[Note: for info on today's hearing, see the post below this one.]
San Mateo Bay Area child molester william hamilton ayres, during his 2009 criminal trial, made the claim that he was trained to do “medical exams” of the young boys for whom he was alleging to provide psychiatric care.
The criminal trial ended in mistrial when a single holdout juror -- a recently graduated lawyer -- refused to find ayres guilty of any of the charges.
Even before the criminal trial started, ayres’ lawyers were masters at delaying proceedings.
After the mistrial ayres’ new attorney went into delay overdrive and has been very successful with delay tactics, with the prosecution tepidly insisting on expedited proceedings, and the San Mateo County Judges continually kowtowing to defense attorneys;
repeatedly allowing
just this one last delay.
Once ayres’ attorney began floating the idea that ayres was suffering Alzheimer’s Disease,
everyone ate up the perpetrator’s claims that he was demented and couldn’t defend himself in court -- if there were to be a retrial for his disgusting crimes.
Ever wary of the potential for staggering lawsuits against the county for the decades and decades and decades that ayres went unchecked despite multiple molestation reports, and in which the county continued to farm out potential victims to ayres in the form of referrals from the juvenile justice system , the prosecution appeared eager -- hungry even -- to jump on the incompetency bandwagon.
I’m sure they thought they’d be able to tuck their child molester away at Napa State until he was dead.
To everyone’s shock
(please!) Napa State Hospital booted ayres, saying that he
is competent, and in fact, according to the prosecution, the report from Napa indicates that child molester was malingering; deliberately deceiving his doctors in order to avoid prosecution. Indeed: according to the prosecution, the report indicates that ayres actually told the doctors that he was
refusing treatment at his attorney’s instruction.
Unfortunately, this kind of delay seems to be a tried-and-true -- if disgusting and desperate, tactic:
Delay for so long that the victims suffer so much stress and hardship that they shy away from further involvement, in interest of their own health.
Delay for long enough that potential witnesses against the perpetrator die off.
Well it’s working:
During the criminal trial, the prosecution didn’t seem to think it was important to have people who trained with ayres testify as to what they were trained at the time – people who were there, at places that ayres claimed that he was trained to do “medical examinations” of his young male patients.
The reason that these people were not brought in to testify were not entirely clear at the time, but implied reasons included: not being able to introduce these doctors because ayres wasn’t specific about where he was trained and that the expense and complication of bringing out-of-state witnesses was too great; another reason was that the doctors WERE contacted and were not willing or able to testify (This has been disputed by Victoria Balfour, who talked to these doctors and reported about it on this blog – more in a moment.) Lastly, the prosecution claimed that it would not have been helpful to have the doctors testify that THEY were trained not to give medical exams if they weren’t able to state conclusively that they were with ayres at the time and that ayres was trained that way too… even if they were there at the same general places and times. .
It is quite a contradiction that the prosecution was allowed to call a local witness to testify about the general nature of psychiatric training, when they were making claims that it wouldn't be admissible for them to do exactly that same thing with people who had trained at the same place as ayres. (The argument was that ayres hadn't specifically said that he was trained to do "medical exams" at Judge Baker, and therefore they would have no grounds to call these doctors. -- There's another whole layer of confusion when you look back at the transcript and realize that ayres DID talk about being trained to do exams there.)
It seems that even if they had called doctors who trained at the same times and places as ayres, and asked them if they were trained in these “techniques” – the same questions asked of Atwell -- Even if they weren't able to state that they trained with ayres -- their testimony that they were NOT trained to do “medical exams” at the very places and times ayres was “training” would have be devastating to the defense.
When one member of the Jury was
asked by the Mercury News about their deliberations, the Juror stated:
"there was no doubt Ayres' exams were fishy, but unanimously deciding they were sexually motivated was too much. More experts, or someone to talk about Ayres' clinical background, would have helped."
It would seem that in preparing for a criminal re-trial, it might be a good idea to reach out to those doctors and ask them to participate. Nobody seems interested in making it clear that the medical exams were "fishy" because shrinks ARE TOLD NOT TO DO THEM. It wasn't just the nature of the exams, it was the fact that ayres was claiming to do them at all.
Unfortunately the defense delay tactics are working against the prosecution's ability to make the defense stop using the "medical exam" excuse.
The potentially damaging witnesses are beginning to pass away – They are, after all, the same age, or older than the evil ayres.
Almost three years ago to the day, award winning investigative journalist Victoria Balfour interviewed Dr. Joan Zilbach, who worked with ayres at Judge Baker.
She stated in no uncertain terms that psychiatrists were not trained to do medical exams at Judge Baker at the time that ayres was there.
In November of 2010, Joan Zilbach passed away. [
Obituary (
pdf)] Others are facing (actual) issues with Alzheimer's, and other health issues.
I don’t know that there is any stopgap measure that can be taken.
Perhaps potential witnesses could participate in recorded interviews, but even if the defense attorney were allowed to cross-examine; I suspect that defense could claim that as ayres was “incompetent” to assist in his own defense at the time of the interview, therefore any such testimony and cross-examination would not be admissible. I don’t know what kind of leeway judges have in this situation, but I suspect that San Mateo County judges, who have allowed great delay already, would not allow such testimony.
Either way, the defense delay tactics are slowly working their magic.
It is imperative that I impress this upon you: ayres was NOT doing medical examinations of young boys on the toy model table and lounge chairs in his office: he was molesting us. There is to be no misunderstanding or confusion here.
Nevertheless, testimony at trial revolved around ayres’ claims that he was “trained to do medical exams” as part of the therapeutic process, and therefore the question of the validity of psychiatrist “medical exam training” becomes unfortunately and distractingly central.
Let’s see if we can clarify for everyone:
From June 2006 through September of 2009, Victoria Balfour interviewed some 30 of the doctors who trained at the same times and/or places that ayres was trained – some remembered both ayres and his wife Solveig very well, others were simply there at the same time, or were intimately familiar with the history of the institutions where ayres was trained.
Here’s what just a few of them had to say about being trained to perform “medical examinations” as part of the psychiatric process:
➲ Dr. Morton Kurland [ Did his child psychiatry residency at Yale New Haven Children Center during the same time frame that ayres was getting his “training”]:
Kurland was shocked at the notion of giving physical exams to children and states: “We were taught not to put even a hand on the shoulder of a child” and “For him to use this as an excuse for his behavior is pathetic. The idea that child psychiatrists do this sort of thing is just off the boards."
"The idea that our psychiatrists were trained to give physical exams like that in therapy is just preposterous. It's absurd. It's horrifying. I've been in the field for a long time and I have never heard of child psychiatrists being trained to do this. We've trained close to 1000 psychiatrists and we have never taught this. I just can't imagine it."
"In my Judge Baker training, we didn't even do a neurological exam on children." And "It's a dodge that other child psychiatrists use who are molesting children."
➲ Dr. Lee Willer, [trained WITH ayres at Judge Baker Children’s Center in the 1960’s]:
"In fact, we were advised not to do physicals on children"
"Physical exams of children would not be supported by the training we had. Ayres was certainly not trained to do this at Judge Baker."
“There were very strict rules as to how therapy with children would be done, and physical exams were not done. Any hint that any therapist would be doing physicals would raise serious concerns."
"Nobody was trained to give physical exams at Judge Baker, " he said. "This is revolting! This sounds just like that Mel Levine case!"
➲ Dr William Beardslee, [professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and Children’s Hospital]:
Said he “knows of no child psychiatrist either at Judge Baker or anywhere else who was ever trained to give physical exams to kids in therapy.”
➲ Dr. Pauline Hahn, [psychologist and research director at Judge Baker for 54 years recalled "Bill" Ayres]:
States that child psychologists were "NEVER trained to give physical exams."
Stated that “Neither she nor Ayres nor anyone else in their group was trained to give "physicals" at Judge Baker.”
➲ Dr. Milton Shore, [On staff at Judge Baker in the general time frame that ayres was there]:
"Never, never, never did you touch a child in therapy!" he said, forcefully. "It was very implicit. You didn't do physical exams. Period.You just didn't do it !
"I never heard of anyone doing a physical at Judge Baker. I never did one myself and I never remember anyone presenting a case where they had done a physical. I've never heard of it."
“If there had been any instance in which a child needed a physical exam, the physical exam would have been done at Children's Hospital, which was right across the street.”
"At Judge Baker, child psychiatrists treated the children's minds only. The pediatricians examined the children. "
➲ Dr Stanley Walzer, [at Judge Baker while ayres was there, Director of Judge Baker in the 1970s]:
“Me, I didn't do physical exams on kids. To suggest we did at Judge Baker is crazy!!”
“We didn't do physical exams in psychiatric sessions with children. That's not part of the psychiatric treatment. No way!!”
"I didn't do physical exams on children and neither did anyone else there."
Maybe this would have helped clear up any confusion?
One More Thing:
Right after the criminal trial, the prosecutor made various
statements to this blog and to parents of victims about having contacted these doctors and that they were unable to travel, or that their statements to her didn’t shed light on the nature of ayres’ training.
Victoria Balfour and some of the families of victims contacted some of the doctors in question, wanting to know why the prosecution was reporting this, and the doctors contacted stated that the prosecution did not actually contact them – that they were still eagerly awaiting contact though.
Further, the doctor who was “physically unable to travel and lives in Europe” had travelled to Chicago -- from her home in Europe-- to attend a medical conference at very nearly the same time as the criminal trial. In fact,
that doctor told Balfour:
“I believe there must be some misunderstanding somewhere! I keep travelling all the time, because my profession and institutional offices at the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA) involve doing this as well."
I hope that the prosecution will take the Mercury News interview with the juror to heart, and provide some clarity about the training that ayres received – IF the case ever actually makes it to court again.
