This was not a surprise.
Phone hours to verify court dates have changed, and as we received word after the phones were closed, we were not able to verify if the hearing has been scheduled yet. We will post additional information later.
Update 7:50pm: Here's a link to the Mercury News article on the matter.(pdf) We'll have more to add soon.
Update 2/27/2013: Hearing for Motion to Continue Trial is scheduled for March 5, 2013 at 8:45am PST
I can see McDougall's flop sweat from her.
ReplyDeleteCorrection: I can see McDougall's flop sweat from HERE.
DeleteThe Judge should not tolerate yet another delay. Enough delays already.
ReplyDeleteYeah. We're just getting started with the delays.
DeleteWhy didn't the San Mateo police have any record of Steve S's police complaint? I wouldn't call that a game changing lie.
DeleteI agree with this assessment. The san Mateo police have NO record of Steve S filing a complaint. So the fuck what whether a traumatized man can't remember what he did or didn't do when he was in a group home as a traumatized kid - about whether he spoke to the police. An expert in child abuse would be able to explain this
Delete. Many victims dont even recall telling their
parents when they were kids that they were molested. Why isn't the DA defending this poor
victim? It's not as if he lied about drug use.
Mcdougall should be careful what he wishes for in his quest to get the Bar complaints (good luck with that!)
ReplyDeleteWonder if it's ever crossed his mind that what he might find is even more damaging for his client?
“Steven S. testified he didn't file a police report in 1992 alleging he'd been sexually assaulted at San Mateo County's juvenile lock up. But, prosecutors said, he did lodge a complaint with law enforcement agents.”
ReplyDeleteFiling a police report and lodging a complaint are two different things.
”Deputy District Attorney Melissa McKowan also has evidence victim's advocate Victoria Balfour "altered the memories and testimony of several witnesses," McDougall wrote.”
Lashing out for being caught out & publicly quoted by Victoria Balfour I’d say.
Now we see the new strategy the prosecution & defense have been working out. The prosecution is to be put on the defensive for the things they did in collusion with the defense to delay and avoid this trial along with attacking the advocates who have been on top of this case and are the only reason I can see that this sham did not work out as planned by the defense and prosecution. Finally there is going to be an attack on the victims veracity using tortured phrases like “law enforcement agents” where the proper title for the person would show up the deceit in the allegation. As I said above, filing a police report is not the same as reporting to whatever authority was present at the time. Juvie workers can be called law enforement agents.
Pay attention to the tortured phrasing, that is the only tactic I see left to them.
"Now we see the new strategy the prosecution & defense have been working out. The prosecution is to be put on the defensive for the things they did in collusion with the defense to delay and avoid this trial along with attacking the advocates ..."
DeleteIf your assumption (re: the defense's forthcoming strategy) proves to be correct, and if I were a juror, I would suspect that the defense does not have a valid argument in favor of their client. Were I a juror, I would see right through this strategy. I would also see right through a defense pity play.
Btw, the book Without Conscience by Robert Hare provides a good primer about psychopathy.
Excerpted from the Mercury News article: "If I were the defense, I'd want us off the case too," said Karen Guidotti, the chief deputy district attorney. "We're committed in seeking justice for Dr. Ayres."
ReplyDeleteI'm confused:
1. To whom does Guidotti refer when she says "we"?
2. Why is Guidotti committed to seeking justice for the psychopath? Why isn't she committed to seeking justice for the victims of the psychopath?
1) "We" is the DA. Guidotti is the puppet who tells the tales that Wagstaffe wants us to believe while he does what he wants to do.
Delete2) Exactly. Her slip is showing.
The newspaper still hasn't addressed Guidotti's quote. Or if it was an error, it should have been fixed.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Steve S: he testified that when he was a teenager in a group home, he told the authorities about the abuse. It was the GROUP HOME that notified the police, not Sares.
Also there is NO RECORD of Sares' complaint.
Why is the DA attacking this poor victim? Sounds like they dn't even know what the facts are..
It's quite possible that this victim refused to testify again, and now the DA is just covering it up.
"Two other complaints were received in 1994, including one from a former patient who told the state Medical Board that Ayres had molested him in 1966, San Mateo police Capt. Mike Callagy said. Board investigators could not find that man, however. The other accuser -- a Folsom State Prison inmate who told a nurse that Ayres had molested him as a boy during court-ordered sessions -- refused to cooperate with police, according to records and police officials."
ReplyDeleteRead more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Case-against-psychiatrist-took-years-to-assemble-2575702.php#ixzz2MC53yDb6
Neither of these victims are Steve S.
I think McDougall is confused. Steve S told some people at a group home in Petaluma about Ayres. The group home SAYSs they contacted San Mateo County about the allegations.
But the police have NO RECORD of this complaint. Certainly no investigation was done into the allegations Isn't it possible that no one from San Mateo County bothered to interview Steve S? Isn't it rather the fault of San Mateo County for not following through or getting wires crossed on this complaint? Why should both the DA and the defense punish a poor, brave, traumatized boy who can't remember telling authorities about the molestation? He is to be commended for coming forward. For the DA to join in the attack for lying is shameful and disgusting.
McDougall appears to have a history of getting confused about dates and facts. The Daily Journal reported yesterday that McDougall made a major screw up in a murder case:
ReplyDelete"A judge who three weeks ago released a murder suspect awaiting sentencing for having homemade weapons in the county jail remanded the Pittsburg man back into custody yesterday, saying he was incorrectly informed about how much credit Gregory Leon Elarms had racked up while at the county jail and a state mental hospital.
Last week, Judge Craig Parson had ordered Elarms, 60, back to court Tuesday morning without explanation to attorneys. After Parsons announced his change of heart, Elarms, who had been free since Feb. 5, was immediately handcuffed and returned to Maguire Correctional Facility.
Parson said he was given inaccurate information by defense attorney Jonathan McDougall that Elarms had earned near or enough credit against his potential four-year sentence on three weapons charges. When given recalculated figures from the Probation Department, Parsons reversed his earlier ruling, said prosecutor Ivan Nightengale."
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=1764000&title=Murder%20suspect%20back%20in%20custody%20on%20weapons%20charges