Merry Christmas

Caravaggio: Adoration of the Shepherds

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this [shall be] a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

-Luke 2: 8-14

Merry Christmas!

Ayres Was Notified By Certified Letter that He is No Longer a Member of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

Back during the trial, some little birdy must have immediately notified the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry- an association that Ayres was once president of- after Ayres got up and testified that he was still a member of that organization.

Because on July 23, 2009- while the trial was still going on, the Academy terminated Ayres' membership.

"He was notified in writing by certified letter," said Rob Grant, communications director of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. "Our termination policy for members is a carbon copy of the APA's; once your license has been suspended or terminated, your membership is terminated."

Good to know Ayres won't be able to pull this little stunt at the next trial. We can't wait to hear the prosecutor tell the jury that his precious memberships have been terminated!!!

Ayres is No Longer A Member of the American Psychiatric Association

On July 8, 2009, when William H. Ayres took the stand, one of the first things his lawyer Doron Weinberg asked him was this:
"Are you a member of the American Psychiatric Association?"

Ayres replied, "Yes, I am."

Weinberg went on to say "What is the nature of your membership? Do you hold a particular position?

Ayres: "It's something like distinguished and very old, but it doesn't say 'very old. 'Distinguished Senior'"

Weinberg: "Distinguished Life Fellow?"

Ayres (acting coy): " I don't know the exact word."

Weinberg: "Distinguished Life Fellow?"

Ayres: "Pardon me?"

Weinberg: "Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Associates?"

Ayres: "Yes, I'm still alive."

_____

For those of us who were in the courtroom that day, listening to that exchange, all we could think was :"Huh? Would the American Psychiatric Association really permit someone whose medical license had been suspended by the Attorney General of California, to continue to be a member of its esteemed organization?

The application to become a dues paying member of the APA has an Ethics section that asks the following questions:

http://www.psych.org/Resources/Membe...plication.aspx

Ethics

1) Has your license to practise medicine ever been revoked or suspended?

2)Are you currently charged with illegal or unethical conduct by a regulatory or law enforcement agency or by a professional society?

Well, it turns out that Ayres didn't alert the APA that his license had been suspended by the Attorney General of California after his arrest - as he was supposed to do.

So, this week, after seeing Ayres state in the court transcript that yes, indeed he was still a member of the APA, we decided to check in with the Ethics Committee of the American Psychiatric Association to set the record straight. And boy, did they set the record straight fast!!!

We received an email from Linda Hughes, Director, Office of Ethics and District Branch and State Association Relations of the American Psychiatric Association, who stated in no uncertain terms that as of this week Ayres is NO LONGER a member of the APA.

Here is what Ms. Hughes then went on to tell us on the phone today: "Ayres is no longer a member. You have to have a license to practise medicine, and if you don't have one, you can't be a member. We are aware that he was arrested two years ago, and that he no longer has a license and can't practise medicine. As of this week, his membership was terminated"

As for his "Distinguished Life Fellow" status, Ms. Hughes said, " He no longer has that title. He is a former Distinguished Life Fellow, but he is not one now. "

In no uncertain terms -- Ms. Hughes made it very clear that her association has no ties whatsoever to Ayres these days. They clearly don't want to be tainted by any connection to him now.

Trial Dates set for Civil Lawsuits

[Original post date: 12/18/09 12:00pm PST by Deep Sounding] 

Trial dates were set today at the case management hearing for four civil lawsuits against defendant "John Doe #1" (william hamilton ayres, one time president of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) relating to his molestation of young male patients under the guise of providing "psychiatric treatment."

ayres was represented on the phone by his attorneys (I believe from two firms: Sideman & Bancroft LLP for three of the cases, and Donnelly Nelson Depolo & Murray LLP for the CIV467743 Case.)

The four plaintiffs are represented by two firms: The Law Offices of Carcione, Cattermole, Dolinski, Okimoto, Stucky, Ukshini, Markowitz & Carcione, LLP for three of the cases, (They are local) and one member of the firm was present to represent their plaintiffs,  and The Drivon Law Firm for case number CIV467273 was present on the phone.

Superior Court Judge George A. Miram indicated that it is now time to set trial dates for the cases, and as he did with most of the cases heard today, he encouraged mediation.

One of ayres' lawyers asked for some time to "work up the case a little bit" and the judge promptly admonished her that this was a very old case, and that mediation could be set early or late, but that they would be setting a trial date. [In the October-ish timeframe]

There was some  brief discussion about the stay for discovery having been lifted. The attorney for the plaintiff in CIV467273 mentioned that he was not part of that motion, but that the facts in the case are the same as in the other three cases handled by the Carcione firm, and wanted to clarify how this would proceed. The judge asked ayres' attorneys if they would stipulate that the stay is lifted for that case as well, and they agreed. As of today's date, the stay of discovery has been lifted for all parties.

No one objected to setting up mediation prior to trial.

The judge asked if they wanted concurrent or back-to-back trials, and the plaintiffs asked for back-to-back, stating that there might be some consolidation at some point. ( I'm assuming that most of this has to do with the outcome of the criminal trial, and possible settlements/advantages of a unified front that will come from that.)

There was some minor haggling over the trial dates: The Carcione firm was prepared with something like "earlier than that would be fine"  and the other plaintiff's attorney was happy with "anything after October 18th."

One of the defense attorneys was argumentative when one of the dates was set for August 30th. When the judge asked (twice) why this was a problem, she replied "Well only because you had mentioned October..."  (This was the same attorney who, in the last case management hearing, interrupted the judge to erroneously claim that there was a defendant who had not been served, in an attempt to buy more time. She sounds like a real "winner" ... I'm guessing her family are all spending Christmas wherever she is not.) 

So the judge grudgingly moved the date of that trial to early November.

The trial dates are as follows:
CIV467741 September 13th, 2010
CIV467743 October 4th, 2010
CIV467273 October 18th, 2010
CIV467742 November 1, 2010

(The estimated duration is 15 days for each, and so there is some overlap, which was intended.)
[Update: 1/11/10 9:00pm PST by Deep Sounding]:
I'm fairly certain that the durations initially discussed were 15 days. (The judge was querying each side about expected duration, and setting the longest estimate as the expected duration.) At some point that estimate must have been reduced to 10 days, as that's what is currently showing in the court documents for each of the respective cases.
Everyone was then trotted off to schedule mediation timeframes.

Oh, and there were several members of the press present.
(Just a bit of holiday kidding there... I'm pretty sure there were none.)

Case Number information follows:

NOTE: there is a glitch with links into the court document system, and you will have to click on one of those links AGAIN after the first click results in a blank results page. The links should work after that. NOTE ALSO that those case information pages have some Acrobat files attached with additional detail. See the links on the right-hand side under the "Image" column on the court information pages.
CIV467273, CIV467741, CIV467742, CIV467743

Yale Debunks Ayres: "Our Child Psychiatrists Have Never Trained Pediatric Interns To Do Physical Exams"

We were perusing the court transcript of Dr. Ayres' testimony from the first criminal trial recently when a name caught our eye on page 30: "Al Songden." That's the child psychiatrist at Yale whom Ayres said told him "not to wear rubber gloves" when Ayres, as a pediatric intern, was conducting physical exams. Here are Ayres' exact quotes about Songden:

"But along came Al Songden, who was a child psychiatrist, a very young child psychiatrist at Yale at that time... So what happened is, he trained us. And the training I thought, was particularly useful, and I was very interested. And he said that children are scared, and don't put rubber gloves on because they're going to think that you think they're dirty, and they're going to find that strange."

That got us thinking..... would a child psychiatrist really be advising an intern in pediatrics- a completely different specialty-- on the ins and outs of a physical exam and particularly on something as specific as the wearing of rubber gloves? And wouldn't Yale's own pediatric faculty be teaching Ayres - in his one and only year of pediatrics training- on how to conduct a physical exam?

So we decided to hunt down this "Al Songden" ourselves and get it straight from the horse's mouth. But it turns out there is no "Al Songden," according to a number of old time staffers at Yale. The child psychiatrist Ayres was actually referring to was Dr. Albert Solnit, a pioneering psychiatrist at Yale's Child Study Center. Dr. Solnit died in a car crash in 2002. Still, there are a number of people around at Yale who knew Solnit well and worked with him.

First we got the scoop on Dr. Solnit from the pediatrics side at Yale. We spoke with pediatrician Dr. Howard Pearson, a 1954 graduate of Harvard Medical School who has been on the staff of pediatrics at Yale since the 1960s. Pearson knew Dr. Solnit and his work very well.

We asked Dr. Pearson if Solnit or any other child psychiatrist in the history of Yale had trained pediatric interns on how to do physical exams.

Pearson shot that one down immediately and unequivocally. "Nonsense," he said. "Child psychiatrists like Solnit, who were from the Child Study Program at Yale have had historically a very minor role with pediatrics. Pediatric residents might hear a couple of lectures by a child psychiatrist, or once in a great while a psychiatrist may be called in for a consultation, but that's it. Solnit would certainly not have been brought in to teach pediatric interns about physical exams, because at Yale, child psychiatrists don't do physical exams. It's just nonsense!!"

Ok, so having cleared that up from the pediatrics side, we moved on to the child psychiatrist's point of view at Yale. For that we sought out child psychiatrist Dr. John Showalter, who was the first Albert J. Solnit Professor at the Yale Child Study Center. Showalter told us that he was very close with Solnit. "He was like a father to me," he said.

Although Showalter is a child psychiatrist, like Ayres, he did his first year of residency as a pediatric intern at Yale. We asked him if Solnit had either trained him or talked to him about doing physical exams when he was in pediatrics.

"Solnit never talked to me about rubber gloves or physical exams, ever," recalled Showalter. "He told us how to talk to children when they were anxious or depressed and how to talk to the families. The pediatric training was left up to the pediatric faculty. During the years I knew Solnit as a child psychiatrist, he never talked to me about giving physical exams to kids. Solnit was a famous child analyst, and he never did physicals on children in therapy."

Ok then. So now we know: Ayres was making this all up about Dr. Solnit. What's also very important, to note is that both Dr. Solnit and Ayres' old boss George Gardner at Judge Baker, were first trained as pediatricians and then as child psychiatrists.

These doctors had years of training in pediatrics, while Ayres had only one measly year of pediatrics before moving on to adult psychiatry.
But for decades Ayres has been using that one measly year of pediatrics as an excuse to give his own special brand of hands on therapy to boys.

But wait!! Drs. Gardner and Solnit - who were trained as both child psychiatrists AND pediatricians- with years' more experience than Ayres- never physically examined children in therapy. They knew how dangerous and damaging that would be to a child in therapy. They understood that the specialties of child psychiatry and pediatrics are SEPARATE specialties, and needed to be kept that way. They respected the boundaries between the two specialties and didn't- as Ayres did- get them all tangled and snarled up in their heads.

But then, as we have seen with Ayres and his victims, Ayres has never respected the boundaries between anyone or anything.

As Ayres can no longer blame either Judge Baker or Yale for his pedophilia, we wonder what excuse he's gonna come up with next. Whatever it is, we'll be there, ready to fact check it to kingdom come!

Judge Baker Had A Staff Pediatrician When Ayres Was There!

We just recently got our hands on a 1964 annual report from Judge Baker Guidance Center in Boston. As readers here may remember, that's where Ayres worked from 1959-1963. Imagine our surprise when we read that Judge Baker had a staff pediatrician - as well as three nurses!!! The staff pediatrician - Josephine L. Murray is now 89 and couldn't talk to us because she is suffering from Alzheimer's and has no memory, according to our caregiver.

Still, we wanted to know if there was a staff pediatrician when Ayres was there. So we called psychologist Pauline B. Hahn, who was at Judge Baker for more than 50 years. Hahn is 86 and sharp as a tack. She's also the go- to person for people who want to know about the history of Judge Baker. Back in August, Hahn who worked at "the Baker" from the 1940s to the 1990s told us that at no time has any child psychiatrist there been permitted to give physical exams to children in therapy. Now, Hahn tells us that Judge Baker has always had a staff pediatrician!!!

Well, now. So where does that leave Ayres? Back then, was he of the mindset that pediatricians were "too quick " with exams and not thorough enough - as he actually had the gall to say at the trial in July ? Did he practise his own special brand of hands-on therapy there? It's looking increasingly likely......

And here's another interesting nugget: we talked to an educator who worked at the Manville School at Judge Baker when Ayres was there.The Manville School was the residential school for the kids at Judge Baker, and the classrooms were in the basement of the building. This man recalls that a woman named Solveig Troxel( who, in March 1962 would become Ayres' wife) taught young boys at the Manville School, and that Ayres used to come and "hang around her classroom a lot and watch the boys." I guess that's what made Solveig so attractive-like Judge Marta Diaz- she offered a pipeline to boys!!

This educator distinctly remembers that Ayres was angry at the esteemed head of Judge Baker- George E. Gardner. Gardner went to Harvard undergrad and to Harvard Medical School, had (unlike Ayres) many studies and papers published and was one of the most beloved and respected directors of Judge Baker. Still, this Judge Baker educator remembers that Ayres wrote a "scathing memo" criticizing his boss, George Gardner because Ayres thought he wasn't "paying enough attention to the Manville School." This former colleague remembers that Ayres' critical memo was circulated among the staff.

We asked former Judge Baker psychologist Pauline Hahn whether it was normal for young psychiatrists to foment dissent and be critical of Gardner. Hahn said it was unheard of. "Ayres picked the wrong person to attack!" she said. And then she told us that it was Gardner himself who had actually secured the money from a benefactor that would create the Manville School. "To say that Gardner didn't do enough for the Manville School is just NOT accurate - it's ridiculous!" she said.

So then, what possibly could be behind Ayres' attack on his far more accomplished boss? We can only wonder... Had Gardner already called Ayres to the carpet about his problems with boundary issues with boys? We know that Ayres has been vindictive towards doctors in California who spoke out against him... so was Ayres being vindictive towards Gardner for daring to speak out against his touching kids? Was this "memo" a coverup - an excuse that Ayres used to leave Judge Baker, when in fact he may have already been asked to leave? Did he not get the support from his colleagues in his attacks against Gardner?

For Ayres to leave Judge Baker "abruptly" -as Joel, one of his former patients recalls- sure seems strange. Ayres was ambitious, and according to a 1953 article in Time magazine, Judge Baker was THE place to be for child psychiatrists. According to Time, "Boston has become a hub for child psychiatry" and Judge Baker was the center of that hub.

For an ambitious doctor like Ayres to move from the hub of child psychiatry - and with its ties to Harvard Medical School - to private practise in a small town in California that most people have never heard of seems most odd indeed....

Finally, there's Ayres' own testimony during the trial on the circumstances of his leaving Judge Baker. When asked by his lawyer Doron Weinberg what he was doing in 1963, Ayres replied " I also decided-- I had been in psychoanalysis for a while in New Haven and then again in Boston. And I decided that I was not going to reapply to the Institute of Boston, who had encouraged me to finish my training and then to reapply, but that I would rather go east-- go west and enjoy the weather."

"Would rather go East..." hmm, sounds like a Freudian slip to us.

In the transcript of Ayres' testimony what strikes us as odd is that Ayres doesn't talk about his actual training at Judge Baker - the only place where he studied child psychiatry at all. In other parts, he talks about his one year of pediatric training at Yale but in the one key area- his four years of child psychiatry training- he is curiously distant and detached and pretty much mum....

Instead of referring to his time as being at Judge Baker, he refers to it as being "at Harvard." Which is really strange- because every single one of the forty or so doctors we've spoken to have who have trained at Judge Baker all call it working at Judge Baker. The reason for this is that there are about seven institutions in Boston like Judge Baker that are affiliated with Harvard, such as Mass. General or Children's Hospital. A child psychiatrist who trained at Children's Hospital says they trained at Children's Hospital. Ditto those who worked at Mass. General and of course for Judge Baker. We have yet to encounter a single child psychiatrist who has referred to his training as working at Harvard.

We suspect Ayres uses the word "Harvard" in place of Judge Baker because he's trying to prevent us from looking too closely at his time at Judge Baker. Way, way, too late for that...And a little birdy has told us we're not the only ones looking at his Boston days, either.

To be continued....

ayres' New Lawyer Doesn't Get Juror's IDs

Jonathan McDougall,  (Early 1990s style webmaster?) and new attorney for william hamilton ayres (accused of molesting many young boys under the guise of practicing "psychiatry") apparently didn't do a very good job arguing for access to juror's contact information.

I didn't go to the hearing, but it seems that Mr. Joshua Melvin of the San Mateo County Times did!

Read his article in the paper! Thanks, Mr. Melvin!

November 17th Criminal Trial Motions Hearing

[Original post date: 11/17/09 11:26am PST by Deep Sounding]

There was only one motion heard today by the court regarding the upcoming criminal retrial of william h ayres, for charges relating to his molestation of young male children under his "medical care." The motion was concerning the release of the names and contact information for the jurors (from the prior trial) to the defense attorney so that he can have an opportunity to interview them about their impressions of the trial, which ended in a mistrial.

The decision on the motion was continued until later in the month. The thrust of the discussion revolved around the prevention of the release of personal information about the jurors to the general public, and Judge Freeman provided some sensible possible alternate non-intrusive methods for the defense to consider.

-There was a surprising amount of discussion in the matter. More details to come..(probably LATE tonight though)..-

[Updated: 11/18/09 1:10pm PST by Deep Sounding]

Synopsis of the Defense motion for release of juror personal identifying information (prior to retrial of william hamilton ayres on multiple counts relating to child molestation):

ayres was not present at the hearing. His attorney, Jonathan McDougall filed an executed 977 waiver form with the court. (Waiver to allow defendant to skip showing up at routine facts/law motions, etc. -- Where ever he was, he probably wasn't using his walker. He was spotted in public two or three weeks ago using only his canes.)

The jurors were invited to appear or call a teleconference number for today’s hearing; none were present or on the phone.

Prior to the hearing, the court sent written notices to jurors and alternates asking, or briefing them on the motion, and they were provided the opportunity to respond.  The court received some written responses. These responses were sealed, as the judge indicated that several of the jurors requested continued confidentiality.  The original copies of the responses were handed to the defense and the prosecutor for review, and after review, they were sealed in an envelope immediately to protect any personal information that might be included.

Judge Freeman’s opening comments:
The judge said to McDougall that she had reviewed his papers and stated that she did not “find that you have made prima facie showing.”

She further admonished McDougall:
“You have failed to provide to the court any analysis.” She then listed about 2 cases that she had researched in the matter.
“You have failed to provide to the court any analysis.” She then listed about 2 more cases that she had researched.
“You have failed to cite to court the most recent cases on this issue.” And she proceeded to cite 2 more cases that she had found.

She appeared frustrated that she had had to do all of the necessary research in the matter, and made it sound like McDougall had done very little other than request access.  The judge said: “I don’t know if you’re prepared to respond…” and then discussed the fact that she had been left to do all the legwork.

McDougall’s response:
“The defense was more prepared that should there NOT be opposition by the jurors…. “ McDougall stumbled a bit, and said “The[ DA] had an opportunity to discuss juror deliberations” I wasn’t able to jot down his next statements in full, but basically there were two or three sentences saying that he was hoping to have the same opportunity if there was no objection.

According to McDougall’s statements after reading through the comments, at least a third of the jurors opposed any contact, and only one did not object.

McDougall then stated that he wanted to be able to address the court later with supplemental information, and then he AGAIN pointed out that the prosecutor has had the opportunity to speak with the jurors, and so if the court wanted additional information he’d be willing to provide that.


Judge’s response:
It was “not reasonable for you to assume that there would be no opposition.”  She stated that the court is aware of the number of trials that McDougall has participated in-- both as prosecutor and defense attorney, and that it was simply unreasonable of him to assume that the jurors would want to be contacted, especially in “a case that had Extraordinary public scrutiny, extraordinary press and internet exposure.” In a case in which, because of the internet coverage, the “jury was sequestered to protect the sanctity of deliberation.”


McDougall’s response:
McDougall talked a bit more about not having had the opportunity to talk to the jurors, pointing out that “At the conclusion of the case all but one [of the jurors] were willing to speak to [can’t quite make out who, as he begins mumbling and trailing off at this point...]”


The judge then continued her train of thought:
She talked about section 237 and its application, which has to do with sealing of juror information after a verdict in a trial. Although there was no verdict in this trial, the judge sealed the jury’s personal contact information, in interest of protecting their right to privacy.

She stated that she does not believe that there is threat of harm, but does want to protect their privacy. “Given the Extraordinary public scrutiny and voyeuristic watching this jury during this trial [in a blog] even talking about their facial expressions while eating lunch… “ She stated that the court must protect the jury system and she wants to protect the jurors from “open season” after the conclusion of the trial. She states her primary concern as protecting the juror’s information from release to the public.

She then cited more cases:  and states that in those cases, the courts talk about the defendant having to show jury misconduct, or other similar situations in order to get access to contact information, and that a desire to be better prepared for retrial does not qualify in breaking that anonymity.

The judge then stated that she is “going to grant your request [to do further research/submission.]”

She then stated the obvious solution, which frankly the defense should have thought of beforehand, and even I --not a lick of legal training -- was thinking at the very beginning of the hearing:

Consider asking the court to send a letter with a return postcard to the jurors to see if they’re willing to contact you.  (Thereby completely eliminating the need to release any contact information at all, leaving it up to the discretion of the individual jurors. After all, even if the court releases the information, the defense can’t compel the jurors to discuss anything.)

McDougall’s response was a somewhat happy mash of words that I half couldn’t make out, and mostly seemed irrelevant, basically a happy epiphany.

Judge’s further admonition:  

“You did not have the opportunity to speak with the jurors, but the defense did, and either took advantage of it, or did not.” She also stated that she thought he’d find probably the information that he’d get from the jurors would probably have little significant value to the case anyway.

Continued hearing set for November 30th, 8:45AM  (Yes, 8:45AM)

Prosecutor’s comment:
“Thank you, judge”

I tried not to editorialize TOO much above, so here it is:

On McDougall:

Wow… maybe I was wrong in believing that ayres has tons of money stashed away for excellent defense. On the other hand, maybe it’s all just a game; defense attorney playing dumb, hoping for a sucker punch.  Either way, it’s all around rude to file a motion like that, and leave all the work up to someone else, whether it’s a game or not. What the hell has happened to people that they’re such soul-sapping users? Birds-of-a-feather, I suppose…

On the Judge’s “Extraordinary public scrutiny” statements:

I’d have to vehemently disagree with statements that there was ”Extraordinary press and internet exposure.” In fact,  I certainly would have preferred there to be much more PRESS coverage, and NO or very limited blog coverage.  While it may not be a valid assumption, the PRESS is seen as neutral in their reporting. This blog has an obvious bias, and will always have to contend with the issue of truth and veracity in reporting.

In this case, the print press coverage was minimal, and at times was only based on conversations with prosecution or defense outside of court, not actual reporters in the courtroom. There was not daily coverage by the press. There was virtually NO television coverage, as cameras were barred from the courtroom, and therefore they were uninterested in the story.  While I personally was grateful that there were no cameras in the courtroom, and feel that those victims who testified were probably relieved as well, I DO think that the case deserves sensational public scrutiny:

This animal was a former president of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; he was lauded by the county and elsewhere as a preeminent practitioner in his field, and specifically as a child and adolescent psychiatrist. He was even the chair of the Work Group on Quality Issues in writing a paper for the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry called “Practice Parameters for the Forensic Evaluation of Children and Adolescents Who May Have Been Physically or Sexually Abused” which is still considered to be an important guide in the practice, and was even used as a source for expert testimony in his own trial, by experts in his field.  There were several opportunities that the county had over the years to stop this animal from damaging other kids.

Let me repeat: The animal used his position and his profession to gain access to and to molest young males. They county could have stopped this. Because they failed repeatedly, more young children were damaged, quite probably irreparably in many cases.

This case SHOULD be sensational, subject to extraordinary public scrutiny, with detailed proceedings covered every day in the press.  It was not anywhere near this level of coverage.  The public needs to be aware of the methods, the excuses, the incompetent colleagues who cover for him, unwittingly or not, and the county who looks the other way because of the prominence of people in this position. They need to be aware so that they can protect their own kids. Assuming that someone out there is looking out for them is a horrid mistake, and they need to be reminded of this.

As usual, the press has been mostly reactive in this case, when covered at all. There was a small blurb in the San Mateo Daily Journal today about the story. They were not present at the hearing -- they phoned in a question to someone at the DA’s office who was not at the hearing either -- and then wrote up a story. (They did spend some time yesterday watching this blog though.) Not exactly what I would call “extraordinary press.”  I actually like the SM Daily Journal. I just wish I could rely on them to cover the story, rather than the other way around.

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: Before there was blog coverage of this case, I would scrape and scour the internet and news stories to see what was going on, and it would sometimes be days or weeks of stressful watching and waiting before I’d have an update. I know for a fact that there are victims out there who are watching (mostly silently) for some sense of closure… to know that there were others, to know what’s going to happen to the animal. I know that because I was one of them. I wish I was not the one to do this update. Mostly I get criticism and hate for my efforts. I wish the San Mateo Daily Journal or the Chronicle or the Mercury News was there every day printing the important details of the trial, and I could just pick it up, and have some confidence that the next day I would not be left in the dark.

I think that there’s a pervasive undertone that “the public doesn’t need to hear all of this stuff” in San Mateo County, and I think that’s pretty wrong.

There are only a small handful of blogs out there which are covering the trial with any regularity. A couple of them publish articles fairly infrequently, but do a fantastic job when they do. One of those DOES have a fairly wide readership, but mostly NOT in the San Mateo area, I’d guess; and given the frequency of their postings, I’d not readily call that “Extraordinary exposure.” 

Unfortunately,  this blog does not have anywhere close to the readership that the other blog gets, and even with the relatively low readership, the physical location of the coverage is very scattered, with 90% or more of the readers coming from well outside the bay area, so again I’d not call THAT “extraordinary exposure” either, ESPECIALLY on the local level.

I have to admit feeling a bit prideful when I first heard this, but in reality, that was vastly misplaced pride – it simply isn’t “extraordinary exposure.”  I think that it may feel that way, because of the relative proximity of the (majority) of the readers of this blog to the core issues – the professionals involved in the case, the victims and people who know the victims,  and the defense and a small handful of similar-minded perverts searching for child pornography and defending molesters.

I think on this matter, the judge is just plain wrong.

On the judge's “voyeuristic watching this jury” statement:

OK. Probably a valid criticism.

The trial was long and difficult, and the empty void while tensely waiting for results needed to be filled, and it WAS a relief to get those reports about the jury looking happy, or cohesive, but clearly it caused more tension than was intended.

I certainly would NOT encourage any kind of “open season” on any of the jurors, as the judge stated that she was worried about. I have said before that I’m ONLY interested in exposing the offender and those who publicly support him, and only those people, and that’s where I still stand on the issue.

My opinion about the release of juror information:
I think the rules are set up well. I hope the defense takes advantage of the postcard idea, it’s the least intrusive. If the jurors don’t want to talk to the defense, using their personal contact information to hound them won’t gain him anything, and hopefully he’s smart enough to figure that out.  I don’t think the information that he gets is going to be that useful at this point.

If the jurors really want to talk to him, they could probably just call him. They know that he wants to talk to them, and I’d bet he’s got his phone number printed somewhere.  He’d probably even pay for their lunch.I don't know if I'd want to be seen having lunch with him. I suspect that if any of the jurors really had any interest in talking to him, they'd have done so already. I'm betting the well is dry...

On the Hearing in general:
The judge bitch-slapped the defense pretty handily. Ultimately, like everything else we’ve seen, I think she’s going to have to grant him access in one way or another, lest he whine about not being able to put on a good defense.

URGENT: ayres Hearing TODAY, Tuesday the 17th of November

[Original post date: 11/16/09 11:04am PST by Deep Sounding]

URGENT: HEARING TODAY
Tuesday, November 17th 2009 at 9:00am PST:   
Pre-Trial Motions in Jury Retrial of william ayres on 9 counts of child molestation.
 
There are motions filed by william hamilton ayres' attorney Little Johnny MacD in the case against ayres for multiple counts of child molestation. These motions will be heard tomorrow. 

We don't know how many motions there are, or if there are more than one, but one has to do with the release of the names and contact information of the jurors in the last trial to the defense, we presume so that the new attorney can contact them to try to interview them.


 
Superior Court Clerk's office: 650-599-1170
ayres' criminal case number: SC064366

October Wrap Up: Boston Police looking for Ayres Victims, Upcoming San Mateo Hearings

[Original post date: 11/03/09 5:30am PST by Deep Sounding] 
On October 27th, 2009 we received a request from Sgt. Detective John Donovan, from the  Boston Police Crimes Against Children Unit requesting that any victims of child molestation by william hamilton ayres from the time that he was "practicing medicine" in Boston please contact him:

Boston Police
Crimes Against Children Unit
617-343-6183, 617-343-6186
DonovanJ.bpd@cityofboston.gov

I, Sgt. Det. John Donovan , am the Supervisor in the BPD CACU. I just recently became aware of this blog site.
If there are any victims out there or anyone that can provide any information on incidents that happened in Boston, MA, please contact me and or the Suffolk County DA CPT 617-619-4300. 
Please pass this info on.

UPDATE: 04/16/2010: We have received the following update contact info from the Boston PD - Robin Demarco is the new contact for Boston victims of william ayres:

Please note these are the corrected phone numbers for Sgt. Detective Robin Demarco at the Boston Police Department's Crimes Against Children Unit:

Office number: 617-343-6186 or 617-343-6183. Cell phone: 617-877-3698.

Email: DemarcoR.bpd@cityofboston.gov.




According to blogger Trapellar's calculations this would probably put the victims roughly in the mid 50's to early 60's age range. Trapellar also points out that Boston has a "Stop The Clock" law, which means that if they find a victim of ayres  from Massachusetts, they can prosecute ayres no matter how far back the abuse was. The Massachusetts District Attorney's office has successfully prosecuted priests who molested boys in the 1950s under this law.

Upcoming Court Dates: 

Civil Case Motions and Hearings:

As a result of the last civil cases Case Management Hearings, there is a motion to be heard, and another case management hearing to set a date for trial:


Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 9:00am PST
(In Dept. PJ courtroom):


A motion by the plaintiff's attorneys for relief from a stay of discovery will be heard.

Friday, December 18, 2009 at 9:00am PST
(In Dept. 28 courtroom):

Continued Case Management hearing, the attorneys have been advised to bring their calendars to set a trial date. CIV467273, CIV467741, CIV467742, CIV467743 

NOTE: there is a glitch with links into the court document system, and you will have to click on one of those links AGAIN after the first click results in a blank results page. The links should work after that. NOTE ALSO that those case information pages have some Acrobat files attached with additional detail. See the links on the right-hand side under the "Image" column on the court information pages.
Superior Court Civil Division: 650-363-4576

Criminal Re-Trial of william hamilton ayres on charges relating to child molestation:

Friday, April 2nd 2010 at 1:30pm PST:   
Pre-Trial Hearing for Jury Retrial of william ayres on 9 counts of child molestation.
This is the pretrial hearing date set during the October 9, 2009 hearing. Judge Beth Freeman stated that NO RULINGS would be made during this pretrial hearing, but that counsels should be prepared with written motions, jury questionnaire wording, number of alternate jurors required, approximate trial duration requirements, discussion of witness scheduling and timing, etc... She further stated that as no rulings would be made, ayres himself is excused from being present in the courtroom during the pretrial hearing.
Superior Court Clerk's office: 650-599-1170
ayres' criminal case number: SC064366

Friday, April 12th 2010:   
Jury Retrial of william ayres on 9 counts of child molestation.
This is the Jury Retrial date set during the October 9, 2009 hearing. Judge Beth Freeman stated that this is a FIRM date with respect to defense readiness, and ayres' attorney Jonathan McDougall is expected to have his defense ready to go by this date. The judge noted that external events could still cause a continuance of the trial date. NOTE: The Associated Press has reported an incorrect date of April 21, 2010, and that incorrect date has been repeated by hundreds of news outlets.
Superior Court Clerk's office: 650-599-1170
ayres' criminal case number: SC064366

October Case Management Hearing: William Ayres Molestation Civil Cases

[Original post date: 10/28/09 1:45pm PST by Deep Sounding]
The Case Management hearing for some of the civil cases against william hamilton ayres, (“john doe 1”) with multiple accusations relating to his molestation of his “patients,” was heard today, just before 10am in courtroom 2F by Superior Court Judge George A. Miram.

Mr. Carcione, the lawyer for three of the plaintiffs, was present in the courtroom and the lawyer for the other plaintiff was on the conference phone. Also on the conference phone were the several of “john doe 1’s” lawyers. There were two members of the public in support of the victims present in the courtroom. Neither “john doe 1” nor “Svea Schwein” were present. As always, there was no press present. (Who needs press when you have dumb-ass gadflies always hanging around in the courtroom, blogging it for free… right?)

Mr. Carcione has filed for a motion to have a stay of discovery lifted, as suggested by the judge at the last case management hearing, now that “john doe 1” himself has testified in the criminal case, and his 5th amendment plea status in the civil trials is now changed. That motion will be heard on December 8, 2009. Unfortunately, the judge was hoping that this motion would have been ruled on by the date of today’s case management hearing.

Mr. Carcione asked to schedule a trial date, stating that he is “Ready for Trial.” The judge agreed and wanted to set a date in October 2010 for trial.

The defense lawyers immediately began arguing that setting the court date at this time is premature, given the fact that the motion had been completed prior to today’s hearing. That tactic did not seem to sway the judge from wanting to set a trial date which “would be the same date as the one that would be set” after another (pointless) case management hearing.

Suddenly deciding to try another tactic, one of the defense attorneys interrupted “OH!... Sorry to interrupt your honor…” she then stated that she “noted” that in the documents submitted prior this hearing “there is an additional defendant in the case who has been served, but not yet appeared…” She was referring to “John Doe 2” -- who has been listed in case management submissions for more than a year.  Stumped by this statement, the judge said that all named defendants were served more than a year ago.  Carcione confirmed this, as did the other plaintiff’s attorney, who also clarified for everyone present exactly who the John Doe 2 defendant is. Discussion proceeded on this red hearing until the defense lawyer finally issued an only half apologetic "my bad." (something to that effect, anyway...)

The judge appeared a bit frustrated that the plaintiffs had not yet completed the motion for relief, but he was clearly very irate with the defense lawyers bickering and making inaccurate statements.  He told the defense attorneys that it was likely that there would be no change in court date, as he would be setting the same trial date at the next hearing anyway, and he would track the trial “normally.”( Not allowing an extended trial date if it was to wait until another case management hearing.) He kept insisting that another case management hearing would be a waste of the court’s time (and the defendant’s money) but they continued bickering.

“You’re reading things into this that I REALLY don’t appreciate!”  The judge said at one point, just before ruling.

Ultimately the judge said that since the motion should have been completed by now, and since the defense wasn’t getting his point,  he reluctantly set a continuance of the case management hearing to one week after the motion hearing. 

The next case management hearing is December 18, 2009 at 9am. He said: “I’m going to be setting your trial date” and told them to be prepared with their calendars.

Case numbers for four of the civil cases against ayres on charges including and relating to: child molestation and fraud perpetrated in the guise of providing "medical care" with the intent to molest: CIV467273, CIV467741, CIV467742, CIV467743 

NOTE: there is a glitch with links into the court document system, and you will have to click on one of those links AGAIN after the first click results in a blank results page. The links should work after that. NOTE ALSO that those case information pages have some Acrobat files attached with additional detail. See the links on the right-hand side under the "Image" column on the court information pages.

Superior Court Civil Division: 650-363-4576

Case management in civil cases continued to Dec. 18 2009. Trial date likely to be set then. More to follow.

Boston Police Crimes Against Children Unit: Looking for Ayres Victims

[Original post date: 10/27/09 11:40am PST by Deep Sounding]  
[Updated post: 10/29/09 11:40am PST by Deep Sounding] 


Please note: I've received an update from Sgt. Detective Donovan, the correct number for the Suffolk County DA is: 617-619-4300. I've updated it below, as well.


We just received the following comment from Sgt. Detective John Donovan of the Boston Police Crimes Against Children Unit:

Boston Police
Crimes Against Children Unit
617-343-6183, 617-343-6186
DonovanJ.bpd@cityofboston.gov

I, Sgt. Det. John Donovan , am the Supervisor in the BPD CACU. I just recently became aware of this blog site.
If there are any victims out there or anyone that can provide any information on incidents that happened in Boston, MA, please contact me and or the Suffolk County DA CPT 617-619-4300. (phone number corrected 10/29/2009)
Please pass this info on.

Let me add a personal note about contacting the police about these kinds of crimes:

I’m 40ish years old; within the range of ages that men usually start to really deal with this kind of childhood crime against them. I can’t speak to reporting crimes in Boston, but I imagine that it’s similar to the experience that I had.

For me,  It was a difficult experience to talk to the police, but it has been liberating and focusing at the same time. I believe that it is the right course to take to begin bringing everything into perspective. I have also found that they seem to know exactly what I’m going through, and were not generally surprised or confrontational about what they heard from me, on the contrary, it is reassuring to find that the fears and concerns I mentioned are common.

Week of October 26: Upcoming Hearing

[Original post date: 10/26/09 11:40am PST by Deep Sounding]

THIS Wednesday: Civil Suits Hearing
October 28th 2009 9:00am PST, Dept 28:
(Confirmed time with the court clerk on Mon, Oct 26th at 11am)

Case Management hearing for four of the civil cases against ayres on charges including and relating to: child molestation and fraud perpetrated in the guise of providing "medical care" with the intent to molest: CIV467273, CIV467741, CIV467742, CIV467743 

My guess is that this Case Management hearing will be continued until sometime soon after the estimated conclusion of the criminal retrial of Ayres.

NOTE: there is a glitch with links into the court document system, and you will have to click on one of those links AGAIN after the first click results in a blank results page. The links should work after that. NOTE ALSO that those case information pages have some Acrobat files attached with additional detail. See the links on the right-hand side under the "Image" column on the court information pages.

Superior Court Civil Division: 650-363-4576


Friday, April 2nd 2010 at 1:30pm PST:   
(Pre-Trial Hearing for Jury Retrial of william ayres on 9 counts of child molestation.)
This is the pretrial hearing date set during the October 9, 2009 hearing. Judge Beth Freeman stated that NO RULINGS would be made during this pretrial hearing, but that counsels should be prepared with written motions, jury questionnaire wording, number of alternate jurors required, approximate trial duration requirements, discussion of witness scheduling and timing, etc... She further stated that as no rulings would be made, ayres himself is excused from being present in the courtroom during the pretrial hearing.
Superior Court Clerk's office: 650-599-1170
ayres' criminal case number: SC064366

Friday, April 12th 2010:   
(Jury Retrial of william ayres on 9 counts of child molestation.)
This is the Jury Retrial date set during the October 9, 2009 hearing. Judge Beth Freeman stated that this is a FIRM date with respect to defense readiness, and ayres' attorney Jonathan McDougall is expected to have his defense ready to go by this date. The judge noted that external events could still cause a continuance of the trial date. NOTE: The Associated Press has reported an incorrect date of April 21, 2010, and that incorrect date has been repeated by hundreds of news outlets.
Superior Court Clerk's office: 650-599-1170
ayres' criminal case number: SC064366

Robert Goolrick's article on Polanski Revisited

I recently posted a brief article on a coincidence of news stories relating to a variety of high-profile sexual abuses, and the frustration I’ve been feeling related to people’s reactions to these stories. I pointed to a blog article posted by author Robert Goolrick,  who really did a great job of summing his frustrations, which closely match my own.

Robert sent us the following comment recently:

Thanks so much for directing people to my piece about Polanski. Child molesters are filled with excuses. His, the fact that he is to be forgiven because he is an artist, is perhaps the most horrible and unforgivable one ever.

My father was drunk. I find that easier to accept.

I tried to write about my own experience and its aftermath in my memoir, THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT. People think of child rape as an occurrence, not as a never-ending trauma that leaves the victim gasping for breath for decades.

There is also an excellent two-part film, called "The Boys of St. Vincent," directed by John Smith, made for Canadian television, but never shown, due to intervention by the Catholic Church. It is the single most powerful exploration of the subject of child abuse I have ever seen. It was of enormous help to me in understanding what had happened, and why things turned out the way they did.

In light of Goolrick’s email to me,  I returned to his original posting and read through most of the comments that people have made about his article. I’ll take this opportunity to re-visit some of my thoughts, which I did NOT express in my original pointer to his article.

First, I’d urge readers to go back to Robert’s posting now that some time has passed and read the comments that others have posted. Read them very carefully, and give them some thought.  Notice that in many cases, even the comments which appear to support the victim in the Polanski rape are perhaps unwitting excuses; they point to the victim’s parents with additional blame, they point to the extreme maturity, or conversely immaturity of the victim.  Some grapple with the (extreme) hardships Polanski has faced in his own life.  All too often it seems that even the victim’s supporters seem to find ways to soften the uncomfortable reality.

While many of the excuses discussed may indeed be factors that came into play during the commission of the crimes, they do not relieve Polanski of any responsibility. They are more subtle than the excuse that he’s an artist, and therefore he’s earned some kind of bye; but ultimately they are still just methods that people are using to soften impact of the horror of the crimes committed by a very sick man, of his own volition. Polanski was not forced to commit the crimes. The victim, even if she was overly precocious, did not cause Polanski to override his boundaries to commit a horrid crime against a child: Polanski did that all on his own.  Polanski’s pain, in looking back at the horrors which occurred in his own life, does not give him justification to impose horrors on a young child.

I think the thought that the victim was “just young and dumb” and therefore is “blameless” is an interesting comment made in response to Goolrick’s article.  In an insidious way, this is actually a statement of blame, because the converse is this: If the victim hadn’t been so stupid, she would have prevented the rape, and therefore Polanski’s troubles in having to deal with all of this is her fault! To some extent I believe that the person who wrote that comment does actually support the victim: I think that facing the raw, evil nature of an adult man doing this to a child, and having to face the thought that the child will live with this well beyond the commission of the crime is simply impossible for most people to do without trying to soften the blow: they need to make the crime something less horrible, less raw, less connected to themselves; so that it becomes something that they will NEVER have to deal with in their own lives. Spread the blame, and the crime becomes something that you are not likely to experience.  Make the victim dumber or more sexually precocious than your kids are, and the crime will never happen to your kids. Blame the parents for being more permissive than you are, and it will never happen to your kids.

It’s well past time for everyone to wake up.

This stuff happens all the time. And people are getting away with it because we are all running around saying that it’s not so bad, that the blame is shared, and that the perpetrators are good people otherwise, and that that should count for something.    As Robert says above:  “People think of child rape as an occurrence, not as a never-ending trauma that leaves the victim gasping for breath for decades..”  It is the continued excuse-making that helps to perpetuate the victim’s pain.

The Polanski case is especially thorny for me, because the victim is so vocally stating some things that we all feel in coping with this kind of abuse; but it is probably not a correct feeling: it is the result of the trauma, causing a misplaced feeling of guilt that we are responsible for our hurt and the hurt that our families have experienced. I think that the most insidious problem with this kind of case can be summed up with just one of the comments on Robert Goolrick’s article:

Virtute said:

I comprehend the circumstances of child rape, I was a victim of repeated rape at the age of 8. For much of a year, I spent every day and night waiting to see if it would be that day or the next when I would be raped again. I am now 40 and rarely a moment has passed in my life when the events of my 8th-9th years do not impact me.

However, I support the victim, [victim’s name redacted] when she begs not to have to face this whole issue again, when she asks the D.A. of Los Angeles not to have to deal with the case. She says that each time Polanski is in the news all attention turns to her, she must confront her rape again and it hurts her, her husband and her children.

I have never met a victim of child abuse that does not wish they could put it all aside, place it on a shelf somewhere and be at peace. Statements by [victim’s name redacted] indicate that the events of over 30 years ago are only a problem for her when she must confront them again, that is reason enough to let the issue alone.

Polanski can never be excused, never. He should however be set free so that his victim doesn't have to go through with this again. Set the charges aside, cease to prosecute them, not for Polanski, for [victim’s name redacted].

Note that the commenter says “rarely a moment has passed in my life when the events of my 8th-9th years do not impact me.”   Yet the commenter later goes on to say that the Polanski rape victim indicates “that the events of over 30 years ago are only a problem for her when she must confront them again, that is reason enough to let the issue alone.”  Here’s the insidious problem with this kind of crime:   The commenter has acknowledged (as I do) that the problems associated with this kind of crime last a lifetime:   “rarely a moment has passed... when the events... do not impact me.” While neither of us can speak for the victim of Polanski’s rape,  I think it’s a safe guess that the issue comes up very much more often than just when the story is in the press.  And yet, the natural reaction to “protect the victim” is to say: let’s not deal with the issue, let’s let the perpetrator go, so that the victim doesn’t have to suffer any more. This is a false hope. The victim will suffer more as this drags through court again, whether she is there to testify or not. The victim will also suffer more if the case does not drag through the court again.  But to be sure: the fact that her name and photo are plastered all over, and people discuss her flaws and her parent’s flaws, while calling Polanski a great artist can’t possibly be helping her either:

According to an article in the Huffington Post:

Now a wife and mother of three children, [victim’s name redacted] said that the insistence by prosecutors and the court that Polanski must appear in person to seek dismissal "is a joke, a cruel joke being played on me."

[Victim’s name redacted] said she believes prosecutors are reciting sexually explicit details of the case to distract from their office's own wrongdoing 31 years ago.

[She] was disappointed that the district attorney "has, yet one more time, given great publicity to the lurid details of those events for all to read again."

And according to the NY Daily News:

[Victim’s name redacted] said Polanski had paid, and she wanted to move on and stop reliving the details of the assault every time he made headlines.

"True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me, my beloved husband, my three children and my mother," she said.

In the end, she was relieved when Polanski fled because reporters stopped calling.
"He did something really gross to me, but it was the media that ruined my life," she told People in 1997.

In fact, what really is going on here is not so much that the victim has necessarily “moved on.”  “Setting the charges aside, ceasing to prosecute them” as the commenter suggests could potentially do more damage than good to the victim.  It is very unfortunate that the victim’s name has been used in the press all these years. Clearly she is crying for relief from the press coverage.  She had this horrible thing done to her, and then has had further and continuous damage done to her by people who continue to drag her name through the mud, while at the same time praising the great “artist” who raped her, confirming the twisted feelings she's having that cause her so much guilt and shame. Ultimately , I  think that perhaps the best outcome would be for the victim to see the perpetrator locked up for his crimes, without her name mentioned, and without her picture splashed all over the news.  Unfortunately, we can’t go back in time and undo that damage, but she may yet get some rest from it all if justice is finally served.  I suspect that the victim’s hope of never having to deal with any of this anymore, and seeing Polanski “be set free so that his victim doesn't have to go through with this again” are two very different things.

I think that seeing the perpetrator go free would only perpetuate the victim’s horrid fear that perhaps all of the perpetrator’s supporters are correct: that he is more worthy, that he is a better human than she, that she is just stupid, that her parents are worthless, and that she doesn’t deserve justice because she was more precocious than she should have been. That is what childhood victims of these kinds of crime fear every day; that is why they re-live the ordeal all the time; that is why they sometimes make excuses for the perpetrator, and that is why they often lie, and say:"it’s no big deal."

And maybe that thought makes you defensive, disbelieving, perhaps even angry. Face the discomfort and be vigilant against people who will use your goodwill against children; Be vigilant against the perpetrator's peers who, by their propensity to look the other way allow the perpetrator to have continued access to their target victims. Stop blindly trusting people who haven’t demonstrated that they are trustworthy, and stop providing excuses to the guilty: you’re only adding to the guilt and pain that the victims are feeling.

When I talk about this, I get that blank look: people don’t understand what I’m talking about. It has to be one of the least known and least accepted, and yet very well documented and clinically understood set of behaviors associated with victims of childhood sexual abuse.  I guess I can’t say it any more plainly. I’m at a loss… but I’m also positive that I’m not the one who’s wrong…

Now This Is the Way To Do It: Arrested in March 2009, Convicted in October 2009: Ohio Pediatrician Found Guilty of Molesting Boys

Kudos to the state of Ohio for their very swift prosecution of pediatrician Dr. Mark Blankenburg, who was arrested this past March for molesting young boys. Yesterday, a mere seven months after his arrest, a jury convicted Blankenburg on 16 counts of molestation. (Any chance we can import that Ohio jury to San Mateo?)

His identical twin brother Dr. Scott Blankenburg was also charged with multiple charges of molestation and will be tried in April.

You'll need a strong stomach to view this photo of the twins kissing in court after the verdict was announced.

Here's one of many stories that are out today about the conviction:

From Channel 9 news in Ohio
US Pediatrician Found Guilty of Molesting Boys


A pediatrician was convicted Friday of 16 sex charges stemming from accusations he and his twin brother used their Ohio practice to molest boys and teenagers for over 20 years.

Mark and Scott Blankenburg, 53, collectively faced 76 charges of engaging in sex crimes with minors at their practice in the industrial city of Hamilton.Prosecutors said they slipped money and prescription drugs to the patients after the episodes.

The counts also involve drug trafficking, child pornography, bribery and money laundering.


Mark Blankenburg was tried first and a jury found him guilty of four counts of corrupting a minor, three counts of compelling prostitution, three child pornography counts and six sexual assault counts.

The judge will rule on the 25 remaining counts, a court spokeswoman said.

The alleged incidents remained secret for years and only emerged following a two-year investigation into allegations that Blankenburg was providing improper prescriptions to minors.

Authorities found what they called "child erotica" at the home shared by the twin pediatricians, who were known to take photographs at a local high school's athletic events.

According to the Kentucky Post, the 40,000 to 50,000 images seized from the home of Blankenburg were called "child erotica" by a child sex exploitation expert at the trial.

Dr. Cooper defined "child erotica as visual, written or physical depictions that provide a sexual fantasy for an individual extremely interested in children. She said pictures don't have to contain nude images or explicit sexual behavior.

"For example, a swim coach who might have a preferential interest in children might have in his possession numerous pictures of children in swim wear, swimming or at swim meet," she stated. "Those images are not illegal in our country, but they do serve a specific source of sexual gratification for a person with a preferential interest in children."

After spending hours reviewing images for prosecutors in Dr. Mark Blankenburg's case, Dr. Cooper formed an expert opinion on what she had seen. "These images are consistent with the term ‘child erotica,’" she said over and over again from the witness stand.

She said one photograph was of the backside of an adolescent male in a football uniform. Another showed a shirtless male soccer player by himself bending over with the camera focusing on the posterior area of his body. A third involved a boy without a shirt, but the camera focused on the swim trunks or shorts he was wearing.

Gee, as we were reading this we started thinking about how things in the Ayres trial might have been a whole lot different had the San Mateo PD thought to get the search warrant for those nude boy books. But kudos to to the Hamilton County, Ohio PD for succeeding in getting the right search warrant in the Blankenburg case.

And here are some poignant quotes from an Associated Press story from one of Blankenburg's victims who testified:

One of the accusers who testified against Mark Blankenburg also was there and said the trial had been tough, but the verdict was very important to him. The Associated Press does not identify sexual assault victims.

"Every time I heard a guilty it was like I felt a jolt run through me," he said.The accuser said a big part of his life has now been put behind him.

"I can start over," he said.

And speaking of doctors who give out "improper prescriptions to minors" anyone hear about the Ayres victim from the 60's who was given codeine by Ayres whenever he asked for it?

The Commission on Judicial Performance Takes Action Against Ayres Pal Judge Marta Diaz

You all remember San Mateo Juvenile Judge Marta Diaz? You know, the judge who according to a top source in the San Mateo District Attorney's office told the San Mateo Police Department during their investigation into Ayres back in 2002 : "You better be real careful, because Bill Ayres and I are friends?" Well, it seems as if that bizarre loyalty of hers towards the accused pedophile has gotten her into hot water with the State of California Commission on Judicial Performance.

Case in point: this past March, reporter John Roemer from the legal paper, the San Francisco Daily Journal asked Judge Diaz about her friendship with Ayres. Here's an excerpt from that interview:

Not everyone is a fan. Diaz is among a number of county officials who have come under fire recently for referring juveniles to a child psychiatrist who was later charged with molesting three young male patients. Dr. William Ayres is set to stand trial later this year. Local government watchdog Michael G. Stogner, of Belmont, has insisted that county officials, including Diaz, continued sending patients to Ayres, despite knowing about the accusations. New York-based journalist and victims’ advocate, Victoria Balfour, has accused Diaz of protecting Ayres. Diaz shrugged off the attacks. "Stogner and Balfour have this little jihad against me," she said. "I don’t care. I know it’s all bullshit. All will come out."
____
Well, after that interview was published, it seems that some citizens did not take too kindly to a sitting judge like Diaz throwing around words like "jihad" and "bullshit." So they performed their civic duty by contacting the State of California's Commission on Judicial Performance about Diaz.

And the Commission took their complaints about Diaz very seriously. One citizen just received a letter from a staff counsel member at the Commission concerning the Diaz imbroglio that said,

"The Commission has considered the matter and taken an appropriate action." The letter went on to say that "Commission members Honorable Katherine Feinstein and Mr. Peter Flores were recused from the matter."

Finally, the staff counsel wrote, "The Commission has asked me to express its appreciation for your advising us about this matter. Bringing this matter to our attention has served a useful purpose."

The citizen who received the letter also spoke today with the staff counsel who wrote the letter. The counsel told the citizen that although all further details about the action taken against Diaz were confidential, the Commission would be talking about the action taken against Judge Diaz in their annual report in a "cryptic manner."

Those of us at this blog are very glad that an outside entity finally took action against Judge Diaz. Both the San Mateo Citizens Review Panel and the San Mateo Civil Grand Jury last year heard testimony about Diaz's disturbing interfering behavior in the Ayres case, and although they were horrified, they passed the buck and tried to refer the matter to another entity. We see this as a giant step in the right direction.

And please note that both former juvenile judges Pat Bresee and Margaret Kemp have apologized to the public about sending boys to Ayres. Not Diaz. Instead of apologizing, she attacks citizens and spouts curse words. Judging from her defensiveness, all we can think is, What is Diaz hiding?

Upcoming William Ayres Molestation Court Dates - Civil and Criminal

[Original post date: 10/13/09 09:30am PST by Deep Sounding]

Wednesday, October 28th 2009 9:00am PST:
(We originally reported this day as a Friday, but obviously it's a WEDNESDAY. Sorry about that.)

Case Management hearing for four of the civil cases against ayres on charges including and relating to: child molestation and fraud perpetrated in the guise of providing "medical care" with the intent to molest: CIV467273, CIV467741, CIV467742, CIV467743 

NOTE: there is a glitch with links into the court document system, and you will have to click on one of those links AGAIN after the first click results in a blank results page. The links should work after that. NOTE ALSO that those case information pages have some Acrobat files attached with additional detail. See the links on the right-hand side under the "Image" column on the court information pages.

Superior Court Civil Division: 650-363-4576


Friday, April 2nd 2010 at 1:30pm PST:   
(Pre-Trial Hearing for Jury Retrial of william ayres on 9 counts of child molestation.)
This is the pretrial hearing date set during the October 9, 2009 hearing. Judge Beth Freeman stated that NO RULINGS would be made during this pretrial hearing, but that counsels should be prepared with written motions, jury questionnaire wording, number of alternate jurors required, approximate trial duration requirements, discussion of witness scheduling and timing, etc... She further stated that as no rulings would be made, ayres himself is excused from being present in the courtroom during the pretrial hearing.
Superior Court Clerk's office: 650-599-1170
ayres' criminal case number: SC064366

Friday, April 12th 2010:   
(Jury Retrial of william ayres on 9 counts of child molestation.)
This is the Jury Retrial date set during the October 9, 2009 hearing. Judge Beth Freeman stated that this is a FIRM date with respect to defense readiness, and ayres' attorney Jonathan McDougall is expected to have his defense ready to go by this date. The judge noted that external events could still cause a continuance of the trial date. NOTE: The Associated Press has reported an incorrect date of April 21, 2010, and that incorrect date has been repeated by hundreds of news outlets.
Superior Court Clerk's office: 650-599-1170
ayres' criminal case number: SC064366