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

Date for Re-Trial of William H. Ayres on Child Molestation Charges Set.

[Original post date: 10/09/09 12:16pm PST by Deep Sounding]

[Minor Edits:  10/09/09 06:20pm PST by Deep Sounding: 
Updates appear in green, editorial in blue]

The Third Time's A Charm:
On its third attempt, the People got a date commitment from the defense. Jonathan McDougall proposed a trial date of April 12th, 2010, and had prepared an extensive statement regarding the work that he had to do to be ready for trial. The prosecutor agreed with the date without any objection. (Those of us in the peanut gallery discussed this a bit beforehand: While it is a bitter pill to swallow, we don't want the defense weasels to come back and say that they were not allowed enough time to prepare. Again we see that ayres does continue to get exactly what he's paying for... more time. In the end, it may work to our advantage. The bureaucratic machine yields for no man...)
NOTE: The Associated Press has incorrectly transposed the numbers in the date, and the April 21st date that they are reporting is INCORRECT. (See my notes on the bottom of this post.) Two mainstream press sites that have it correct are here and here. (Although the Mercury News is also reporting it incorrectly in another spot on their site.)

The judge thanked McDougall for his efforts in preparing his information based on the "enormity of the written record", and reluctantly granted the April 12th, 2010 retrial date, stating her clear preference for an earlier trial date. She further specified that it is a FIRM date with regard to the defense readiness, and stipulated that of course there are other outside influences that could result in further continuance.

The judge set a pre-trial conference for April 2nd at 1:30pm to discuss the mechanics of the trial. She stated that NO RULINGS would be made, but that counsels should be prepared with written motions, discussion about jury questionnaire wording, discussion about number of alternate jurors required, approximate trial duration requirements, discussion of witness timing, etc... Judge Freeman further stated that as no rulings would be made, ayres himself is excused from being present in the courtroom during the pre-trial hearing if he so desires.

Trial will run 5 days per week this time, with the obvious exception of holidays and mandatory court closure days.

The defense filed a motion to seal 3 exhibits that are apparently some of ayres' medical records. The judge did not ask if there were any objections, and granted the motion to seal the records based on properly submitted paperwork. Those three exhibits are now sealed. (My speculation here is that given ayres' lucid reminiscence of all things pedophile during his own testimony in the last trial, they don't want medical records to highlight the "loss of memory" stunt that Weinberg pulled. Probably they'll have some new medical evidence to replace it.)

The defense then filed a motion to reduce bail, and pointedly argued that this case was abnormal due to the length of time it has taken (everyone seems to love irony, don't they?) The Mercury News story from later this afternoon claims that the argument was that ayres is not a "danger to public safety" and is not a "flight risk." I heard it much differently: while McDougall did mention flight risk in passing as one of the "four factors" listed in his filing, he actually stated in court that he was NOT going to argue those four factors, and instead focused almost exclusively on the fact that the trial has been dragging on for so long, and that it's a hardship to ayres. Funny how everyone picks up on something different.


The prosecutor was VERY opposed to this motion, stating that bail was already well below schedule for ayres, and that the motion to reduce bail has been made unsuccessfully a number of times over the life of the case [since the original reduction] and that there was no change in circumstances that would merit a reduction in bail.

The judge denied the bail reduction stating that there has been no significant change to circumstances.

[Yet Another Press Snafu: 10/09/2009, 8:40pm PST]:
The  Contra Costa Times  (as of their update at 2:45pm PST) is reporting the trial date as April 21. This is an incorrect transposition of numbers. The correct date is April 12th. They attribute this information to http://www.sanmateotimes.com which of course is not correct either...that appears to be a non-functioning address at this time.

I think they mean: http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes but one can never be too sure.

[Update: 10/09/2009 9:40pm PST]:
And of course, now the Contra Costa Times errors have propagated to other linked online fish-wrappers: see the San Luis Obispo Tribune.  And even CBS is in on the game...

Round and round the errant bits flow... where they stop, only Vinton Cerf knows...

[Update: 10/09/2009 10:00pm PST]:

And at these places:
The San Francisco Chronicle
Examiner
KRON 

[Update: 10/09/2009 10:35pm PST]:

Now even the Mercury News is contradicting their own, earlier post.
What a joke.

It's now listed as an Associated Press news story, so as of right now, it's listed incorrectly on at least 77 sources. Game over man... game over!

Courtroom Setting:

On the defense side of the house, ayres and Solveig were present along with attorney Little Johnny McD, with Solveig sitting behind ayres rather than next to him, as normally occurs. They were looking a bit more morose today. Perhaps they were concerned that any "conversational openers" that they might try today would result in a lengthy discussion, as happened last time... It was positively refreshing to see the dour glow, if you can call it that!  

There were two members of the press present.

6 prosecution supporters were present, but two of them had to leave before the 10:30 time.

At 10:40 the lawyers were called to chambers to meet with the judge.

At 10:55 court was underway.

Brief Update 10/09/2009 11:21 AM

Pre-trial hearing is April 2 at 1:30 pm. Trial is April 12. Motion to supress 3 docs related to ayres med. Records granted. Motion to reduce bail: DENIED.

Brief Update 10/09/2009 9:20 AM

Hearing contined until later today at 10:30am. Likely trial date in April, as Little Johnny MacD originally wanted.

Upcoming Hearings - October

[Original post date: 10/05/09 8:00am PST by Deep Sounding]
There are upcoming dates of interest related to the william ayres child molestation case:


Friday, October 9th 2009 at 9:00am PST:   
(Hearing date and time re-confirmed on Thursday 10/08/2009 3:00pm)
The THIRD attempt to set a date for the retrial of william ayres on charges related to the child molestation of young males who were entrusted to his "medical" care. The date selection hearing was originally secheduled on 8/28/2009, and was continued to 9/11/2009 by ayres' then legal representation Doron Weinberg. And then, on September 11th, ayres new lawyer Little Johnny McDougall  (who has an early 90's themed little website here) wanted a continuance of 4 to 6 weeks with the obvious intent to ask for another continuation later. The next opportunity for yet another continuance occurs on October 9th.
Superior Court Clerk's office: 650-599-1170
ayres' criminal case number: SC064366

Friday, October 28th 2009:  
Case Management hearing for four of the civil cases against ayres for 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 the court document links, and you may have to click on one of those links AGAIN after the first click results in a blank page. They 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.) 
Superior Court Civil Division: 650-363-4576 

Is Senator Leland Yee a Lemon?

On March 9th, and again on April 10th, A copy of the letter associated with this post  regarding the initiation of new legislation regarding the "peer review" of medical professionals was sent to Senator Leland Yee -- who is a Ph.D, no less...

WRITE A LETTER! Officials will listen, especially if they are local
leaders. That's what I used to think --------

Here's the response (Click the image for full size!):

An Important and Timely Read

I have been getting more and more angry this last week.

A friend just sent me a link to a blog article that really touches on a lot of what's bugging me. Let me set the stage first:

There has been a bit of a quadruple whammy for me in the press lately, and it has me churning about several themes: The way victims of child sexual abuse feel about how people treat their abusers, and especially when the abuser is high profile, and how the victims act when they see people supporting their abusers. I'm not going to go into any detail about that right now. But rest assured it's critically important, both to the well being of the victims, and the prosecution of the offenders. And it's very complex. And I can't deal with it right now.

Here are some things that set me off:

1. The trial of Elizabeth Smart's abductor is in the news this week. Elizabeth is 21 now and stronger and more mature than me, and probably you too. I truly hope that she is as strong inside as she is outwardly, because she's really kicking some serious ass in her testimony at the trial. If she's not that strong inside, I hope lots of people are telling her that she's kicking some serious ass, because it will help her greatly to hear that.

2. Mackenzie Philips' big sensational revelation about her incestuous relationship. I'm not going to get into the details too much. I don't know what to make of it, probably only because she's a star, and has used her situation in the past to get press. After reading this CNN article, though I wholeheartedly believe what she's saying, and clearly has been thinking about some of the same things that I've been thinking about.

She says:
"There's very little in this world that is taboo today, but this subject is still, like, shove it under the carpet, sweep it away, protect the abuser, deny the reality. ... You're just on your own," the former child star said.

3. There's this jackass that President Obama criminally appointed as "Safe Schools Czar:" Kevin Jennings.

I posted a bit on him yesterday, but there's actually a whole lot more that I DIDN'T post. This guy is a severe problem, not just for individuals, but for society as a whole. This creep, and people like him are simple perpetuating the problem through their actions and inaction.

4. Then there's this guy: Roman Polanski. He opens up a can of worms for me. His supporters open up a can of worms for me, his victim even opens up a can of worms for me. I'm not going to go into any of THAT right now either.

The point of this post is to direct you to go read another blog. There is an OUTSTANDING post about Roman Polanski, detailing EXACTLY many of the things that I have been thinking about in the last week, since his arrest. Here are some excerpts from this really great article, and I'd ask you to PLEASE go read it.

Robert Goolrick writes:
It appears that Roman Polanski, the film-directing admitted child rapist, has become something of a martyr to some of the smartest and most creative people in the world. People from Pedro Almodovar to Jack Lang, the former Minister of Culture in France, are attempting to portray Polanski as a man pursued by cruel and relentless demons, as though he were a victim of the Salem witch trials.

Their mitigating circumstance? He is a great Artist of the cinema. And it makes me want to vomit.

Define Artist. Not so easy to do. Now define pedophiliac child rapist. Pretty simple. If Polanski had been, say, a bus driver in Cleveland who had fed Quaaludes and Champagne to a thirteen-year-old girl and then raped and sodomized her, I doubt Jack Lang would be so quick to tell the rest of us about the privileges that come with driving a bus.

Now please, go over to that blog and read the article. There are two pages, don't miss the second page.

Meet President Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings

Meet President Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings

[Original post date: 10/02/09 10:00am PST by Deep Sounding]

For a brief moment yesterday, Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings was in the news.  According to this Fox News article, he was admitting that:

[He] "should have handled [the] situation differently" when he didn't report an underage student told him that he was having sex with an older man.

He told the boy, "I hope you knew to use a condom."

"Twenty one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities."

According to Fox News, in his 2007 autobiography, Jennings says that he also apparently had frequent conversations with the  student and received updates on his latest "adventures." The  student was 16 years old, by the way, and had come to Jennings for guidance for emotional problems that he was having. Jennings says that the student rejected his admonitions to wear a condom saying that his life is not work saving…

So not only did Jennings not "consult legal or MEDICAL authorities," (by  “consult legal authorities,” do you suppose he means CALL THE FREAKING POLICE DEPARTMENT, or do you think he means “get legal advice about how I can make sure this doesn’t bite ME in the ass?”) but then, later he spends time with the student while the student describes for Jennings stories of his sexual escapades (child abuse) with an older man.  I certainly hope that Jennings called the police when the student made clear that things were not sitting so well with him when he said “My life isn’t worth saving anyway.” (Did Jennings ever contact authorities? Apparently not.)

Nobody wants to discuss the issue though, since it happened so long ago. I guess that seems to make it ok… well it happened a long time ago… probably the guy is wiser now, and would do things differently.

Did I forget to mention that the issue came up earlier than 2007? It came up in 2004 when Jennings received the 2004 Virginia Uribe Award for Creative Leadership in HUMAN RIGHTS from the National Education Association (NEA)

Perhaps the issue was too old back then, and worthy of being ignored then too, as it didn’t seem to stop the NEA from giving him the award. Maybe they figured that Jennings had learned a valuable lesson back in 1988, and would never let that kind of thing happen again. Maybe they figured that he’s done such a great amount of good in the mean time that we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Hmm… these arguments seem popular when defending perpetrators and those who can't be bothered to report them. Granted – Jennings isn’t admitting to any crimes (Well, other than the fact that he didn’t report child sexual abuse, even though he was apparently a mandated reporter… I guess if the statute of limitations runs out, you’re clear of guilt morally as well as by law, so I suppose we should trust his integrity completely now.

The story gets muddled at this point due to heated sexual orientation / identity politics (from both sides), so it’s hard to get a non-biased bead on the facts of the situation. Here’s the most neutral telling I can come up with:

The NEA gave Jennings his award for co-founding and directing the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).  In 2000 GLSEN put on a conference for kids, by some accounts, as young as twelve, and by most accounts as young as fourteen. A state official at that conference had the following to say (apparently in answer to one student’s question about what “fisting” is):

"Fisting (forcing one's entire hand into another person's rectum or vagina) often gets a bad rap....[It's] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with...[and] to put you into an exploratory mode."

Jennings said this in response:

"From what I've heard, I have concerns as well," Jennings told the Boston Globe in May 2000. "GLSEN  believes that children do have a right to accurate, safer sex education, but this needs to be delivered in an age-appropriate and sensitive manner.

"What troubles me is the people who have the tape know what our mission is, they know that our work is about preventing harassment and they know that session was not the totality of what was offered at a conference with over 50 sessions," he said.

- from Fox News

Well at least he’s honest! What troubles Jennings is that people taped and criticized one of his buddies talking (with young children) about the ”bad rap” that fisting gets.

I can think of a few other intimate uses for a fist. Most of them don’t involve a vagina or a rectum. One of them does involve a jackass though.

Why must we perpetuate this Laissez-faire attitude about the necessity to report suspected child sexual abuse at all levels of government?  It’s well past time for CHANGE, Obama… get off your butt and terminate this loser. Find someone who has a documented track record of attaining the prosecution of people who abuse and bully children.  Yes, you can!

Victoria Balfour - Meritorious Public Service

[Original post date: 09/30/09 10:00am PST]
Award Presented:

On Friday, September 25th, Victoria Balfour received the "Excellence in the Media" award for Meritorious Public Service from the Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma.

A personal note: It is very important to have someone from the "outside" who understands, believes in, and advocates for the victims of this kind of insidious and damaging crime, for which very, very few people really understand the impact. I'm sure that the people who are responsible for presenting this award understand the significance of this quite clearly, and they couldn't have picked a better candidate for the award!

Thanks Victoria! I understand that Victoria got the sole standing ovation at the award ceremony, and it's gratifying and uplifting to know that those in attendance understand the significance of Victoria's efforts.

I hear from Victoria that she sat next to Dr. Paul Fink, past President of the American Psychiatric Association, and current president of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, and also had an opportunity to talk with him later. She said that when told that ayres claims to have been trained to give physicals to kids at Judge Baker, Dr. Fink's response was a somewhat less than veiled reference to the post-digestive residue of a male B. taurus. Victoria says that he was clearly disturbed that such a person as ayres, who he had known professionally, could have risen to the ranks that he did.

[A note of thanks to millspeninsula.blogspot.com for providing working copies of some of the pictures used above, and to Toby G. Kleinman, Esq who provided them to that blog!]

Some Updates and Upcoming Events:

There is a new post by Trapellar, detailing an interview with Joel, A Patient of Dr. Ayres at Judge Baker in 1962. Give it a read, please.

Friday, October 9th 2009:   
The THIRD attempt to set a date for the retrial of william ayres on charges related to the child molestation of young males who were entrusted to his "medical" care. The date selection hearing was originally secheduled on 8/28/2009, and was continued to 9/11/2009 by ayres' then legal representation Doron Weinberg. And then, on September 11th, ayres' new lawyer John Boy McDougall  (who has an odd little website here) wanted a continuance of 4 to 6 weeks with the obvious intent to ask for another continuation later. The next opportunity for yet another continuance occurs on October 9th.
Superior Court Clerk's office: 650-599-1170
ayres' criminal case number: SC064366

Friday, October 28th 2009:  
Case Management hearing for four of the civil cases against ayres for 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 the court document links, and you may have to click on one of those links AGAIN after the first click results in a blank page. They 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.) 
Superior Court Civil Division: 650-363-4576