Johnny the Shoeshine Boy says that ayres checked himself into Napa last night (10/25/2011).
10/27/2011 Update: There is now an article in the San Mateo Daily Journal stating that the prosecution has been informed of ayres' surrender to Napa State.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
New Article on ayres in the Times
There is a new article on the ayres story posted in the San Mateo County Times. Have a read:
http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_19191510
And a second article today: this one about the animosity between victim's advocate Victoria Balfour, and the prosecutor Melissa McKowan:
http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_19194847
Important point from comments about the above news article:
According to the article, McKowan placed Amati Mehler and another person who trained at Judge Baker, Dr. Joseph Mullen, on her witness list for the 2009 criminal trial, but she didn't call them to the stand.
BUT: look at what she says about the SAME witnesses on her blog comment.
Blog comment made by San Mateo prosecutor Melissa Mckowan. Confirmed as Mckowan’s by her supervisor, Assistant District Attorney Karen Guidotti:
http://williamayreswatch.blogspot.com/2009/12/yale-debunks-ayres-our-child.html
Melissa McKowan said...
But take my word for it, any "credible" tip that has come in has been looked into. So far, until this particular unattributed blog entry, I have never seen any "independent investigation" that has led to the discovery of an actual witness. For instance, the three (not four) Judge Baker Graduates who would allegedly have debunked Ayres' statements about being trained there--did NOT confirm to the police or the DA what it was alleged in the blogs that they would say. One told me that she had told the reporter who talked to her that she didn't know anything about Ayres and was in school later than him and that although she could say SHE was never trained to give exams, she "couldn't say for sure what his training was." That is NOT helpful. Another one refused to testify and the last one is physically unable to travel and lives in Europe.
Note that today (10/26/2011) is the deadline for william hamilton ayres to be admitted to Napa State Hospital, for an undoubtedly short stay before he is most likely released back into the community; the San Mateo County District Attorney having utterly failed to obtain any significant time in lockup or even registration for yet another child molester.
If ayres does manage to get himself admitted, then by this time next week (November 2nd, 2011) he will be receiving his $750,000 in bail money back.
http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_19191510
And a second article today: this one about the animosity between victim's advocate Victoria Balfour, and the prosecutor Melissa McKowan:
http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_19194847
Important point from comments about the above news article:
According to the article, McKowan placed Amati Mehler and another person who trained at Judge Baker, Dr. Joseph Mullen, on her witness list for the 2009 criminal trial, but she didn't call them to the stand.
BUT: look at what she says about the SAME witnesses on her blog comment.
Blog comment made by San Mateo prosecutor Melissa Mckowan. Confirmed as Mckowan’s by her supervisor, Assistant District Attorney Karen Guidotti:
http://williamayreswatch.blogspot.com/2009/12/yale-debunks-ayres-our-child.html
Melissa McKowan said...
But take my word for it, any "credible" tip that has come in has been looked into. So far, until this particular unattributed blog entry, I have never seen any "independent investigation" that has led to the discovery of an actual witness. For instance, the three (not four) Judge Baker Graduates who would allegedly have debunked Ayres' statements about being trained there--did NOT confirm to the police or the DA what it was alleged in the blogs that they would say. One told me that she had told the reporter who talked to her that she didn't know anything about Ayres and was in school later than him and that although she could say SHE was never trained to give exams, she "couldn't say for sure what his training was." That is NOT helpful. Another one refused to testify and the last one is physically unable to travel and lives in Europe.
Note that today (10/26/2011) is the deadline for william hamilton ayres to be admitted to Napa State Hospital, for an undoubtedly short stay before he is most likely released back into the community; the San Mateo County District Attorney having utterly failed to obtain any significant time in lockup or even registration for yet another child molester.
If ayres does manage to get himself admitted, then by this time next week (November 2nd, 2011) he will be receiving his $750,000 in bail money back.
Friday, October 21, 2011
San Mateo County - Come have sex with our children!
 |
| Armando Lopez-Galvez |
It seems that Armando Lopez-Galvez likes to have sex with young girls. Good thing he lives in Redwood City, which is part of San Mateo County!
He was apparently able to enjoy a young girl, and when the Belmont Police caught the man and told the San Mateo County prosecutors about 5 or six months ago, they reacted swiftly, and with great focus to make sure that the disruption to the poor, misunderstood man's life was minimized.
Between the San Mateo County DA, and the San Mateo County judges, they managed to bargain the fine citizen's charge down to a no-contest plea on only one count, sparing the man from potentially serving 10 to 12 years in prison on multiple charges.
They managed to get him down to a 308 day sentence with credit for time served! He does have to suffer through 3 years of probation, and will have to refrain from contacting the young girl, but thankfully, and as per usual, San Mateo County will NOT be burdening him with having to register as a sex offender. The County understands that a man should be able to violate 13 year old girls if he needs to!
If only the Belmont Police would quit pestering citizens who want to have sex with children, then the County would finally have some peace!
</sarcasm>
By the way, AS USUAL, The San Mateo Daily Journal seems to confuse the phrase "illegally fucking children" with "sexual relationship." Talk about being a mouthpiece for San Mateo County's strange predilections.
This has been YET ANOTHER unfortunate edition of: San Mateo County - Come Have Sex With Our Children!
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Another Blog Covers ayres Story
Another blogger covers the story about the DA and court allowing ayres to continue delaying and running around free.:
The blog PRACTIKEL: The only website worth visiting! has some rather strong opinions about the justice system as it applies to child molesters. The blogger would rather not have them taking up space in our public institutions - they offer up a rather more permanent solution -- a solution that Random Task would probably agree with.
The blog PRACTIKEL: The only website worth visiting! has some rather strong opinions about the justice system as it applies to child molesters. The blogger would rather not have them taking up space in our public institutions - they offer up a rather more permanent solution -- a solution that Random Task would probably agree with.
 |
| Oh, Behave! |
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
DA Backtracks on ayres Lockup Delay
There is a new article in the San Francisco Examiner about the delay to william ayres' commitment to Napa State Hospital to "treat" his alleged dementia, which allowed him to escape retrial on charges that he molested many young boys under the guise of providing psychiatric care.
The news article talks about the fact that prosecutor McKowan made one claim to the press -- The Court didn't provide necessary paperwork -- while DA Wagstaffe made an entirely different claim about availability of bed space. It also mentions that the DA claims that the judge denied a prosecution request to lock ayres up while awaiting a bed at Napa State. (How did Wagstaffe know that this was requested, if he didn't know that McKowan had claimed that the court was responsible, or that the judge had threatened contempt?) The article also repeats the 11-1 guilt vote on ONE charge for the criminal trial, even though news stories at the time reported that this was the case for SIX of the charges.
NOBODY seems able to get their story straight. At least they could all make an effort to tell the same lies.
Note: Reports from private investigators seem to show that ayres is in fact competent, at least as far as his defense at trial is concerned: competent enough to joke with medical colleagues about his alleged dementia and its relation to his defense maneuvers. (The medical colleagues who were enjoying the big joke with ayres and his vapid wife Solveig were: Larry Lurie, M.D., and Robert Kimmich M.D, both San Francisco shrinks and past presidents of the Northern California Psychiatric Society, a pathetic organization from which a great number of past officers were signatories of a letter pleading for financial help for child molester ayres while he was on trial.)
The news article talks about the fact that prosecutor McKowan made one claim to the press -- The Court didn't provide necessary paperwork -- while DA Wagstaffe made an entirely different claim about availability of bed space. It also mentions that the DA claims that the judge denied a prosecution request to lock ayres up while awaiting a bed at Napa State. (How did Wagstaffe know that this was requested, if he didn't know that McKowan had claimed that the court was responsible, or that the judge had threatened contempt?) The article also repeats the 11-1 guilt vote on ONE charge for the criminal trial, even though news stories at the time reported that this was the case for SIX of the charges.
NOBODY seems able to get their story straight. At least they could all make an effort to tell the same lies.
Note: Reports from private investigators seem to show that ayres is in fact competent, at least as far as his defense at trial is concerned: competent enough to joke with medical colleagues about his alleged dementia and its relation to his defense maneuvers. (The medical colleagues who were enjoying the big joke with ayres and his vapid wife Solveig were: Larry Lurie, M.D., and Robert Kimmich M.D, both San Francisco shrinks and past presidents of the Northern California Psychiatric Society, a pathetic organization from which a great number of past officers were signatories of a letter pleading for financial help for child molester ayres while he was on trial.)
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Analysis of ayres News Story
The Mercury News printed an article last night (Wednesday 10/5/2011) about the ayres hearing this past Monday which allowed the delay of ayres' commitment to Napa State. The Mercury News article can be found here.
The article mentions that the reporters talked to prosecutor McKowan, and apparently, she indicated to them that the reason for the delay is that the court did not submit all of the necessary paperwork.
The Mercury News also mentions that the original criminal trial, which ended in a mistrial, had ONE count that had an 11-1 for guilt vote.
Here are some problems with the news story:
Mistrial Vote Count: Immediately after the criminal trial (in June/July of 2009) there was some confusion in the press about what the actual jury vote count was. This was mostly cleared up after a day or so, with perhaps some minor discrepancies on the outlier votes. By August 4, 2009, the dust had mostly cleared and the final count, as best we could tell from multiple news sources was:
On 6 counts the vote was 11-1 in favor of conviction.
On 1 count the vote was 10-2 in favor of conviction.
On 2 counts the vote was 7-5 in favor of conviction.
I'm not sure why the press keeps incorrectly downplaying the vote count. They do the same thing with the number of times the trial dates were missed, even though their own papers posted a blurb each time the trial dates were re-scheduled due to some stupid excuse or other. (Not to mention the handy guide I've provided) Frankly it's maddening.
Missing Information: The Mercury News fails to mention the judge's statement that if ayres is not in lockup by the new date (Wednesday, October 26th, 2011) that someone would be found in contempt of court.
We're not 100% clear ourselves who would be found in contempt. The parents of a victim were in the courtroom, and they reported the information to us (apparently there was NO PRESS present). The parents indicate that it was Napa State that would be held in contempt, but that there's a possibility that it might have been ayres or McDougall that would be held in contempt, they weren't entirely clear.
Either prosecutor McKowan didn't tell the press about the contempt order, or perhaps the press didn't find it interesting enough to print, but I have a problem with that too....
Further: At last Monday's hearing, Judge Grandsaert ordered the defense attorney to make sure that the paperwork was properly provided to Napa State so that ayres could be in lockup by the new October 26th deadline. Which would lead me to believe that it was, in fact ayres and/or McDougall who would be found in contempt if ayres is not locked up by the new deadline.
Point: The fact that a contempt charge possibility was discussed by Judge Grandsaert at all is very problematic for McKowan.
Logical holes: If McKowan was the source of the information that the delay was because the court failed to provide the necessary paperwork to Napa State, then the whole question of a contempt order becomes a thorny logical problem:
IF McKowan told the press that the Court was responsible for the delay THEN it doesn't make ANY sense for the judge to have had ANY discussion of contempt. The press should have asked McKowan: "Why, then would ayres or his lawyer -- or even Napa State for that matter -- be held in contempt if ayres does not report by the new date." THEREFORE it doesn't make sense for McKowan to claim that the court was responsible for the delay, and I would argue that this is some kind of misrepresentation of fact, deliberate or otherwise... And the press should have pointed this out to McKowan (or whoever their source was.)
UNLESS Judge Grandsaert was saying that the COURT would be found in contempt if ayres isn't admitted by the October 26th. date (Because the Court was late in providing the paperwork.) BUT: it seems silly that the court would warn itself about the possibility of contempt against itself, AND it doesn't make any sense anyway, because the court ORDERED the defense attorney to make sure that the paperwork was submitted to Napa on time for his conviction.
The Good Lord knows, I certainly find the court in contempt, but I suppose that's irrelevant.
The simple statement that the Court was responsible for the delay should have opened a whole line of other questions for the press, but it apparently was lost on them... They seem incapable of understanding that they are being deceived.
Interesting that McDougall never has any comment for the press in defense of his client. He doesn't need to make any; the DA seems to be doing a pretty good job of covering for ayres at the expense of the court (If indeed, the statement that the Court was responsible came from McKowan.)
The article mentions that the reporters talked to prosecutor McKowan, and apparently, she indicated to them that the reason for the delay is that the court did not submit all of the necessary paperwork.
The Mercury News also mentions that the original criminal trial, which ended in a mistrial, had ONE count that had an 11-1 for guilt vote.
Here are some problems with the news story:
Mistrial Vote Count: Immediately after the criminal trial (in June/July of 2009) there was some confusion in the press about what the actual jury vote count was. This was mostly cleared up after a day or so, with perhaps some minor discrepancies on the outlier votes. By August 4, 2009, the dust had mostly cleared and the final count, as best we could tell from multiple news sources was:
On 6 counts the vote was 11-1 in favor of conviction.
On 1 count the vote was 10-2 in favor of conviction.
On 2 counts the vote was 7-5 in favor of conviction.
I'm not sure why the press keeps incorrectly downplaying the vote count. They do the same thing with the number of times the trial dates were missed, even though their own papers posted a blurb each time the trial dates were re-scheduled due to some stupid excuse or other. (Not to mention the handy guide I've provided) Frankly it's maddening.
Missing Information: The Mercury News fails to mention the judge's statement that if ayres is not in lockup by the new date (Wednesday, October 26th, 2011) that someone would be found in contempt of court.
We're not 100% clear ourselves who would be found in contempt. The parents of a victim were in the courtroom, and they reported the information to us (apparently there was NO PRESS present). The parents indicate that it was Napa State that would be held in contempt, but that there's a possibility that it might have been ayres or McDougall that would be held in contempt, they weren't entirely clear.
Either prosecutor McKowan didn't tell the press about the contempt order, or perhaps the press didn't find it interesting enough to print, but I have a problem with that too....
Further: At last Monday's hearing, Judge Grandsaert ordered the defense attorney to make sure that the paperwork was properly provided to Napa State so that ayres could be in lockup by the new October 26th deadline. Which would lead me to believe that it was, in fact ayres and/or McDougall who would be found in contempt if ayres is not locked up by the new deadline.
Point: The fact that a contempt charge possibility was discussed by Judge Grandsaert at all is very problematic for McKowan.
Logical holes: If McKowan was the source of the information that the delay was because the court failed to provide the necessary paperwork to Napa State, then the whole question of a contempt order becomes a thorny logical problem:
IF McKowan told the press that the Court was responsible for the delay THEN it doesn't make ANY sense for the judge to have had ANY discussion of contempt. The press should have asked McKowan: "Why, then would ayres or his lawyer -- or even Napa State for that matter -- be held in contempt if ayres does not report by the new date." THEREFORE it doesn't make sense for McKowan to claim that the court was responsible for the delay, and I would argue that this is some kind of misrepresentation of fact, deliberate or otherwise... And the press should have pointed this out to McKowan (or whoever their source was.)
UNLESS Judge Grandsaert was saying that the COURT would be found in contempt if ayres isn't admitted by the October 26th. date (Because the Court was late in providing the paperwork.) BUT: it seems silly that the court would warn itself about the possibility of contempt against itself, AND it doesn't make any sense anyway, because the court ORDERED the defense attorney to make sure that the paperwork was submitted to Napa on time for his conviction.
The Good Lord knows, I certainly find the court in contempt, but I suppose that's irrelevant.
The simple statement that the Court was responsible for the delay should have opened a whole line of other questions for the press, but it apparently was lost on them... They seem incapable of understanding that they are being deceived.
Interesting that McDougall never has any comment for the press in defense of his client. He doesn't need to make any; the DA seems to be doing a pretty good job of covering for ayres at the expense of the court (If indeed, the statement that the Court was responsible came from McKowan.)
Monday, October 3, 2011
Even More Delays
Today, the court was informed that, shockingly, Napa State does not have all of ayres' paperwork, and therefore he can't be committed this week, as previously ordered by the completely emasculated San Mateo County Court.
[NOTE Correction: contempt would be against NAPA, not ayres.]
The judge asked McDelay, ayres' asshat attorney, to contact Napa. On 10/26/2011, the judge will allegedly enter a cause for contempt of court charge against Napa State if ayres doesn't get checked into Napa Lock-up by then.
No idea what this means, or why Napa should feel threatened by Grandsaert. Seems like more Grandsaert/Wagstaffe hand-wringing and arm-flapping to distract from the fact that San Mateo county is entirely disinterested in getting child molesters off the streets.
On 11/2/2011, the molester and his dipshit wife will get their $750K back (assuming he's checked into Napa) so they can pay their blood money to all of their marginally ethical turd attorneys.
Maybe then, they can go out to lunch with Larry Lurie and Robert Kimmich, and joke about how funny it is for ayres to molest little boys and then carry on about duping the courts with claims of Alzheimer's. Aren't past presidents of the Northern California Psychiatric Society a hoot?
[NOTE Correction: contempt would be against NAPA, not ayres.]
The judge asked McDelay, ayres' asshat attorney, to contact Napa. On 10/26/2011, the judge will allegedly enter a cause for contempt of court charge against Napa State if ayres doesn't get checked into Napa Lock-up by then.
No idea what this means, or why Napa should feel threatened by Grandsaert. Seems like more Grandsaert/Wagstaffe hand-wringing and arm-flapping to distract from the fact that San Mateo county is entirely disinterested in getting child molesters off the streets.
On 11/2/2011, the molester and his dipshit wife will get their $750K back (assuming he's checked into Napa) so they can pay their blood money to all of their marginally ethical turd attorneys.
Maybe then, they can go out to lunch with Larry Lurie and Robert Kimmich, and joke about how funny it is for ayres to molest little boys and then carry on about duping the courts with claims of Alzheimer's. Aren't past presidents of the Northern California Psychiatric Society a hoot?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)