Thursday, August 8, 2013

Child Molester ayres Jailed Today - Detail (finally)

August 7, 2013 child molester william ayres was jailed today.
Sentencing is now scheduled for August 26th, 2013. There may be motions brought by defense in the interim.

The posts below this one have links to articles in the paper with quotes from Wagstaffe (who was NOT present to hear the "emotional" statements that victims made -- They were emotional, but he's being a dink by making it sound like he's moved or something.) I'm not going to link to any of the news articles in this post, at least for the moment, but they're in the post below this one already.

First off: There were MANY supporters, friends, victims,  and families present today. This was a GODSEND. Thank each and every one of you for being there, and for those of us who were NOT able to be there -- and for those unknown, who have been quietly struggling -- Many of these supporters specifically mentioned that they were there to represent YOU too. I will speak more of this in a moment.

Frequently, I imagine my life with a soundtrack. In my "real life" I like to make silly little videos. Sadly, the legal and justice system have really become a bit of a farce to me, and probably will always be that way for me now. Frankly, as this has gone on, and on,
And on,

And on,



And on -- This whole thing has become a morbidly comical little video in my mind.

We got to court early this morning, and as the crowd gathered, I decided to record some video.

When I got home and looked at it, "Serious" went in, and "Vaudeville" came out. Without further ado, I give you my mentally warped soundtrack for today. NOTE: I updated the video: now you can be offended even if you're on iOS.

(Not All That Safe for Work, and entirely inappropriate for the serious nature of today's proceedings.) Turn up the sound! Pop it out, and watch it on YouTube! :




If you are a victim, PLEASE don't take my morbidly manic levity with offense; we're unfortunately about to delve deeply into some pretty serious human shit:

Not necessarily in chronological order, but mostly so, here are some vignettes from today:

General events inside the courtroom:

Child molester ayres was present, as were his wife Solveig, and daughter Barbara Ayres of Sacramento. Son Robert Ayres was NOT present today. There were also two women present with the family. No idea who they were, but they looked like well-worn hippies, probably shrink-types.

Victoria Balfour was present, as was County Supervisor Dave Pine, along with advocate and frequently present supporter Michael Stogner, one of the original jurors from the first criminal trial was there, along with many people; some of whom I'll mention specifically, and some I will not: all were greatly appreciated.

Melissa McKowan was the sole prosecutor for the People today, although Karen Guidotti was in the courtroom (looking taxed...) Wagstaffe was also there -- just kidding -- he wasn't there, but he acts like he was for the reporters who weren't there (Hellooo? San Mateo Daily Journal??? - Didn't see you there, but I'm expecting a pretty good article...)

Some things that happened before the hearing got underway:

Someone was taking photos inside the courtroom, and Solveig and Barbara raised a holy-living-stink. (Fine -- there is a sign specifying electronics off inside the courtroom.) When the judge came in, she admonished everyone that that kind of thing was strictly forbidden, and that she expected to see people MOVING to turn off devices. Both bailiffs looked right a me. (WTF cop dudes??? I'm all business inside the courtroom... )

Also significant: one of the friends of a victim (Jonathan Huddleston, who spoke at the recission of ayres' lifetime achievement award) was present, and noticed that ayres' wheelchair looked totally unused. Either it's brand-new, or it's just another prop. (Guess which I think it is?)

Both the defense attorney and prosecutor went into chambers before things got underway, to discuss the mechanics of who would be allowed to speak, if at all. It was decided that victims and families who wished to make a statement, who would NOT be able to be present on the 26th would be allowed to make a victim impact statement. (There were two.) Or, they'd be allowed to record and submit a statement for use at the sentencing. (The two there wanted to speak today) And then people who wished to make a statement regarding the decision on whether or not to incarcerate ayres TODAY were allowed to make statement pertaining to the urgency of containment. (I believe there were 5 total -- press is reporting 6 including the two impact statements, but I think the total count is 7.)

Where are we at?
As I've mentioned before, there is a report that needs to be submitted, and it took them awhile to find a non-biased shrink to make the report, so the report will be late. The judge doesn't want to sentence before that report is completed. So there were two major items on today's agenda:
-Move the sentencing date.
-Determine if ayres will be jailed prior to sentencing (today.)

McKowan argued that she had largely cleared the August 26th date with many of the people who would make an impact statement, and that due to Marsy's Law requirements, their ability to be adequately prepared (time off work, etc...) was paramount, and that moving the already discussed date would be an effort.

McDougall argued that another attorney would be potentially making motions (to withdraw his no-contest plea) and that he had since "learned" that the attorney would not be available until September. He wanted to modify the date accordingly. The judge said No, also siting Marsy's Law. Sentencing will be August 26th. (But there may be other motions in the interim relating to the plea withdrawal that "might be" filed.

McDougall seemed definitely "done" with the case this morning, and while he protested some things said, he mostly kept to himself, not even looking at victims who were standing to speak. Normally, he aggressively blusters poorly thought out, illogical verbal constructions to try to distract and confuse. None of that today.

My theory is this: Much as McDougall immediately attacked prior attorney Weinberg for flawed defense, the goal is to have the new incoming attorney attack McDougall for some flaw in his performance; providing a window of opportunity for ayres to "undo" his plea. If ayres is successful in undoing his plea, will the prosecutor march ahead with trial? The will be gambling that they won't, and at the very least, they'd get years more delay. Nevertheless, McDougall appeared ridden hard, and put away wet.

Victim Statements:
I'm not going to to into great detail with statements that were made, as I was mostly experiencing the day, not taking notes on it. I will have some brief highlights. This is not meant in any way to slight the people who made statements -- Quite the contrary -- Many of the things that were said were touching, personal, and I won't do them justice without my normal copious notes.

Prior to the start of impact statements, McDougall stipulated that the people speaking must address THE COURT and not any "specific" people. The judge reaffirmed this. To some extent, this went out the window, almost immediately; The judge was very patient with the crowd today.

Victim Impact Statements:
In statute victim Orion B. from the first trial, and his parents will not be able to make the August 26 date, and they were allowed to speak about the impact that this has had on their lives.

Orion: There is some commentary on what he had to say in the papers, so make sure to check that too.. His contribution was well prepared, thoughtful, poignant, gut-wrenching... more. He clearly wanted to speak for those who can't or won't speak up in this matter. He opened by stating that he was one of the first in-statute victims involved, and he hoped with his statement to "Pave the path of hope" for other victims of ayres.  He spoke about the horrible impact on family and life, and about seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.

Orion's father: Also spoke eloquently about the impact that this had had on the family from the perspective of a parent -- not knowing the horrible truth until much later, and having to struggle with trying to understand the hurt in the interim. He also acknowledged Victoria Balfour for her hard work on the case.

I hope to be able to post some more on their statements at a later time, but for now, impression is what you get -- not verbiage.


Statements About Immediate Remand Into Custody:
Next up, two victims, two parents of a victim, and one friend of the family of a victim stood to speak about the urgency of immediate custody.

Common themes were: 
Dangerousness - Mentioned were items such as the long history of manipulation that ayres has practiced, the "grooming" behavior that was reported by staff at Napa State in the competency hearings. The extent of the damage that this does to victims and their families, and the urgency that we all feel to prevent this from continuing. Extreme loss of faith in the justice system, and difficulty with authority were also common themes... And so on....

Several times it was mentioned that ayres was an "admitted" child molester McDougall later objected to these statements. (A no-contest plea is not an "admission of guilt" but rather an admission that at trial one will be found guilty based on the evidence, but without actually admitting to culpability. -- Whatever... none of us gives a rip, as you're still found guilty under the law.)

McDougall also strongly objected to the reference to the grooming incident at Napa, as he didn't think it was factually relevant. (I can't remember his blather specifically) Prosecutor McKowan blasted the snot out of him at this point: "It was stated in the report, on the record, and testified to under oath by staff, in public court, in front of many of the people present in the courtroom today." etc... the little bit of vindication was welcomed by all.

Some specific statements that stood out in my mind: 
Jonathan Huddleston talked about his friend who was a victim of ayres, and who had struggled with severe depression and alcohol use, and whose 50th birthday would have been yesterday, had he not committed suicide two years ago to the day. (Two years ago, the competency trial had just hung, and the DA was preparing to concede that ayres was indeed suffering from Alzheimer's - if this adds some unfortunate perspective.) If you didn't already see his statement in front of the Board of Supervisors, go have a look at it. It mirrors what he said today. Today he put a fine point on the fact that from OUR perspective, this was MURDER.)

One of the victims specifically recalled being told repeatedly by ayres: "You know the drill" meaning that he was supposed to undress for his molestation. He then told the judge: "You know the drill: lock him up."

The Judge's Reaction:
Judge Freeman appeared genuinely distressed by what she was hearing from the victims and their families. When suicides were mentioned, either it was the first she'd heard of it (feasible, given the way she's clearly worked to remain impartial, especially with respect to outside sources of information.) Or ayres was making some kind of inappropriate gesture or something, because when it was first mentioned by the mother of a victim, Freeman shot ayres a look that was nothing short of murderous. I'm surprised I don't have near fatal shrapnel wounds from being seated in the general direction that the glare was focused. WOW.

She was clearly moved by what she was hearing.

More on Victim Statements and supporters:
Again, I've not touched on everything, and please don't feel left out, it's been a long, weird day. Hopefully others who were there will help fill in important details that I've missed.


Legal Wrangling:
After statements were made, there were some legal machinations:
The court wants an estimate of how many people are expected to make statements. Freeman is leaving a whole day open. McKowan expects to not need the WHOLE day. But again, in interest of Marsy's Law, the judge will not reject anyone who is allowed to make a statement, but hopes to have it planned.

McDougall then suggested that he might need more time after that (but maybe not immediately after that...) in order to make whatever arguments he needs to make... it seemed like vague-ish delay maneuvering room is what he was really asking for.

There was back and forth discussion on what the law says about locking up a convicted felon AFTER conviction, but before sentencing. McDougall admitted that in 9.5 out of 10 cases, the convict is IMMEDIATELY remanded into custody, but in this case, ayres has never missed a day, etc, AND according to McDougall, the probation report currently indicates that ayres is a LOW RISK OFFENDER, and therefore he should be allowed to stay out on bail. AND he's out on a LARGE amount of bail, AND all of the people who spoke were victims OVER 15 YEARS AGO, (etc...)

McKowan argued about flight risk -- She talked about ayres' statement about going into hiding and changing their names -- but also about duty to serve justice that is long overdue the victims, and about the severity of the impact on the victims and families.

After McDougall and McKowan finished their arguments, the judge IMMEDIATELY issued her ruling, without much discussion:

Judge Freeman said that bail is revoked, and ayres was to be remanded into custody immediately.

The two bailiffs jumped to their feet. 

Moderate applause broke out, and the judge reminded everyone to not do that... Judge Freeman explained that she was not concerned about flight but rather the number of victims and severity of damage done.

The bailiffs positioned themselves to block access to the child molester.

Solveig asked if she could go get ayres' wristwatch. The bailiff made her back off.

The bailiff took the watch from ayres, and remanded it into Solveig's custody -- Time has all wound-out, pal.

The child molester was wheeled out of court through the back entrance and off to the Redwood City County Jail. 

Enjoy the cavity search, billy!


c'est ├ža -- no proofreading tonight. Comment on errors if you wish!


UPDATE (8/8/2013): Some links to newspaper stories:

Mercury News Article (pdf)
CBS Local Article (pdf)
San Mateo Daily Journal Article (pdf)

Channel 7 video was there yesterday, but I haven't seen video online yet.




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. After years of  playing demented for the courts, ayres plead "No Contest" and was found guilty of all charges against him on May 16, 2013. ayres is on bail awaiting sentencing, and 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.

22 comments:

  1. Good synopsis.

    Also, when it was stated that Ayres had admitted to molesting five patients, both Solveig and especially that strange daughter shook their heads "No" very vigorously.

    Whenever there was a particularly poignant or graphic statement from a victim, Solveig would take out her little appointment book and pretend to write something.. Even she couldn't handle it.

    Solveig also gaped with mouth wide open as the victim who spoke about "You know the drill" talked about Ayres pulling down his pants at every session. Why was she so shocked at this?

    Weird, weird, weird, scary family.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Posted earlier, but formatting fixed:

    Good commentary over at the Almanac News:

    Posted by Too little, too late, a resident of another community, 7 hours ago

    The way Steve Wagstaffe talks about the victims, you might actually think the victims appreciated the work that he and state bar disciplined prosecutor Melissa McKowan did on their behalf.

    But peel away the onion, and you'd find that the victims despise Wagstaffe and McKowan, feel that they had to pull teeth to get this prosecution off the ground, and that Victoria Balfour, not Wagstaffe, nor McKowan (who abused Balfour, was disciplined by the state bar for it, yet is still defaming Balfour, apparently with no pushback from Wagstaffe), is responsible for bringing justice to the victims.

    It's just another sad story in a long line of fiascos in this DA's office.

    Oh, and the supervisors showed true "leadership" by rescinding Ayres lifetime achievement award after his no contest plea. Riiighht. The leadership would have come by rescinding it when victim #5 came forward, because the stubborn refusal to do so, and the closing of ranks around Ayres because he was a San Mateo county guy, sent a message to the victims that they were not credible.

    Expect more imbroglios to hit Wagstaffe pretty soon. Former chief inspector Ivan Grosshauser is in a real pickle of a situation right now, and Wagsaffe was in lock step with him. Film at 11.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another comment from the Almanac News story:

    Posted by Lurker, a resident of another community, 7 minutes ago

    Wagstaffe did not attend the hearing yesterday. How would he know if the victims were "emotional" or not? Although this is one of the biggest cases of child abuse in recent California history, Wagstaffe has not once in the six and a half years of this case ever shown his face in the Ayres courtroom.

    Yet according to many inmates from San Mateo County (some of whom are Ayres victims) Wagstaffe was a constant presence at their trials, despite not being the prosecutor on their case. The inmates say that Wagstaffe was always providing daily guidance in the courtroom to prosecutors like Sean Gallagher on their cases.

    Mckowan was in over her head and yet Wagstaffe, who'd had complaints about her for four years, did nothing about it. Mckowan had two mistrials in the Ayres case. Then after she and Wagstaffe refused to consider an investigator's evidence that Ayres was competent to stand trial, they shipped him off to Napa, where Ayres proceeded to try to groom a victim with another Napa inmate.

    It was only after the San Mateo Board of Supervisors became aware that Mckowan was disciplined by the Bar, and that victims and their families wrote in to the Board to complain about the incompetence and mistreatment by the DA's office, that the Board pressured Wagstaffe to add other prosecutors.

    All Wagstaffe has done is complain about how much money this trial has cost him.If he'd an effective competent prosecution on this case, it would have been wrapped up in less than a year. If they had wanted to nail him fast, they would have. In Pennsylvania, they convicted Sandusky just seven months after his arrest.

    At the hearing yesterday, a mother of a victim complained in her statement about the bizarre six and a half year length of this trial and talked about how speedy the convictions were of Ariel Castro and Sandusky.

    There are new lawsuits coming against San Mateo County because this County continued to send boys to him until 2003, almost 40 years after the first complaint came in about Ayres from a juvenile in 1966.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I also saw THIS post over at "Almanac Online":

    Posted by Lurker, a resident of another community, 9 hours ago:
    [Post removed. Parody video seems inappropriate.]


    You think??

    Maybe we should all hang around and braid daisies, smoke pot, and sing Kumbaya, so that we don't bend any delicate sensibilities.

    "May I have my news fluffed up please?"

    ReplyDelete
  5. I want to acknowledge this effort by you and the heroism of all of these victims. But the words arent there-they arent adequate. Thank you for sharing this with us. Thank you so much.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Shyster McDougall looks very uncomfortable around Ayres. Perhaps because the Shyster has a cutie-pie young son? Bet your bottom dollar he never let the pedophile near his son.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "One of Ayres' alleged victims, who is now dead, was detained in a juvenile facility for a few days in 1973, when he was 14, for drinking beer in a park. At the facility, Ayres had him strip naked and lie on an examination table while the doctor fondled his genitals, the victim later told his mother.

    When news of the civil lawsuit settlement was released two years ago, her son told her about the alleged molestation, then went to San Mateo police, the mother said."

    "They said the case was too old, but he insisted they make a report," the mother said Friday. "My son carried this with him all his life. He had thought he was the only one."

    -- From the San Francisco Chronicle, April 7, 2007, "Stain Doesn't Wash Off' Psychiatrist's Accuser Says"

    To Alan Y, former San Mateo juvenile. Thank you for filing a police report long before Ayres was arrested. Your name was included in the affadavits for the search warrant on Ayres' home.

    Also, thank you to Brett T, the earliest known California Ayres victim, who was a juvenile molested in 1966. Thanks for speaking to the police and filing a complaint back in 2011.

    And thank you to ALL of the former juveniles who have come forward in the last six months. You know who you are. Your civil rights were violated.

    You will find justice.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Did anyone notice how the two attorneys and Solveig aren't dealing with Ayres in the video? Ayres has his back to them in his wheelchair while they are in consultation and no one looks at him.

    Mcdougall in particular, seems in his body language to want to keep a wide berth from Ayres. Ya think it has something to do with the fact that he has a cutie pie young son?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wonder how his son is going to feel when he learns that his clothes, food, shelter, and college is paid for by money from child molestation victims and their families, and that his daddy caused extra pain in "earning" it?

      Delete
    2. I don't personally know the lawyer or son in question, so what I'm about to say does not necessarily reflect upon either of them. Lawyers like power and prestige. I don't think most (that means not all) people are physically or psychologically significantly different from their parents. Anyway, here goes:

      Don't assume everybody has a conscience.

      Delete
    3. P.S.

      Did anyone notice how the two attorneys and Solveig aren't dealing with Ayres in the video? Ayres has his back to them in his wheelchair while they are in consultation and no one looks at him.

      * * *

      Perhaps the pedophile acts passive in court so it can maintain the pretense that it is unable to make, or participate in making, decisions. If so, this is part of its Alzheimer's charade. The executive function in people who have Alzheimer's disease (which said pedophile does not have) is impaired.

      Videos of the pedophile that were filmed during the last year strongly indicate that it is socially actively engaged rather than passive. How it behaves outside of the courthouse apparently contrasts with how it behaves within.

      Delete
  9. Videos of it were taken in April, 2013 and he was reading a magazine in the car and acting as a backseat driver to Solveig.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What I can't figure out is why DA Steve Wagstaffe's office recused itself from San Mateo Probation Chief Stu Forrest's child pornography case, but it wouldn't recuse itself from the Ayres case. The DA's office hired Ayres to evaluate boys. The prosecutors prosecuted juveniles who were evaluated by Ayres, and some of these juveniles in these court ordered sessions were molested.

    James Fox was a counselor at Hillcrest in the 1960s. One of the juveniles he was in charge of was sexually assaulted by Ayres in 1966. In 2011, when the victim learned that Ayres had been arrested, he called and wrote to Fox about the molestation. Fox never responded.

    Judge Robert Foiles, who recused himself from the Forrest case because he worked with Forrest and ALSO recommended him for his job, last week presided over an Ayres hearing. But Foiles had ties to Ayres too. Foiles also prosecuted the case of a juvenile tried as an adult. The DA's office and the juvenile's attorney agreed to have the boy evaluated by Ayres. That juvenile was assaulted by Ayres after he was arrested.

    The ties go much, much deeper between Ayres, the judges and the DA's office. Why didn't Wagstaffe's office recuse itself ? Was he afraid of the can of worms that might be exposed if another County prosecuted the case? Is he afraid that some of his precious murder cases might be overturned because Ayres molested some of the boys his office prosecuted?

    For a DA's office to take six and a half years to convict a guy on what should have been a slam -dunk, nine -month case at best, is very suspect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is he afraid that some of his precious murder cases might be overturned because Ayres molested some of the boys his office prosecuted?

      * * *

      I'm curious; How many cases might we be talking about? And how many of these individuals (presumably, now inmates) have been contacted re the pedophile since the pedophile was arrested for the first time? Anyone know?

      Delete
    2. I'm sure that's one possible fear. Also, I would think there could be suits brought, if penalty determinations were made based on reports from ayres.

      I'm generally not sympathetic to people who are in prison for cause, but how can you ignore that kind of manipulation?

      On how many cases:

      I'm not 100% "in the loop" on this, but I know the count is:

      Bigger than a bread box.

      Delete
  11. It is strange that (to the best of my knowledge), The DA has not once been present for ANY hearing or public court appearance associated with the County's single longest running criminal matter in County history, with as many REPORTED and likely unreported victims as the case has.

    We've known of victims and family/friends of victims who have been present for most every public court date in this case, and to the best of my recollection, nobody has ever reported seeing him there.

    Chicken neck, bobble headed, horse faced Guidotti has been there on occasion. Wonder why no Wags?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yeah, it's VERY strange that Wagstaffe has NEVER showed his face at the Ayres trial in the six and a half years it's been going on.

    But when there's a murder trial, Wagstaffe practically sits in the lap of whichever prosecutor is on the case- like Sean Gallagher. Wagstaffe has been known to sit next to Gallagher and give him on-site advice during his trial.

    But neither Wagstaffe nor Guidotti attended the Ayres trial in 2009. Why is that? Wouldn't you think someone else from the DA's office would have shown up to watch the trial of the most prolific child molester in the history of San Mateo County- and possibly in California?

    Guidotti has only showed up recently, after Mckowan got disciplined by the California Bar and the Board of Supervisors complained to Wagstaffe about Mckowan.


    And to Wagstaffe, if you are reading this blog ( and you probably are) A prosecutor in your office is CONTINUING to send out defamatory and false emails to people about the case. The prosecutor is also sending out emails saying that THIS BLOG contains false and biased information. Yet the prosecutor was going to USE information from this blog about Dr. Al Solnit for her case and other information gleaned from this blog on the Ayres case. If as the prosecutor says, that this blog is false and biased, then why does the prosecutor keep using information from it? Why doesn't the prosecutor stop reading this blog?

    Why can't Wagstaffe stop his prosecutor from sending out these defamatory and false emails and information?

    Wagstaffe sent out an email in August 2009 stating that he was going to talk to the prosecutor about the prosecutor problem. There is a copy of this email. But the problem continues. And it's getting worse.



    ReplyDelete
  13. In May, right before the Ayres trial, Wagstaffe's prosecutor sent out an email to an Ayres VICTIM which used the word "bullshit" in conjunction with the name of a citizen.

    Nice!! Real classy and professional !! What kind of show is Wagstaffe running that he would allow one of his prosecutors to recklessly use that language when writing to a VICTIM? Aren't there specific rules for his prosecutors on comportment ?

    Also, Deep- one of Wagstaffe's prosecutors keeps complaining that your blog has called the prosecutor "names. "Can you do a check and see if you or anyone else has used the word "bullshit"in conjunction with the prosecutor's name? Bet you won't find anything.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Atherton citizen Jon Buckheit urges the San Mateo Board of Supervisors to confront DA Wagstaffe about one of his prosecutor's defamatory emails:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESTt6B0EvZI

    ReplyDelete
  15. Who is telling the truth? The State Bar, or one of Wagstaffe's prosecutors?


    The State Bar: "On February 27, 2013, the State Bar entered into a stipulations as to Facts and Disposition with respondent in order to resolve this matter. In the stipulation, respondent stipulates to committing an act of professional misconduct in violation of Section 6106 of the Business and Professions Code."

    Or, one of Wagstaffe's prosecutors? "Believe me, nothing is as the bloggers say. Every agency that has been forced into investigating this case by (NAME REDACTED) has found that her accusations are entirely false and have no bases whatsoever. "

    - Email sent from prosecutor to father of an Ayres victim on 5/11/13 at 3:29:49 PM PDT, just ten weeks after the Bar issued its discipline.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Given Wagstaffe's prosecutor's history, his prosecutor will either:

    a) attack the father of the victim who received this email and falsely accuse him of perjury

    or:

    b) the prosecutor will deny that they wrote the email and try to pin it on someone else.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Or,three more possible scenarios, based on past conduct. Wagstaffe's prosecutor could:

    c) Get angry with the father of the victim for releasing the email sent by the prosecutor that contained the false information

    d) Attack (sigh, oh so predictably) Deep Sounding's fine blog for being "unreliable and biased" while at the same time combing and mining the blog for material from Deep's blog to use in the Ayres second trial. Al Solnit, anyone? Bert Brown, anyone?

    e) Complain bitterly about the "inaccurate and unfair things" that have been written about the prosecutor on this blog , but refuse to take responsibility for calling PROSECUTION witnesses such things as "baggage" (as far back as 2009) and "bullshit " and for falsely accusing a poor mother of a victim back in 2009 of something she'd never done. Guidotti said she'd MAKE the apology happen, but the mother's still waiting by the phone. It's been THREE YEARS, DA Wagstaffe, and the mother hasn't received the "promised" apology. Can't you manage your staff?

    In fact, why the heck haven't that mother and her son, the in-statute victim, been contacted since July 2009? Another violation of Marsy's Law!!

    Cue Wagstaffe's prosecutor to send out another round of emails to victims and families telling them not to believe anything on the blog.. We think it's the other way around.

    ReplyDelete