.

Here are the comments of note posted recently. If you've read them already, I have not added any, if you have not read them, they are definitely worth a read:

  1. The Chronicle doesn't mention that several people sent complaints about the prosecutor to the Bar, and that included in the complaints was an incident where the prosecutor falsely accused the poor mother of an Ayres victim of funneling "confidential information" about the Ayres case and feeding it to the William Ayres blog. When the mother denied doing this, the prosecutor insisted that she had, and warned her that the evidence that she was the culprit was in her "files in my office."

    When the mother finally complained to Chief Deputy DA Guidotti about Mckowan's bizarre false accusation, Guidotti said, "We aren't keeping any files on you." Guidotti promised to have the prosecutor apologize to the mother, but it never happened. Almost three years later, the mother is still waiting for an apology.

    Wagstaffe's office doesn't understand that if they don't treat crime victims with respect, that the victims will stop cooperating with the DA's office and won't testify. The DA's office has allowed the disrespect and in some cases abuse of crime victims for far too long

    Wagstaffe, by his refusal to discipline his unethical prosceutor who has committed similar misconduct in two other cases against crime victims and prosecution witnesses is saying, "We don't care about crime victims at all."

    Wagstaffe's office has revictimized the victims' families in the Ayres case.
  2. On this blog, on January 29, 2010, the prosecutor wrote about her contact with doctors who trained with Ayres in Boston. This is one of the things the Bar was investigating her for. Note how here she discredits the doctors that Balfour found, saying that their information was not helpful. She also said one doctor was "physically unable to travel."

    Here's her blog comment. I will then post an article from the Mercury News from October 25, 2011, where she completely contradicts herself on the Boston doctors.

    Melissa McKowanJanuary 29, 2010 at 7:12 AM

    Judge Baker told ME, unlike whoever keeps talking about what their records will show, said there are no records from that time period. The reporter is trying to help to see if that's true. I know it is fashionable on the blogs to discuss your findings and then blame the DA for not discovering these things ourselves. But take my word for it, any "credible" tip that has come in has been looked into. So far, until this particular unattributed blog entry, I have never seen any "independent investigation" that has led to the discovery of an actual witness. For instance, the three (not four) Judge Baker Graduates who would allegedly have debunked Ayres' statements about being trained there--did NOT confirm to the police or the DA what it was alleged in the blogs that they would say. One told me that she had told the reporter who talked to her that she didn't know anything about Ayres and was in school later than him and that although she could say SHE was never trained to give exams, she "couldn't say for sure what his training was." That is NOT helpful. Another one refused to testify and the last one is physically unable to travel and lives in Europe. The blogs through around a lot of claims but trust me, if you have an actual tip (like what I might be seeing here in this particular entry) and you think it might lead to a witness or admissible evidence, please call me and I will be happy to talk to you about why the "evidence" either is or isn't admissible. I have let everyone know that if you come up with anything, I will certainly follow up on it. Many People have chosen to write only on these blogs which, I must say, I NEVER read becuase of the false and hurtful comments that are frequently directed at me, my office and my investigator. the only reason I read this entry today is because one of the victim's mothers sent it to me indcating it finally looked like it might have some good info. She was right. Thank you Barbara.

    Whoever "Trapellar" is, if you want to call me and discuss your "findings", I would be happy to talk to you. Thrilled in fact. The only thing I know for sure is that I am deeply committed to convicting Dr. Ayres for what he did to the boys/men I came to know and adore during the trial. I am also a very competitive person who HATES to lose!! That said, I invite anyone with information that they think will be useful to call me directly at the DA's office (650-363-4774) and talk to me about it. I wish you all well and I hope that I am successful in our mutual goal of convicting a horrible child molester. Thank you. Melissa McKowan, SMC DA's Office

    But in this Mercury News story from 10/25/11, the prosecutor, after saying that the Boston doctors weren't helpful or couldn't travel, are now suddenly saying that she had put them on her witness list. Never mind that she told some parents of Ayres victims during the trial that she had never spoken to them and had never called her back.


    By calling witnesses to testify that they were not trained to give physical exams at Judge Baker, the District Attorney's Office could have provided additional evidence that Ayres' practice of doing so was illegitimate, Balfour said.

    "The fundamental question is, was he trained to give physical and genital exams as part of his instruction in child psychiatry at Judge Baker?" Balfour said in a recent interview.
    Balfour tracked down several people who trained there during that period, including Dr. Jacqueline Amati Mehler, who told this newspaper in a recent email, "We were not trained to give any physical exam to psychiatric patients."

    Stephen Schaffer, chief operating officer of Judge Baker, canvassed senior staffers at the facility regarding the issue of physical exams after Balfour contacted him in 2009.
    He said recently that he came away convinced that Ayres would not have received that training.
    McKowan placed Amati Mehler and another person who trained at Judge Baker, Dr. Joseph Mullen, on her witness list for the 2009 criminal trial, but she didn't call them to the stand.
    McKowan told this newspaper that Amati Mehler and Mullen were not necessary to prove her case

  1. The prosecutor on the Ayres case told the judge on March 5, 2013 that no one else in the DA's office had a copy of her Bar complaint. If anyone believes that, I have a bridge to sell you.

    The prosecutor has lied to the court before- most blatantly in the [REDACTED] molestation case, where she lied to the judge to get out of trying that case by falsely claiming that the family didn't want the victim to testify.

    If I were Ayres' attorney, I would be working to get the emails between the prosecutor, Wagstaffe and Guidotti from 2011-2012 on the matter of the Bar complaint.
  2. At the suggestion of a San Mateo Supervisor, a list of violations of Marsy's Law (the Victim's Right Bill enacted in 2008) by prosecutor Melissa Mckowan in three molestation cases has just been submitted to the San Mateo Board of Supervisors by crime victims' families.

    For the past three years, crime victims' families have written to District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe on these egregious violations of Marsy's Law that have been committed by his prosecutor in three cases. DA Wagstaffe has never bothered to respond.

    Will the San Mateo Board of Supervisors take this matter up?
  3. A high number of men on trial for murder in San Mateo County have reported that San Mateo District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe showed up for their trials to assist the assistant district attorneys on the case every step of the way.

    Curiously, neither Wagstaffe nor Deputy Chief Karen Guidotti ever showed up at the three- week Ayres trial once. No one was overseeing the prosecutor, who was in over her head.

    What does that say about how important the Ayres case was to the San Mateo DA? Is it because the DA's office itself has hired Ayres over the years?

    DA Wagstaffe has had numerous complaints about the prosecutor from crime victims over the years, saying that she doesn't prep witnesses, doesn't bother to look for expert witnesses, and is unprepared and unprofessional. Wagstaffe knows this but still keeps her on the case, despite the fact that she was sued for lying to a judge to get out of trying a case and has just been disciplined by the Bar.
  4. A second complaint has been submitted to the San Mateo Board of Supervisors concerning the Ayres prosecutor's false statements to victims during the Ayres trial in 2009 that victim's advocate Victoria Balfour was actually " working for Ayres' lawyer Doron Weinberg and getting paid by him.: (!!!???)

    Balfour was the person who found all of the Ayres victims whose names were used to get a search warrant on Ayres' home in 2006. Without her turning over these names to the San Mateo Police Department - at their request- there would have been no criminal investigation into Ayres. Years before there was a criminal case against Ayres, Balfour worked to keep the hopes up of victims who despaired there would never be an investigation. She found civil lawyers for some of them, and persuaded them to file complaints with the California Medical Board. Most importantly she got them to go to the police

    Complaints were sent to San Mateo District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe in 2009 and 2010 about the prosecutor's false and outrageous allegations that Balfour was actually working for Ayres' lawyer Doron Weinberg. . As is typical, Wagstaffe never bothered to respond.

    Something needs to be done, fast, about the problem in the DA's office. This is out of control.
  5. Oddly, while Mckowan was telling victims and their families during the Ayres trial in 2009 that Balfour was actually working for and getting paid by Ayres' lawyer Doron Weinberg, acting as some secret double agent or something, AT THE SAME TIME she was making these false accusations, the prosecutor came over to Balfour at the trial and asked for help in checking Ayres' resume to see if it was accurate. This was just a few minutes before the prosecutor was to cross-examine Ayres for the first time. It was clear she herself had never bothered to look at the resume, which was extremely lengthy.

    So a prosecutor asks for assistance from a victim's advocate who she thinks is working as a double agent for the defendant ? District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe was informed of the prosecutor's nutso behavior. He never responded. But the California Bar did!!! 

  1. Has it ever occurred to anyone that it is odd that Ayres has still not been convicted, six years after his arrest? Jerry Sandusky was convicted just nine months after his arrest. Every pedophile doctor in the US who has been arrested AFTER Ayres was arrested in 2007 has been convicted in less than a year.

    Why did the San Mateo DA put a relative rookie on one of its most important cases to be tried by their office in recent years? The New York Times did a story when Ayres was arrested, but Wagstaffe can't be bothered to show up for a single day at the Ayres trial. It was clear the prosecutor was ill prepared and in over her head, but no one from the DA's office bothered to show up to monitor her.

    Has Steve Wagstaffe deliberately dragged out this case because his own office hired Ayres over the years ?

    It is quite obvious he knows that juveniles who were tried and convicted as adults by his office who were sexually assaulted and shown child pornography by Ayres in court-ordered sessions, who are serving life sentences without parole, may very well succeed in not just getting their convictions thrown out but will also file successful lawsuits against San Mateo County. Is Wagstaffe aware that appellate attorneys whose juvenile clients were molested and threatened by Ayres to keep quiet, are working on lawsuits against the County as we speak?
  2. A Tale of Two California District Attorneys:

    Santa Clara District Attorney Jeff Rosen = honest and transparent. Has worked with Northern California Innocence Project to weed out prosecutorial misconduct.

    San Mateo District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe = Protege of corrupt Jim Fox, good ole boy network. Corrupt, uncontrollable liar, defender of cops who commit felonies.



    Santa Clara County DA reins in overzealous attorney

    By Tracey Kaplan
    Posted: 05/05/2011 04:02:50 PM PDT
    Updated: 05/05/2011 07:09:05 PM PDT

    In a move that sends a clear message about reining in overzealous prosecutors, District Attorney Jeff Rosen has yanked an attorney off a complex gang murder case for improperly withholding crucial evidence from the defendants until the brink of trial.



    Prosecutor In Molest Case Disciplined

    McKowan's boss, District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe, said his office completed an internal investigation last year and took appropriate action. He declined to elaborate, saying it was a confidential personnel matter.

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Prosecutor-in-molest-case-disciplined-4365009.php#ixzz2OJTucWWw


    There is NO law that prohibits Wagstaffe from telling the taxpayers how he disciplined his lying and unethical prosecutor. If the Ayres prosecutor had been working for DA Jeff Rosen, she would have been fired by now.
  3. Wagstaffe has been a person of interest to the FBI because he covers up crimes by San Mateo law enforcement... Robert Pronske and D.J. Wozniak: are you there?

    Wagstaffe LOVES certain select criminals. Two weeks ago, he told a relative of a man who has been incarcerated for murder for some years, that he had lost weight, thanks to his working out with a man who had been charged with rape. Wagstaffe told the relative of the defendant that his workout pal was "falsely accused" of rape. Turns out the man is the father of a school friend of one of his son's.

    Yet he can't even be bothered to show up for the trial of a pedophile that his office hired, who has sexually assaulted thousands of boys in San Mateo County.

    NOBODY should be fooled by Wagstaffe's saccharine hail-fellow-well-met schtick he puts on at the office during the week.

    It's a different story on the weekends, where he skulks around Redwood City in a leather jacket, hiding behind a baseball cap and dark sunglasses, with a dark look on his face. What does this dude do on the weekends ? Is he hanging out with San Mateo Sheriff Greg Munks and Undersheriff Carlos Bolanos, whom he defended to the hilt when they were caught going into a house of prostitution for underaged girls in Las Vegas?

    Do tell!
  1. Has it ever occurred to anyone that the County KNEW Ayres was molesting and showing child porn to boys in juvenile hall, but continued to send them to him anyway because they saw it as fit punishment for the boys?
  2. Whoa! Prosecutor Mckowan's on a real winning streak - NOT!!

    Second mistrial for her in the molestation case involving Menlo Park businessman Horacio Carlos Teran. Jury deliberated TWELVE days and could not come up with a verdict:


    After 12 days of deliberating, jurors could not agree on whether a Menlo Park man accused of molesting his neighbor’s son is guilty or not – again.

    Eight deemed him guilty, two found him not guilty, and two couldn’t decide, according to San Mateo County District Attorney’s records.

    "When they were brought into the courtroom, they were asked about their ability to reach a verdict," said Karen Guidotti, Chief Criminal Deputy for the County of San Mateo. Jurors said they were having problems arriving at a unanimous verdict, because some of the jurors were not participating in the deliberations, she said.

    “It seemed like the jurors had already made up their mind,” Guidotti said of the sentiment surrounding the claims. Those two jurors were the ones who were undecided, she said. Their inability to agree on a verdict led the courts to declare a mistrial this week. This is the second mistrial declared in the case of the People v. Horacio Carlos Teran.
  3. The Menlo Park/Atherton Patch article says:

    "Teran is a well-funded Menlo Park resident who was charged with five counts of committing lewd acts on a child, according to public records provided by the DA's office."

    Steve Wagstaffe is a longtime resident of Menlo Park. Teran and he are probably good buds. Maybe Teran donated to Wagstaffe's campaign. Or maybe Teran, Wagstaffe and that man who was charged with rape and who is now hanging out with Wagstaffe ( according to Wagstaffe himself) are all working out together. 
  4. Sigh... more misconduct and failure to do her job from prosecutor Mckowan, this time on the Horacio Carlos Teran molestation case:


    "The first time the case went to court on Sept. 12, 2012 the case was declared a mistrial, because witness testimony had not been provided to Armstrong, according to the DA’s office. During this year’s trial, the testimony was admitted."

    See original story, where case was delayed numerous times, most recently due to Mckowan's "seasonal illness."

    Original story about Horacio Carlos Teran


    The trial for Horacio Carlos Teran of Menlo Park was delayed again this week, while the prosecution team recovers from seasonal illness.

    This is the fourth setting of the jury trial date, since Teran was arraigned in May 2012.

    See footnote: Editor's Note: On 2/1/13 this story was edited to reflect that the information in this article came from copies of The San Mateo County District Attorney's public records, and not from a conversation with Melissa McKowan.

    Why the correction? Did someone from the DA's office contact the Patch? If so, what are they so worried about?
  5. Here's a blatant wrongful conviction case by prosecutor Mckowan. Did anyone at the DA's office bother to do any real investigative work on this case?

    DA drops fake bomb threat case
    August 26, 2010, 02:29 AM By Michelle Durand Daily Journal Staff

    Prosecutors dropped a felony bomb scare charge against a coastside man who had already pleaded no contest after determining his was not the voice threatening to blow up Caltrain.

    Antonio Derivera Santiago III, 26, of Pacifica, was first allowed to withdraw his no contest plea yesterday and then prosecutor Melissa McKowan asked that the case be dropped outright.

    Prosecutors have believed for more than a year that Santiago called Caltrain out of boredom, telling a customer service representative that there was a bomb on train 101 and prompting an evacuation and full-scale search.

    However, further investigation of the phone records done this summer showed that neither the phone used nor the voice belonged to Santiago, said Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe.
  6. Wake Up, Sheeple of San Mateo County!! District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe is laughing at you. He couldn't give a rat's a** about the Ayres case.

    If he had cared, he would have put one of his top prosecutors on the case - not one who's been sued for violating victim's rights in a high profile molestation case, or who was disciplined by the California Bar for misconduct to crime victims and prosecution witnesses.

    If he had cared, he would have showed up at the Ayres trial in 2009, like he always shows up to assist and support deputy DA's on his precious little murder cases. But Wagstaffe never showed his face once in the Ayres courtroom.

    Sheeple: you have to get rid of Wagstaffe. It's up to you to figure out how !
  7. Both Judge Robert Foiles and Judge Grandsaert were once San Mateo prosecutors who worked on juvenile cases. There is at least one known case where a juvenile that Foiles prosecuted was sexually assaulted by Ayres and that Foiles and his attorney agreed that Ayres would evaluate the boy. Ayres assaulted the boy at Hillcrest AFTER he was arrested.

    Surely it has crossed the minds of Foiles and Grandsaert that the boys they had evaluated by Ayres were molested. Is the fear of having all of this come out is what has made Steve Wagstaffe deliberately drag this case out for years? If he had wanted to he could have put his top prosecutor on the case and attended the trial
    and advised that prosecutor as he always does for his DDA's on murder cases.

    But not to worry Mr. Wagstaffe: those lawsuits against the County that you so fear are coming down the
    pike anyway !! And who knows? We just might see some of your office's convictions overturned !

    What fun! Stay tuned.
  8. Ayres' lawyer wants the case removed from San Mateo County because of media coverage. He's right to ask for this but his reasons for the request are all ass- backwards.

    The reason this trial MUST be taken out of San Mateo is because Judges Grandsaert and Foiles prosecuted juveniles who were evaluated by Ayres and the San
    Mateo DA's office was hiring him at least back to the 1980's.

    Maybe Ayres' lawyer Doron Weinberg was well aware of all the judges who'd worked with Ayres. Maybe he didn't
    ask for a change of venue because he figured, rightly, that the County would continue to protect Ayres.

  1. Something's Happening Here:

    Robert Foiles once prosecuted a juvenile who was assaulted at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall by Ayres, AFTER the boy was arrested but before his trial.

    Stuart Forrest, just arrested for possession of child porn -also worked at Hillcrest at the same time.

    When Robert Foiles became a judge, he selected Stuart Forrest to be head of probation. The other person on the two person selection committee was Juvenile Judge Marta Diaz who tried to get the police to stop investigating Ayres in 2002, because she said, "Ayres and I are friends."

    And yet Foiles is still actively making judicial decisions in the Ayres case.

    Probation chief under federal investigation for possessing child porn
    December 22, 2012, 05:00 AM By Jon Mays Daily Journal

    Stuart Forrest, chief probation officer for San Mateo County, is being questioned by federal law enforcement officials for possession of child pornography, County Counsel John Beiers confirmed last night. ..

    The U.S. Postal Service Inspection Service is the lead agency in the investigation and is being assisted by the FBI, said U.S. Postal Service spokeswoman Pauline Bellinger. Postal Service inspectors investigate material that is sent through the mail. .

    Forrest began his career in 1976 as a group supervisor at the county's juvenile hall, was formally appointed chief probation officer in April 2009 after recommendation by a search committee of judges Robert Foiles and Marta Diaz.
  2. Here's a photo of San Mateo Sheriff Greg Munks, who was caught going into a house of prostitution for UNDERAGED GIRLS in Las Vegas; Robert Foiles, who prosecuted at least one juvenile who was assaulted by Ayres in court-ordered sessions, and Steve Wagstaffe, who sent sickening and fawning supportive emails to Munks after he was caught at the house with underaged girls, and who has been a subject of interest to the FBI for covering up crimes by San Mateo County employees.


    Sup. Adrienne J. Tissier moderates the "Alternatives to Incarceration" panel during the March 4, 2011, "Women's Criminal Justice Summit: Report Back to the Community." The panel participants, from right, District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe; Superior Court Judge Robert Foiles; and Sheriff Greg Munks discussed programs and options available to those sentenced to the county jail.
  3. Rape defendant gets new trial date
    March 26, 2013, 05:00 AM Daily Journal Staff Report

    Joshua Bringazi

    The convicted sex offender whose attorney in a new statutory rape case caused a mistrial by declaring mid-trial he had a conflict was appointed a different lawyer and received a new trial date in June.

    Joshua Kenneth Bringazi, 28, went to trial in August but a judge declared a mistrial after the prosecutor referred to him as a “felon” during her closing argument to jurors.

    Was this Mckowan's case, too?

    Prosecutors should know better. Who's minding the store over at the San Mateo DA's office?

    How much are these mistrials caused by prosecutorial error costing the taxpayers?

  4. When someone in government asked Wagstaffe recently whether he had seen a copy of Mckowan's Bar complaint, Wagstaffe was evasive. The person in government warned Wagstaffe that if Mckowan had lied to the court when she said that no one else in the DA's office had seen a copy of the report, that she would be in big trouble.

    Wagstaffe changed the subject. GUILTY!!!

    Let's hope Ayres' lawyer can get copies of the emails between Wagstaffe, Guidotti and Mckowan between July 2011 and March 2013, concerning the Bar investigation into Mckowan.
  5. Was Mckowan suspended at one point for her misconduct on the Ayres case?
  6. Some reporters back in 2011 had heard a story that Mckowan had to take a leave for a while, but no one could verify.
  7. When the person in government told Wagstaffe that Mckowan had at first avoided the judge's question about whether anyone else in the DA's office had seen the Bar complaint, and that the judge admonished Mckowan for not answering the question, Wagstaffe DENIED to the person in government that Mckowan had been evasive and had not answered the question at first and had been admonished by the judge.

    Very stupid of Wagstaffe to lie about this to the person in government , as anyone can see from the COURT TRANSCRIPT that the Judge clearly admonished Mckowan for not answering the question about whether anyone else had seen the Bar complaint.

    Guidotti, Wagstaffe- they all saw the Bar complaint. And also, how else could Wagstaffe have held his own parallel investigation into Mckowan if he hadn't seen the Bar complaint?
  8. Wonder how Ayres' lawyer's fight to get the Bar complaint (s) against prosecutor Mckowan is he going?

    In at least two molestation cases, the prosecutor has told a very young molestation victim and her mother and at least one prosecution witness about incidents in her own life that have caused her to be a certain way to certain defendants in the courtroom. She's even stated this in emails... If Ayres' defense attorney gets hold of these, it's game over for the prosecutor, as it shows BIAS.
  9. Meant to say " Wonder how Ayres' lawyer's fight to get the Bar complaint (s) against prosecutor Mckowan is going?"
  10. A citizen who filed a complaint with the San Mateo Board of Supervisors concerning prosecutor Mckowan's violation of Marsy's Law in the Dr. Ayres case and two other cases, has received a letter from San Mateo County Counsel, advising the complainant to "direct the allegations to the Attorney General."

    So be it.
  11. Recently, San Mateo prosecutor Melissa Mckowan was disciplined by the California Bar for unethical behavior on the Dr. William Ayres molestation case. While there have been more than 700 known instances of prosecutorial misconduct in the last 11 years, Mckowan is only the 12th prosecutor in California to be disciplined during that time period.

    Following the news about the Bar's discipline, at the suggestion of a San Mateo Supervisor, several crime victims' families and other citizens have written to the Supervisors about Mckowan's violation of Marsy's Law on THREE cases.

    The citizens have been notified by San Mateo County Counsel that they need to direct their "allegations" about Mckowan to the California Attorney General.

    But the crime victims' families have already gone to the AG, back in August, 2011, after San Mateo District Attorney ignored all complaints about the violations about Mckowan.

    In 2011, the AG told the citizens to go to the California Bar.

    County Counsel stated in a letter to one citizen that a "substantive response to your allegations would involve an inquiry as to the official duties of a district attorney. If your allegations proved accurate, a proper response could include the provision of directions to the District Attorney's office as to how to discharge its official duties."

    Now that there have been news reports about the Bar's discipline, will Kamala Harris take up this case?

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 BlinderEtta BryantMel BlausteinHarry CorenTom CieslaRobert KimmichLarry LurieMaria LymberisRichard ShadoanCaptane Thomson, and Harold Wallach.