07/07/2009
Testifying now is Gilbert Kleinman. [Edit: I think I got this wrong, looks like it's: Kliman] He's testifying that it's OK for shrinks to do medical exams. Reports are that he's excessively boring.
There was argument this morning revolving around potential witness for the defense Firestone. Weinberg wants him to testify that ayres does not fit the profile of a pedophile according to DSM-IV.
McKowan successfully argued that if he's brought in to testify, that she will then be able to present the titles and description of the content of the books. (DSM-IV states that one of the characteristics of pedophiles is that they collect photographic material of their interests)
ayres is still slated to testify, question is when...
No ayres crowd today. Only one or two other than Solveig and Robert. No Etta or Thea.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Etta Bryant, MD, Et Al
What on earth are people like Etta Bryant, a San Mateo county resident, and alleged to be an MD psychiatrist, thinking?
Etta Bryant and her pals Thea Leavitt and Sam Leavitt, MD showed up in court on Monday, July 6th 2009 in support of accused child molester william ayres. Over the course of the day, they made pained faces and nervous gestures while the prosecutor and Detective Decker were discussing the particular details of the molestations. OK… What’s wrong with that? Well, it’s hard to tell given any other public explanation from Etta whether she’s making these facial contortions due to disgust about what her pal has done, and how stupid she was to be duped, or if she’s horrified that evil people could be saying these things about her friend, the “pillar of community”: ayres. I will say this though: she exhibited delight at hearing the credentials for Elizabeth Loftus, the memory expert slated to discredit the recollection abilities of ayres’ victims yesterday. She was nodding her head excitedly when the expert was explaining how she was able to force people to have false memories in clinical studies that she’s done. As best I can tell she was sitting firmly on the side of the defense.
At one point, Etta Bryant was making enough noise and commotion in talking with Thea Leavitt that the bailiff had to come over and ask them to knock it off. As a note for comparison, I was molested by ayres, who I was sitting in the same room with, and a room full of idiots who support him who were treating the event as if it were some kind of bacchanal the whole day – Not once did the bailiff have to come over and ask me to do ANYTHING. I quite effectively restrained myself from booing, laughing out loud at Weinberg or asking out loud: “What the hell does your stupid little memory example have to do with this situation??” And, at no point did I leap up and strangle the life out of ayres. I just restrained myself. It wasn’t that difficult to treat the court with a bit of respect.
This “woman” is supposed to be a professional of San Mateo county, and not only is she supposed to be a professional, but she is supposed to be a professional in mental health, of all things.
Etta didn’t bother to show up for any of the testimony of the victims, but I’m sure she’s had plenty of opportunity to read about their testimony, and yet she continues to deny the victims, who independently relayed nearly identical stories of molestations. I’m betting that she had been in his office in the past, as they worked at the same “medical” group. If so, it would also be clear to her that all of the victims who have testified were also in that office. And yet, as a professional in mental health, rather than consider any of that, she tosses it all out to support her friend.
Etta probably has heard of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. (DSM) It’s the “official” book that describes mental disorders for the American Psychiatric Association. When you go to a shrink and get a bill, they often don’t even list the disorder, they just say something like: Diagnosis DSM-IV-TR 301.81 If you look up 301.81 in the book, you’ll find the info about “Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Maybe she should read DSM-IV 301.2 Pedophilia. The APA provides the following information about pedophiles (from the “American Psychiatric Association FACT Sheet on Pedophilia”):
I’m guessing she’s already read it though. As a professional, she should have connected the dots between the descriptions in the DSM-IV and the testimony given by ayres’ multiple independent victims, and at the very least been skeptical enough to provide support to Solveig and family OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC COURT. But she didn’t. She showed up to court, made public shows of affection to ayres and his wife, and shook her head when the prosecutor spoke, and nodded vigorously when the defense witness spoke.
Etta Bryant is supposed to be a mental health professional, and should not be taking actions that harm others, if she can at all avoid it. Had she stayed out of the picture, perhaps showing up only to testify on behalf of the defense, as an expert, if she truly felt it appropriate, she would have been doing the least damage, while still showing support for her friend. She did not do that. She wrote a public letter decrying the press for reporting ayres’ out of court settlement for child molestation. She showed up in court in support on multiple occasions, and finally showed up in court, Hugged the perpetrator and his wife in front of the courtroom, and sat there and cheered on the defense, at one point disrupting proceedings enough to have the bailiff come over to shut her up. So here’s the victims perspective: Long time San Mateo shrink Etta Bryant thinks that ayres victims are deliberately trying to malign his good name and do him harm in some kind of evil plot. In my pain, as a victim, should I go to psychiatric member of the APA for help in coping? Why would I be that stupid? How would I know if a professionally trained shrink that I’m going to for help actually is treating me thinking that I’m a horrible person for accusing ayres?
Etta Bryant should be displaying a professional demeanor in public. She is not. It is my opinion that her methods and motives are suspect.
Etta Bryant and her pals Thea Leavitt and Sam Leavitt, MD showed up in court on Monday, July 6th 2009 in support of accused child molester william ayres. Over the course of the day, they made pained faces and nervous gestures while the prosecutor and Detective Decker were discussing the particular details of the molestations. OK… What’s wrong with that? Well, it’s hard to tell given any other public explanation from Etta whether she’s making these facial contortions due to disgust about what her pal has done, and how stupid she was to be duped, or if she’s horrified that evil people could be saying these things about her friend, the “pillar of community”: ayres. I will say this though: she exhibited delight at hearing the credentials for Elizabeth Loftus, the memory expert slated to discredit the recollection abilities of ayres’ victims yesterday. She was nodding her head excitedly when the expert was explaining how she was able to force people to have false memories in clinical studies that she’s done. As best I can tell she was sitting firmly on the side of the defense.
At one point, Etta Bryant was making enough noise and commotion in talking with Thea Leavitt that the bailiff had to come over and ask them to knock it off. As a note for comparison, I was molested by ayres, who I was sitting in the same room with, and a room full of idiots who support him who were treating the event as if it were some kind of bacchanal the whole day – Not once did the bailiff have to come over and ask me to do ANYTHING. I quite effectively restrained myself from booing, laughing out loud at Weinberg or asking out loud: “What the hell does your stupid little memory example have to do with this situation??” And, at no point did I leap up and strangle the life out of ayres. I just restrained myself. It wasn’t that difficult to treat the court with a bit of respect.
This “woman” is supposed to be a professional of San Mateo county, and not only is she supposed to be a professional, but she is supposed to be a professional in mental health, of all things.
Etta didn’t bother to show up for any of the testimony of the victims, but I’m sure she’s had plenty of opportunity to read about their testimony, and yet she continues to deny the victims, who independently relayed nearly identical stories of molestations. I’m betting that she had been in his office in the past, as they worked at the same “medical” group. If so, it would also be clear to her that all of the victims who have testified were also in that office. And yet, as a professional in mental health, rather than consider any of that, she tosses it all out to support her friend.
Etta probably has heard of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. (DSM) It’s the “official” book that describes mental disorders for the American Psychiatric Association. When you go to a shrink and get a bill, they often don’t even list the disorder, they just say something like: Diagnosis DSM-IV-TR 301.81 If you look up 301.81 in the book, you’ll find the info about “Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Maybe she should read DSM-IV 301.2 Pedophilia. The APA provides the following information about pedophiles (from the “American Psychiatric Association FACT Sheet on Pedophilia”):
The Characteristics of Pedophilia
According to the DSM-IV definition, pedophilia involves sexual activity by an adult with a prepubescent child. Some individuals prefer females, usually 8- to 10-year-olds.
Those attracted to males usually prefer slightly older children. Some prefer both sexes. While some are sexually attracted only to children, others also are sometimes attracted to adults.
Pedophiliac activity may involve:
undressing and looking at the child or more direct physical sex acts. All these activities are psychologically harmful to the child, and some may be physically harmful. In addition, individuals with pedophilia often go to great lengths to obtain photos, films, or pornographic publications that focus on sex with children.
These individuals commonly explain their activities with excuses or rationalizations that the activities have “educational value” for the child, that the child feels “sexual pleasure” from the activities, or that the child was “sexually provocative.” Furthermore, since pedophiliac acts harm the child, psychiatrists condemn publications or organizations which seek to promote or normalize sex between adults and children.
I’m guessing she’s already read it though. As a professional, she should have connected the dots between the descriptions in the DSM-IV and the testimony given by ayres’ multiple independent victims, and at the very least been skeptical enough to provide support to Solveig and family OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC COURT. But she didn’t. She showed up to court, made public shows of affection to ayres and his wife, and shook her head when the prosecutor spoke, and nodded vigorously when the defense witness spoke.
Etta Bryant is supposed to be a mental health professional, and should not be taking actions that harm others, if she can at all avoid it. Had she stayed out of the picture, perhaps showing up only to testify on behalf of the defense, as an expert, if she truly felt it appropriate, she would have been doing the least damage, while still showing support for her friend. She did not do that. She wrote a public letter decrying the press for reporting ayres’ out of court settlement for child molestation. She showed up in court in support on multiple occasions, and finally showed up in court, Hugged the perpetrator and his wife in front of the courtroom, and sat there and cheered on the defense, at one point disrupting proceedings enough to have the bailiff come over to shut her up. So here’s the victims perspective: Long time San Mateo shrink Etta Bryant thinks that ayres victims are deliberately trying to malign his good name and do him harm in some kind of evil plot. In my pain, as a victim, should I go to psychiatric member of the APA for help in coping? Why would I be that stupid? How would I know if a professionally trained shrink that I’m going to for help actually is treating me thinking that I’m a horrible person for accusing ayres?
Etta Bryant should be displaying a professional demeanor in public. She is not. It is my opinion that her methods and motives are suspect.
Some Selected Courtroom Notes from yesterday:
7/6/2009 9:17AM: Weinberg blurts out victim’s full name.
7/6/2009 10:02AM: Detective Decker is describing ayres touching a victims penis and testicles.
Thea Leavitt rubs her mouth and chin, moves her head away from looking directly at Decker, holds her hands in front of her mouth in a “prayer” posture, looks nervously at her fingernails. Etta opens her eyes very wide during this testimony.
7/6/2009 10:10AM: Decker is describing a victim’s testimony about ayres unzipping his pants and pulling them down, touching his “balls” and that he had an erection, and ejaculated.
Robert ayres, looks down at the floor painfully, Etta looks shocked at the mention of the words “erection”, “getting hard”, and “ejaculating”
7/6/2009 10:17AM: Decker reads discusses a victim’s testimony, recounts asking the victim if he was uncomfortable about talking about getting an erection during an “exam.”
Solveig ayres laughs derisively.
7/6/2009 10:22AM: McKowan is discussing ayres’ requirement of a “Pee Demonstration” from a victim.
Solveig looks right at Decker, her face is emotionless, looking like she’s viewing a boring academic lecture, but she begins to blink rapidly when McKowan is describing ayres holding a cup with one hand, and the child’s penis with the other.
7/6/2009 11:05AM: Decker is talking about an 11 year old victim’s description of ayres’ statement while he was “examining: the child and found the the child had some pubic hair. He stated that ayres said: “Oh wow! Most kids don’t get this until they’re 12 or 13!!”
Thea whispers “Jesus” and repeatedly jerks her head to the side. Etta looks like a deer staring into rapidly approaching headlights.
7/6/2009 11:18AM: Weinberg blurts out another victim’s full name again.
7/6/2009 11:19AM: Weinberg is re-re-examining Decker, the are discussing a victim’s erection.
Thea and Etta look at each other and grin. Slight chuckle from Thea.
7/6/2009 11:35AM: Weinberg is reading off Elizabeth Loftus’ credentials.
Etta and Thea are very animated and happy. At one point when Loftus’ honors are being listed, there are one or more gasps of amazement from Thea and or Etta.
7/6/2009 11:38AM: Sam Leavitt shows up, and Etta and Thea point animatedly at the notes they’ve been taking about Loftus.
7/6/2009 10:02AM: Detective Decker is describing ayres touching a victims penis and testicles.
Thea Leavitt rubs her mouth and chin, moves her head away from looking directly at Decker, holds her hands in front of her mouth in a “prayer” posture, looks nervously at her fingernails. Etta opens her eyes very wide during this testimony.
7/6/2009 10:10AM: Decker is describing a victim’s testimony about ayres unzipping his pants and pulling them down, touching his “balls” and that he had an erection, and ejaculated.
Robert ayres, looks down at the floor painfully, Etta looks shocked at the mention of the words “erection”, “getting hard”, and “ejaculating”
7/6/2009 10:17AM: Decker reads discusses a victim’s testimony, recounts asking the victim if he was uncomfortable about talking about getting an erection during an “exam.”
Solveig ayres laughs derisively.
7/6/2009 10:22AM: McKowan is discussing ayres’ requirement of a “Pee Demonstration” from a victim.
Solveig looks right at Decker, her face is emotionless, looking like she’s viewing a boring academic lecture, but she begins to blink rapidly when McKowan is describing ayres holding a cup with one hand, and the child’s penis with the other.
7/6/2009 11:05AM: Decker is talking about an 11 year old victim’s description of ayres’ statement while he was “examining: the child and found the the child had some pubic hair. He stated that ayres said: “Oh wow! Most kids don’t get this until they’re 12 or 13!!”
Thea whispers “Jesus” and repeatedly jerks her head to the side. Etta looks like a deer staring into rapidly approaching headlights.
7/6/2009 11:18AM: Weinberg blurts out another victim’s full name again.
7/6/2009 11:19AM: Weinberg is re-re-examining Decker, the are discussing a victim’s erection.
Thea and Etta look at each other and grin. Slight chuckle from Thea.
7/6/2009 11:35AM: Weinberg is reading off Elizabeth Loftus’ credentials.
Etta and Thea are very animated and happy. At one point when Loftus’ honors are being listed, there are one or more gasps of amazement from Thea and or Etta.
7/6/2009 11:38AM: Sam Leavitt shows up, and Etta and Thea point animatedly at the notes they’ve been taking about Loftus.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Ayres Will Take the Stand on Tuesday July 7
ALERT:
The good doctor will take the stand tomorrow and testify in his best Truman Capote-lispy voice that he never did anything wrong -no sirree. We will be there to give a play- by- play rundown.
This report will be a supplement to Deep Sounding's account of the day's proceedings.
After basically seeing Ayres, Solveig and Robert sitting alone so much of the trial, we have to say we were a bit stunned to see about fifteen Ayres supporters showing up today. We did hear from the prosecutor that those people today sitting with the Ayres were all slated to be character witnesses but now won't be taking the stand. Some of the Ayres supporters in attendance were Dr Etta Bryant, an Ayes sycophant who wrote a letter defending him to the SM County Times in 2006 and Dr. Sam and Thea Leavitt. There was also the guy in the green shirt whom Deep Sounding talked about who was either nodding his head when Weinberg talked like someone at a tent revival meeting or dozing off when the prosecutor was speaking.
It's too bad that none of these 15 or so character witnesses - mostly women - had the balls to attend the trial when the ten victims testified. What was remarkable was how similar they were in appearance and dress style. The women were very sexless and boxy. Their faces were scrubbed and free of makeup. They didn't look as if they believed in covering up their gray hair. They were earnest and crunchy granola types and a bit frumpy. Several were very overweight. They appeared to be very earnest types who didn't have any edge to them.
We can see how Billy Ayres could have taken advantage of their unsophisticated nature.
That said, we noticed that many of the acolytes had a lot of trouble with the readback testimony about Ayres touching boys' penises and scrotums. One of the back-to-nature women in a long hippy skirt actually came down with a severe choking fit when the prosecutor asked Detective Decker to read back some graphic testimony. In fact, she got so choked up she had to leave the courtroom. When the choking woman finally returned, the ever dutiful Robert Ayres fetched a glass of water for her. Then we caught him giving her a big wink. That wink was quite showy and reminded us of something Sammy Davis Jr might do in a nightclub. We have noticed that as the trial has progressed that Robert Ayres has been becoming more and more theatrical in his behavior. Maybe this courtroom is as close as he will get to a bigtime theatrical production in his lifetime and he's milking it for all it's worth. He just seems so damn actorly and self conscious and that every movement is enacted for maximum effect. For example, after getting the glass of water for his choking pal, he plopped down in his seat loudly. It made the seat cushion make a loud whoosh - and as a result we couldn't help fantasizing about placing a whoopee cushion on his chair.
Mid-morning, Thea Leavitt arrived with a woman who turned out to be Dr.Etta Bryant. Thea is the wife of pediatrician Dr. Sam Leavitt, who was told by the father of a victim that he believed that Ayres molested his son. We hear that all Leavitt did was to look uneasy and just change the subject. Way to go, Sam!
When Ayres was first arrested, Thea used to show up with Ayres at the courthouse, arm in arm. She looked more married to the good doctor than Solveig did.
We know that Etta Bryant often drives Thea to Waterworks classes over at the Highland Recreation Center these days . In the courtroom today, Thea ran into the mother of a victim, and as she passed the mother, she made a shrugging "What can I do ? " gesture. It bugged the mother of a victim no end.
In court today, we were happy to see the bailiff admonish Thea and Etta Bryan for jabbering and passing notes to each other. The bailiff- a craggy looking guy who looks a lot like the actor Scott Glenn ( remember him in Urban Cowboy?) has in recent days throwing his weight around more and more. At the beginning of the trial, you could see him trying to catch a little shut eye. Those days are gone. These days, his piercing blue eyes scan the room like a powerful lighthouse for miscreants. He has been known to get up from his seat and talk to people who have been too noisy with their candy wrappers. We like that he's pulling his weight, and we think his name - D. B. Hennessy - has a movie star ring to it.
As for testimony - poor Detective Rick Decker was on the stand this morning for 2 1/2 hours instead of the half hour that Weinberg had predicted. Most of it was the same old, same old. As in, quibbling about the dates about when victim Peter V had a conversation with his therapist wife and her therapist friend Kimberley about Ayres molesting him. Weinberg has a habit of raising his voice as he tries to point out discrepancies in the victims' testimony. We wouldn't mind if we only had to hear it once, but today it seemed as if we have been hearing Weinberg hashing overthe same old details at least four times by now . We do have to say that the prosecutor has a wonderful trick to counteract this. She simply had Detective Decker read from his interviews with the victims about what Ayres did to them - thereby implanting and refreshing the sordid details to the jury of the abuse. We like that trick very much.
The good doctor will take the stand tomorrow and testify in his best Truman Capote-lispy voice that he never did anything wrong -no sirree. We will be there to give a play- by- play rundown.
This report will be a supplement to Deep Sounding's account of the day's proceedings.
After basically seeing Ayres, Solveig and Robert sitting alone so much of the trial, we have to say we were a bit stunned to see about fifteen Ayres supporters showing up today. We did hear from the prosecutor that those people today sitting with the Ayres were all slated to be character witnesses but now won't be taking the stand. Some of the Ayres supporters in attendance were Dr Etta Bryant, an Ayes sycophant who wrote a letter defending him to the SM County Times in 2006 and Dr. Sam and Thea Leavitt. There was also the guy in the green shirt whom Deep Sounding talked about who was either nodding his head when Weinberg talked like someone at a tent revival meeting or dozing off when the prosecutor was speaking.
It's too bad that none of these 15 or so character witnesses - mostly women - had the balls to attend the trial when the ten victims testified. What was remarkable was how similar they were in appearance and dress style. The women were very sexless and boxy. Their faces were scrubbed and free of makeup. They didn't look as if they believed in covering up their gray hair. They were earnest and crunchy granola types and a bit frumpy. Several were very overweight. They appeared to be very earnest types who didn't have any edge to them.
We can see how Billy Ayres could have taken advantage of their unsophisticated nature.
That said, we noticed that many of the acolytes had a lot of trouble with the readback testimony about Ayres touching boys' penises and scrotums. One of the back-to-nature women in a long hippy skirt actually came down with a severe choking fit when the prosecutor asked Detective Decker to read back some graphic testimony. In fact, she got so choked up she had to leave the courtroom. When the choking woman finally returned, the ever dutiful Robert Ayres fetched a glass of water for her. Then we caught him giving her a big wink. That wink was quite showy and reminded us of something Sammy Davis Jr might do in a nightclub. We have noticed that as the trial has progressed that Robert Ayres has been becoming more and more theatrical in his behavior. Maybe this courtroom is as close as he will get to a bigtime theatrical production in his lifetime and he's milking it for all it's worth. He just seems so damn actorly and self conscious and that every movement is enacted for maximum effect. For example, after getting the glass of water for his choking pal, he plopped down in his seat loudly. It made the seat cushion make a loud whoosh - and as a result we couldn't help fantasizing about placing a whoopee cushion on his chair.
Mid-morning, Thea Leavitt arrived with a woman who turned out to be Dr.Etta Bryant. Thea is the wife of pediatrician Dr. Sam Leavitt, who was told by the father of a victim that he believed that Ayres molested his son. We hear that all Leavitt did was to look uneasy and just change the subject. Way to go, Sam!
When Ayres was first arrested, Thea used to show up with Ayres at the courthouse, arm in arm. She looked more married to the good doctor than Solveig did.
We know that Etta Bryant often drives Thea to Waterworks classes over at the Highland Recreation Center these days . In the courtroom today, Thea ran into the mother of a victim, and as she passed the mother, she made a shrugging "What can I do ? " gesture. It bugged the mother of a victim no end.
In court today, we were happy to see the bailiff admonish Thea and Etta Bryan for jabbering and passing notes to each other. The bailiff- a craggy looking guy who looks a lot like the actor Scott Glenn ( remember him in Urban Cowboy?) has in recent days throwing his weight around more and more. At the beginning of the trial, you could see him trying to catch a little shut eye. Those days are gone. These days, his piercing blue eyes scan the room like a powerful lighthouse for miscreants. He has been known to get up from his seat and talk to people who have been too noisy with their candy wrappers. We like that he's pulling his weight, and we think his name - D. B. Hennessy - has a movie star ring to it.
As for testimony - poor Detective Rick Decker was on the stand this morning for 2 1/2 hours instead of the half hour that Weinberg had predicted. Most of it was the same old, same old. As in, quibbling about the dates about when victim Peter V had a conversation with his therapist wife and her therapist friend Kimberley about Ayres molesting him. Weinberg has a habit of raising his voice as he tries to point out discrepancies in the victims' testimony. We wouldn't mind if we only had to hear it once, but today it seemed as if we have been hearing Weinberg hashing overthe same old details at least four times by now . We do have to say that the prosecutor has a wonderful trick to counteract this. She simply had Detective Decker read from his interviews with the victims about what Ayres did to them - thereby implanting and refreshing the sordid details to the jury of the abuse. We like that trick very much.
[Comment: Deep Sounding, 10PM: I thought Detective Decker was patient, clear, professional. I wanted to thank him, but was feeling a bit unsetteled and didn't: I hope he reads this.]
As the details of the molestation were read back to the court, we noticed that Thea Leavitt blinked a million times a minute, as if she was trying to keep out the reality of what she's wearing. Thea looked really uncomfortable as testimony was being read about Ayres unzipping a boy's pants and sticking his hand down there.
Decker finally finished his testimony at 11:30 pm. Next up was memory expert Elizabeth Loftus. For more details please see Deep Sounding's take today. We will say that she has an impressive resume- working with the FBI and CIA. We didn't care for her her cheery and slightly condescending way of speaking that reminds us of a cooking show host.
We found it very interesting that Loftus has testified 250 times in trials - but only once for the prosecution. Later in the day, when the prosecutor asked Loftus about the one time she'd testified for the prosecution, Loftus couldn't even remember the case. Shame on you, memory expert !! When the prosecutor mentioned that Loftus had written a book called "Witness for the Defense" she followed it up with "You didn't write a book called "Witness for the Prosecution" did you?" We were pleased to see that this question made many members of the jury smirk.
As Loftus was talking about how her studies have shown that traumatic memories don't necessarily mean that they are indelibly printed on the memory, we found ourselves wondering whether Ayres and Solveig share the same barber. From the back, both have haircuts that look bitten off, rather than styled.
During the cross examination of Loftus, the prosecutor wisely talked about the testimony of the victims - hypothetically. We noticed that the talk about the touching of penises and scrotum and groins made Dr. Sam Leavitt seriously uncomfortable. This is what he did during that testimony: he picked at a scab on his hands; he placed his hands and front of him and spread his fingers and examined then: he examined the hair on his arms: he twisted his wedding ring: for many minutes he studied the printing on his cardboard water cup, and at one point during particularly graphic testimony, he couldn't stand it: he got up and walked out.
Too bad he missed the prosecutor scoring major points with Loftus. We liked it that she got Lotfus to agree that the more confident the person is of his memory, the more likely the memory is likely to be accurate . We totally agree with Deep Sounding that the prosecutor basically eviscerated Loftus's flakey testimony.
[Comment: Deep Sounding 10PM: I'm not a big fan of underhanded behavior, but I do love to see a prosecutor play it low key and easy going, as long as they're really a shark. Today McKowan finshed palling around with Weinberg, sneaked up behind him, drove the knife into his back, and twisted it around, then kicked it in deeper. Did anyone see if she drank his blood afterward? heh heh... ]
She also got Loftus to admit that she was not there to testify as to whether the victims were being truthful. ( It was at this point that we noticed that Ayres looked like a lawn gnome)
Photo courtesy Patient AdvocateWe were pleased to note that by the end of the day even Ayres' groupie Etta Bryant looked ghastly after all that testimony of the touching of penises. The real test is : will she turn up tomorrow?
Again we have to ask this: where were Bryant and the Leavitts and all of the other so-called character witnesses when the 10 victims were testifying? We think they're just chicken, plain and simple.
Also in afternoon motions , another alternate juror was excused from the trial to attend to a sick relative. We think they just can't stand to hear another day of testimony about the beast groping and cupping boys' genitalia.
We encourage anyone who supports the victims to show up in the courtroom tomorrow. It would mean so very much to the victims.
Again we have to ask this: where were Bryant and the Leavitts and all of the other so-called character witnesses when the 10 victims were testifying? We think they're just chicken, plain and simple.
Also in afternoon motions , another alternate juror was excused from the trial to attend to a sick relative. We think they just can't stand to hear another day of testimony about the beast groping and cupping boys' genitalia.
We encourage anyone who supports the victims to show up in the courtroom tomorrow. It would mean so very much to the victims.
Defense Witnesses Take the Stand
Weinberg will begin his parade of defense witnesses today. Many of whom are experts in specific areas of study, such as memory, and who will testify in general without specifically refuting the individual testimony of any of the victims, but will be attempting to damage the victim's testimony as a whole. These are people who are supposed to be experts in the field of mental health, and yet are doing actual additional mental damage to the victims. Thanks for coming!
Also testifying will probably be character witnesses who will be stating that ayres is a great guy, or that he doesn't fit the profile. These folks will simply be perjuring themselves on the stand. Or, maybe they have all begun to realize that it would be a bad idea to get up on the stand, and have decided not to do it...
There were several reporters in the courtroom this morning, as well as Balfour, and several of the parents/relatives of victims.
Very Briefly:
Defense examination of Detective Decker went on until about 11:20AM, when Elizabeth Loftus, a memory expert took the stand, and they began reading off her resume. it went on until lunch break at 11:55AM. She has a very impressive resume. At one point as they were coming to the end of her resume, she gave an example about how people's memory can be "altered" by asking specifically worded questions immediately after a traumatic event, such as witnessing an auto accident, and then much later, when questioned, they remember things differently in a way that correlates to the original questions asked. None of this relates to a victim who was involved in an event, and WAS NOT QUESTIONED until much later... It will be a difficult task for McKowan to impart this though, clearly and succinctly to the jury. Early indications are that McKowan did a pretty good job in the afternoon of making Loftus waffle! If so, kudos! Loftus had me biting my nails. Maybe someone will have more on this later.
Meanwhile, the ayres crew packed the courtroom with clingers-on. Thea Leavitt and Sam Leavitt (Who some allege is a pediatrician) were there, along with Etta Bryant, another bay area shrink who is known to stand up vocally in support of ayres' molestations. (er...she calls them medical exams...) Thea and Etta had visible and audible orgasms when Weinberg began to read off Elizabeth Loftus' credentials. (Was it Loftus' educational prowess, or Weinburg's dulcet tones??) Etta and Thea frantically pointed to Thea's notes to Sam when he showed up. He couldn't be seen clearly enough for his excitement level to be gauged.
Also present was ayres' son Robert, as well as a crew of about 8 other people, most appearing to be about Robert's age. Maybe he has some friends who are either molesters or like hearing about molestation, and they came along for the fun. In all, besides Solveig and Robert, there were 5 men and 6 women in the little crowd. But there may be some fudging to that number; at least two of the "women" were pretty bull-dyke looking, and could possibly have been men.
One of the "actual" men, wearing a very light forest green shirt (kind of sloppy looking) was very creepy looking. The "Molest-dar" was pinging very loudly on this guy, but he could just be your run-of-the-mill serial killer, or something, I suppose. Real weirdo. Had a funny little "robot walk."
I was going to be brutally mean-spirited, but I think I'm having the onset of a migraine headache, like I used to when I was going to ayres' office, so I need to quit for now.
There's a whole bunch more, but it will have to wait for later.
Here's an interesting read by the way... you could replace the word "pedophile" with the words "william ayres" and have a pretty spot-on resume.
Also testifying will probably be character witnesses who will be stating that ayres is a great guy, or that he doesn't fit the profile. These folks will simply be perjuring themselves on the stand. Or, maybe they have all begun to realize that it would be a bad idea to get up on the stand, and have decided not to do it...
There were several reporters in the courtroom this morning, as well as Balfour, and several of the parents/relatives of victims.
Very Briefly:
Defense examination of Detective Decker went on until about 11:20AM, when Elizabeth Loftus, a memory expert took the stand, and they began reading off her resume. it went on until lunch break at 11:55AM. She has a very impressive resume. At one point as they were coming to the end of her resume, she gave an example about how people's memory can be "altered" by asking specifically worded questions immediately after a traumatic event, such as witnessing an auto accident, and then much later, when questioned, they remember things differently in a way that correlates to the original questions asked. None of this relates to a victim who was involved in an event, and WAS NOT QUESTIONED until much later... It will be a difficult task for McKowan to impart this though, clearly and succinctly to the jury. Early indications are that McKowan did a pretty good job in the afternoon of making Loftus waffle! If so, kudos! Loftus had me biting my nails. Maybe someone will have more on this later.
Meanwhile, the ayres crew packed the courtroom with clingers-on. Thea Leavitt and Sam Leavitt (Who some allege is a pediatrician) were there, along with Etta Bryant, another bay area shrink who is known to stand up vocally in support of ayres' molestations. (er...she calls them medical exams...) Thea and Etta had visible and audible orgasms when Weinberg began to read off Elizabeth Loftus' credentials. (Was it Loftus' educational prowess, or Weinburg's dulcet tones??) Etta and Thea frantically pointed to Thea's notes to Sam when he showed up. He couldn't be seen clearly enough for his excitement level to be gauged.
Also present was ayres' son Robert, as well as a crew of about 8 other people, most appearing to be about Robert's age. Maybe he has some friends who are either molesters or like hearing about molestation, and they came along for the fun. In all, besides Solveig and Robert, there were 5 men and 6 women in the little crowd. But there may be some fudging to that number; at least two of the "women" were pretty bull-dyke looking, and could possibly have been men.
One of the "actual" men, wearing a very light forest green shirt (kind of sloppy looking) was very creepy looking. The "Molest-dar" was pinging very loudly on this guy, but he could just be your run-of-the-mill serial killer, or something, I suppose. Real weirdo. Had a funny little "robot walk."
I was going to be brutally mean-spirited, but I think I'm having the onset of a migraine headache, like I used to when I was going to ayres' office, so I need to quit for now.
There's a whole bunch more, but it will have to wait for later.
Here's an interesting read by the way... you could replace the word "pedophile" with the words "william ayres" and have a pretty spot-on resume.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Happy Independence Day!
Happy Independence Day Everyone!
[ Originally, the Declaration of Independence was included here. I've removed it for brevity. - Which, admittedly has some ironic political undertone....]
Friday, July 3, 2009
ayres Trial - Week Five
New article for Today, Friday July 3rd below.The jury will NOT be allowed to see Ayres' pedophile photo collection.
Witness list is sealed.
The Trial will resume on MONDAY, JULY 6th, 2009.
For those who can't make it to the courtroom on a daily basis, the fastest way to get information is through the Superior Court Clerk's office:
Phone number there: 650-599-1170
ayres' criminal case number:SC064366
ayres' criminal case number:SC064366
Thursday, July 2, 2009
July 2. 2009: No Jury Trial Today but Plenty of Motions: Weinberg's "Expert Witness" Will Say that Ayres Does Not Fit the Profile
There may have been no jury trial today, but for those who showed up in court today anyway, there were plenty of very interesting motions going on between defense and prosecution.
We hear that Weinberg plans to call on Dr. Marvin Firestone next week who will say that he does not believe that Ayres fits the profile of a pedophile. Whatever..... If Firestone is the guy we think he is, he's also a lawyer who seems to defend doctors no matter what kind of criminal actitivy they've been involved in. And if he is the guy we think he is,he lives right here in good ole San Mateo. Could it be that Firestone and Ayres are pals from way back? Is this the same Marvin Firestone who is currently serving in some capacity on the Northern California Psychiatric Association - the same group that gave Ayres some award with a fancy name a couple of decades ago?
Check out this Marvin Firestone profile:
http://www.aclm.org/meetings/2007%20Meeting%20Archives/2007%20Annual%20Meeting/
2007%20Orlando%20Speakers/Firestone%20bio.pdf
Wonder if Dr. Firestone has read "Beoynd Betrayal" a book about male sex abuse. Dr. Richard Gartner, founder of the Sex Abuse clinic at the William Alanson White Institute in New York City, and a board member of Male Survivor.
In his book Dr. Gartner specifically talks about how pedophiles are attracted to working in the medical profession because it provides easy access to kids. He talks about pedophiles who are doctors.
Excerpt:
Many child abusers are attracted to careers and avocation that make them special in the eyes of the community. They may be teachers, clergy, scoutmasters, choirmasters, coaches, Big Brothers, child care workers, doctors or other health workers or civic leaders. These positions can help an abuser gain access to children and serve as a cover for the abuse they commit. Serving in these roles can also be a form of insurance, so if they get caught, they’ll have ample support and plenty of advocates to state unequivocally, “This person could never hurt a child.”
__________
Update:
We've also learned that he is a member of the Bay Area Koi Club and that some years ago he and the wife used to keep their koi in their swimming pool before they built a whole separate pond for their pet fish.
__________
And it appears that those nasty Nude Boy books have not been forgotten by the prosecution team. It's not quite clear to us why there is still an ongoing discussion about the Coming of Age in court motions today, but hey, for those of us who were disheartened when they were excluded as evidence, these renewed discussions have cheered us right up.
We did hear that there seemed to have been a bit of a tug of war between the defense and prosecution today as to whether those highly sexualized photos of young adolescent boys in various stages of undress in locker rooms is considered porn. It appears that the prosecution's stance is that they are porn, given that the books have been removed from circulation in some places. We heard that Weinberg was arguing about wanting to bring an expert to testify that they are not.
Comments, Musings, and Thanks to the Witnesses
There is some spirited discussion going on in some of the comments:
Well, at the risk of fanning the fire, I’ll jump in on this one too:
From my perspective, both posters (All three posters?) have alluded to some valid points:
Decker was very careful to not ask leading questions during his interviews (at least he was with me.) From a POLICE perspective, then, based on their understanding of the necessity to be very procedural with ALL contact with victims, I’d guess that he thinks that Balfour is a risk, in that she has, over the years had private conversations with some of the victims. There is the potential for the defense to claim that she has planted false memories or divulged information that would influence the witness testimony. This could indeed be dangerous to the prosecution.
On the other hand, the defense would be risking quite a bit actually calling Balfour as a hostile witness. Without interviewing her first, the defense would be risking getting sued by his client for malpractice if Balfour damaged the case. Any questioning that the defense did would potentially leave openings for Balfour to introduce information that that defense has previously successfully argued to have suppressed. Take this COMPLETELY THEORETICAL example:
Oops! I’m no lawyer, but I don’t think they could call a mistrial on that, after all, she would have been the defense’s witness…
So my summary feeling about all of this:
I like Decker. I think he’s honest and hard working, and from his perspective, Balfour is problematic due to the unknown content of her discussion with the victims.
I don’t think it was EVER actually intended for Balfour to be called as a witness by EITHER side, and I think this became clear to the judge.
I like Balfour, she’s pushed and pushed when no one else would. I think it creates some natural animosity.
For what it’s worth, I’ve had some discussions with Balfour, and prior to writing about some (minor) specifics here on this blog, and in comments on other blogs (after other victim’s testimony was published) the ONLY person who I’ve EVER discussed specifics with was Decker. AND, until seeing the press and bloggers writings about the testimony from the victims, I have never HEARD any information from or about others with regard to what went on in there, other than what was reported early on in the mainstream press (which was largely incorrect in specifics.)
The bottom line at this point is that we now get to focus on the defense’s presentation:
We will get to hear “experts” on memory loss talk about boring and non-relevant minutiae, and we will get to hear character witnesses talk about ayres being a big pillar, and we will possibly get to hear “expert” shrinks perjure themselves talking about how perfectly OK it is for a shrink to enjoy fondling a long string of little boys.
We can all be shocked together if it ever comes to fruition that Weinberg puts Balfour or ayres up on the stand, which will occur if Weinberg wants it to, regardless of anything that has happened in the past, or anything that the prosecutor could have tried to stop it.
Some final thoughts:
If I were on that witness stand testifying, my hope would be that NO ONE BE IN THE COURTROOM, Not Decker, not Balfour, not my parents, not the press, not all of these crazy gadfly bloggers. Not the beast, or his crappy little family.
SO I think I owe a GREAT debt of gratitude to those who had the courage to sit there. And for those that didn’t want to testify: I understand with all of my soul, and I hope that we all can heal quickly, don't let this be an extra burden of guilt. We all have had enough.
Well, at the risk of fanning the fire, I’ll jump in on this one too:
From my perspective, both posters (All three posters?) have alluded to some valid points:
Decker was very careful to not ask leading questions during his interviews (at least he was with me.) From a POLICE perspective, then, based on their understanding of the necessity to be very procedural with ALL contact with victims, I’d guess that he thinks that Balfour is a risk, in that she has, over the years had private conversations with some of the victims. There is the potential for the defense to claim that she has planted false memories or divulged information that would influence the witness testimony. This could indeed be dangerous to the prosecution.
On the other hand, the defense would be risking quite a bit actually calling Balfour as a hostile witness. Without interviewing her first, the defense would be risking getting sued by his client for malpractice if Balfour damaged the case. Any questioning that the defense did would potentially leave openings for Balfour to introduce information that that defense has previously successfully argued to have suppressed. Take this COMPLETELY THEORETICAL example:
Theoretical Defense: “Did you ever have a conversation with a victim about what happened in the office?”
Theoretical Balfour: “No, but I did hear a parent talking about one occasion when a victim mentioned seeing nude photos of boys in a “locker room situation” from the child porn book “Coming of Age, which is probably the same one that the police found in ayres’ file cabinet, locked away from his family, in storage right where he left it, right next to all of his patients files! How creepy is that?”
Oops! I’m no lawyer, but I don’t think they could call a mistrial on that, after all, she would have been the defense’s witness…
Defense: “I call for a mistrial!”Maybe I've been drinking too much kool-aide, but I think, as a witness, Balfour is at best a double-edged sword, and Weinberg’s side is dull rusty iron, while the prosecutor’s side is honed steel. Best for both sides to avoid if possible. Don't want to risk tetanus, don't want your head lopped off.
Judge: She’s YOUR WITNESS, you nitwit! Why didn’t you ask her nicely not to mention the book that you had suppressed?
So my summary feeling about all of this:
I like Decker. I think he’s honest and hard working, and from his perspective, Balfour is problematic due to the unknown content of her discussion with the victims.
I don’t think it was EVER actually intended for Balfour to be called as a witness by EITHER side, and I think this became clear to the judge.
I like Balfour, she’s pushed and pushed when no one else would. I think it creates some natural animosity.
For what it’s worth, I’ve had some discussions with Balfour, and prior to writing about some (minor) specifics here on this blog, and in comments on other blogs (after other victim’s testimony was published) the ONLY person who I’ve EVER discussed specifics with was Decker. AND, until seeing the press and bloggers writings about the testimony from the victims, I have never HEARD any information from or about others with regard to what went on in there, other than what was reported early on in the mainstream press (which was largely incorrect in specifics.)
The bottom line at this point is that we now get to focus on the defense’s presentation:
We will get to hear “experts” on memory loss talk about boring and non-relevant minutiae, and we will get to hear character witnesses talk about ayres being a big pillar, and we will possibly get to hear “expert” shrinks perjure themselves talking about how perfectly OK it is for a shrink to enjoy fondling a long string of little boys.
We can all be shocked together if it ever comes to fruition that Weinberg puts Balfour or ayres up on the stand, which will occur if Weinberg wants it to, regardless of anything that has happened in the past, or anything that the prosecutor could have tried to stop it.
Some final thoughts:
If I were on that witness stand testifying, my hope would be that NO ONE BE IN THE COURTROOM, Not Decker, not Balfour, not my parents, not the press, not all of these crazy gadfly bloggers. Not the beast, or his crappy little family.
SO I think I owe a GREAT debt of gratitude to those who had the courage to sit there. And for those that didn’t want to testify: I understand with all of my soul, and I hope that we all can heal quickly, don't let this be an extra burden of guilt. We all have had enough.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Ayres Trial, Week Five, Day Three: "If The Situation Arose, Would You Let Your Son Be Treated By Dr. Ayres?"
"Hypothetically, if the situation arose, would you let your son be treated by Dr. Ayres?" - One of the questions in the San Mateo PD's questionnaire during their interviews with Dr. Ayres' former patients.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009: 8:35 am: After having Tuesday off, out in the hall outside the Ayres courtroom, the chatter among the Ayres jurors was how much they enjoyed having the day off. Everyone was in a sprightly mood: one older woman was knitting a sweater; several were talking animatedly about their day jobs. A heavyset woman juror whose bun is always held together with a purple scrunchy sat quietly reading a magazine that looked like Time or Newsweek. We weren't sure, but it looked as if she had a screwdriver stuck through her bun.
Around the corner from the jury on a bench in the hall was the gloomy triumverate: Robert Ayres, Solveig Ayres and the Doctor. No words were exchanged between these family members. They stared straight ahead and didn't acknowledge one another. One shudders to think what dinner time is like in the Ayres household.
Testimony:
Peter V. was the fourth and final out- of -statute victim to testify. Like many of the victims, he wore a blue shirt and chinos. He actually resembled Steve A., the victim who settled the civil suit against Ayres. Like the majority of victims, Peter V is not a tall man. It makes us mad to think about how the gargantuan doctor must have towered over Peter and all the other undersized victims in therapy. Come to think of it, we really don't know of any tall victims of Ayres, other than Eric B, an in -statute victim who testified . That guy was super tall - so much so that the good doctor accosted him in the hall last week as Eric waited to testify. It is not clear whether the good doctor knew he was speaking to a victim, but what he did say to Eric B was "You should be a basketball player." We suspect he did know he was a victim, and that this either was some creepy flirtatious come-on, or an attempt to disarm the victim and keep him off guard. Note to Dr. Ayres: we are well aware of your little tricks to catch people off guard and they don't work! We have also heard that a complaint about Ayres' remark was made to the bailiff or such, and that is a good thing.
Back to Peter V's testimony. He said he was 40 years old, married with two children, works in the software industry. He came across as very, very smart and very articulate. (We've noticed that Ayres picked on boys who were brainy) Peter told the jury that he was sent to Ayres because his parents were going through a divorce and that his grades started dropping at school. When he spoke to the prosecutor he was very strong and confident. He told the prosecutor that when he was sent to Ayres he had no physical problems. He told the jury that it was in his third session that Ayres asked him to drop his pants, and that subsequently Ayres "cupped his scrotum." Peter said that he telegraphed to Ayres that he objected to this violation through his defensive posture. He said Ayres used no gloves, did not use a stethoscope or take his blood pressure or engage in any other medical procedure.
After he had been molested, Peter told the jury that he felt violated, but that he didn't tell his mother because he didn't have an intimate relationship with her.
It wasn't until 2004, he said, when he was having lunch with his wife, who is a mental health professional and her friend Kimberley, who was also a mental health professional, that he told them that Ayres had molested him. The subject came up because somehow, the friend Kimberley had mentioned Ayres' name in conversation .He testified that both his wife and Kimberley said " A psychiatrist shouldn't do that!" ( No kidding, but try telling Weinberg that.)
Weinberg asked a lot of nitpicking dates about when Peter and his wife and Kimberley had this discussion about Ayres. This is his job, to point out inconsistencies in witnesses' testimony but man ,did it put us to sleep.
We thought Peter was a great witness and we thank him for his testimony. He is a hero.
Next up was Detective Rick Decker, the lead detective in the Ayres case. Decker is 35 but looks 25. With his round face and cropped hair, he reminds us of Charlie Brown. He was a pretty good witness, we thought. He walked us through the interviewing procedure of the victims. He insisted that the police did not ask leading questions. What sticks out in our mind is that when he first contacted Orion B, he said that Orion was driving in Malibu and got so upset when he heard Ayres' name that out of concern, he asked Orion to pull off the road.
Midmorning, three older women, obviously cronies of the Ayres, made a rather noisy entrance into the courtroom. One had a superduper deluxe walker that seemed to have a motor or something and it made Ayres' walker look rather puny and outdated. One of the women had a gray ponytail and we kept wondering if it was Ayres' groupie Dr. Etta Bryant, who wrote a letter defending Ayres to the County Times three years ago. These three new cronies made us wonder what happened to the well preserved society dame who appeared with the Ayres at the opening arguments, who scowled at the victims and scribbled in her notebook furiously. We haven't seen hide nor hair of her since. That seems to be a pattern... the Ayres solicit pals to attend the trial but once they hear the testimony, they're never seen again.
On the other hand, we were delighted to see a pair of parents who were attending the trial for the first time. After reading our blog, they had decided to make a trip to the courthouse. They told us that their son had seen Ayres for just one visit. But after telling them that he got a" bad vibe" from the good doctor, he refused to go back. Smart boy!! We welcomed his parents in the courtroom because they exuded such strong positive energy. We hope they return. We also encourage other parents out there to attend.
It kinda bugs us, but Robert Ayres appeared to be trying to get brownie points by being super obsequious. When the bailiff opened the doors to the courtroom at 8:45 am, Robert made a big show of holding the door open for mom and dad. Then he held the door open for the bailiff. (Ick.) During the day's testimony, when the jury entered and left the room, Robert was the only one of the courtroom spectators to leap to his feet and stand at attention. We also noticed that in the morning's testimony, Robert went to the back of the room to fetch a cup of water from the cooler for dear old dad, who hadn't asked him for it. He tapped him on the shoulder and handed it to him. It all seemed a bit too showy for our taste. We know Robert is an erstwhile actor and we couldn't help thinking : Is he doing this for show, as in "Hey, lookit jury, look at what a great son I am !" But there was no warmth to it or genuine caring to his action. He was acting as if he thought that's what sons do for fathers, but there didn't seem to be any love for his father. We continue to feel sorry for him, even as we continue to be angry with him for defending the pedophile. It sort of drives us crazy to feel both pity and anger towards this man who - as one spectator pointed out to us - does not carry himself like a man. With his goatee, he bears a strong resemblance to the beatnik character Maynard G Krebs in "Dobie Gillis" (now we're really showing our age.) Krebs was played by Bob Denver, later known as "Gilligan."
During Weinberg's cross-examination of Detective Decker, he kept harping on the fact that in the police questionnaire that was used to interrogate victims, the talking-sheet called Ayres a "psychologist" instead of "psychiatrist." Weinberg seemed to think that this made all the difference in the world in terms of the victims' testimony, but we know better. We think the real reason he harped on it because Ayres once wrote an essay in which he said that psychiatrists were superior to psychologists because they had gone to medical school. He said psychiatrists were the Rolls Royces, the expensive crystal, the creme de la creme of therapeutic professionals. We have learned that his arrogant attitude towards psychologists in the essay made many psychologists angry.(Wonder what forensic psychologist Al Fricke thought of this essay?Fricke and Ayres worked together a lot... We have heard stories that Fricke knows things about Ayres but has never come forward to police. We think he's a coward.)
We bet it drives Ayres crazy every time he is referred to as a "psychologist" and so we hope people continue to make this mistake for as long as he lives...
After lunch, Pete Bahnmueller, a retired detective from the San Mateo PD testified. He said he was brought in from retirement to help call victims. Bald and with a mustache, he bore a strong resemblance to Delta Burke's husband, actor Gerald McRaney. He was soft spoken. Not much stands out about his testimony other than the fact that when he called one former patient of Ayres and said,"Do you know why I am calling you?", he said the man replied "Is it because I missed an AA meeting?" This elicited chuckles from the judge, jury and everyone else in the courtroom.
At one point during Banhmueller's testimony, we looked over at Ayres, who sat like a grey stone. In spite of a roll of fat that spilled over the back of his chair, it appeared to us that he has lost weight in the last few weeks.
Next up, Deputy Police Chief Mike Callagy. Callagy is a very tall chap, who - at least in the courtroom- has the demeanor of an altar boy. Unlike the other police officers, Callagy addressed the jury directly and kept up a steady stream of "Yes, Ma'am's" to the prosecutor. We're not sure if he's really that polite outside the courtroom, but it wasn't a bad performance. We did like it that when Weinberg started complaining that the police had never consulted with mental health professionals before starting to call former patients of Ayres, Callagy shot back firmly "Mr. Weinberg, we are trained to interview people under these cicrumstances."Score one for the police.
After that, the prosecution rested its case. They put on testimony for just six days. We wonder why theexpert in the Child Abuse Accommodation Syndrome didn't testify, because Weinberg fought so hard to keep her out.
Weinberg's first witness for the defense was Detective Rick Decker, who had just spent the morning on the stand for the prosecution. The defense attorney nitpicked and nitpicked and zeroed in on inconsistencies with victims' testimonies - in particular that of Scott E.. Weinberg noted that in his first two interviews with police that Scott E had never said that Ayres had touched his penis. On the third interview, he told them it "might" have occurred. We thought Weinberg was pretty good at pointing out discrepancies, much as we hate to admit it. He's doing a good job, and he is a good lawyer, though we still believe Ayres will be convicted.
It was a tiring day for everyone. Even Robert Ayres abandoned his usual on the edge- of-his-seat exclamation point posture and was drooping drowsily back in his chair. One young female juror kept looking and picking and picking at her fingernails, driving many courtroom observers crazy. All along they have been concerned about her seeming inattentiveness.
The trial is in recess until Monday, with Weinberg finishing up his testimony of Decker.
There was a rumor going around today that Ayres himself will take the witness stand next week. But if his testimony is as filled with holes and lies as it was in his deposition for the civil suit against him, we think he'd be committing suicide by doing so. Remember, readers, that in Ayres own deposition, under oath he stated, " I don't know that I've ever asked a child to take his pants down."
And, oh, yes Solveig was decked out in her peacock blue jacket today with matching sweater.
Finally, thanks to the fine pro-bono work of two top-notch criminal defense attorneys -John Halley and Geoff Carr- journalist Victoria Balfour was permitted back into the courtroom today. Halley and Carr argued that Balfour as a journalist was protected under the shield law. We don't think Weinberg or the prosecutor ever expected Balfour to keep fighting her exclusion and we suspect that Weinberg has pulled this witness exclusion shenanigan many times in his career without ever being called on the carpet. We're not sure what to make of the prosecutor's hostility to Balfour's presence in the courtroom, but we know there was no legal reason for it.
We heard that Detective Decker told a victim's parent that if Balfour were to be called to the stand, it could potentially destroy the DA's case. Huh? Did it ever occur to the DA that the testimony would destroy Weinberg's case? We think that Weinberg used the threat of calling Balfour to the stand only to get under the prosecutor's skin. Once he saw that it freaked her out, he kept doing it.. Just a little psychological warfare.
But to that end, the prosecutor - who wouldn't be trying the case at all had it not been for Balfour- has made the last month very difficult for the journalist. We also put the blame squarely on her boss Steve Wagstaffe and his boss, Jim Fox. Don't tell us they all didn't know that the prosecutor was trying to keep Balfour out of the courtroom. Don't tell us they didn't know that the prosecutor was hostile to Balfour's lawyer John Halley when he informed her she was filing a motion to get back into the courtroom. And just on the off-chance that they didn't know what their prosecutor was up to, well, then that would just be a shocking case of lousy management. Whatever... someone up at the top wasn't being truthful to Balfour, even as he claimed that he had never lied in public office ( Yeah, right) and she did not appreciate it one bit. The trouble with many career government officials is that they want desperately to be liked and strive to please everybody by saying things that people want to hear -- even when it's not always the truth. But many people- pleasing government officials don't seem to realize that they will get into trouble when the people they've tried to please find out instead that the official has not been totally truthful. A word of advice to government officials; try telling people the truth - even if that truth isn't what the person hopes to hear. Because when people find out that the government official has been hiding and obfuscating instead, it just makes them really angry.
Some nationally known legal analysts have now weighed in on Balfour's unfair exclusion from the courtroom. Former prosecutor Wendy Murphy - who's been an analyst and CNN and defense attorney Mickey Sherman - who regularly appears on CBS's "Morning Show" talked on Robin Sax's radio blogspot show on Tuesday June 30 about how prosecutors and defense attorneys often collude to keep people out of the courtroom by unfairly saying they are witnesses- when in fact they are never called. Indeed, Murphy stated on the show that Balfour's exclusion was "unconstitutional." and that quite likely the prosecutor's actions had been "malicious." Sherman called the actions of both Weinberg and the prosecutor "chickenshit."
Bear in mind that the practice of unfair witness exclusion is a growing epidemic in courtrooms, and must be stopped. Balfour learned about this unfair practice first hand, and no thanks to the San Mateo District Attorney's office, who would not be trying this case if it were not for Balfour's five year efforts to make the case happen.
Balfour also wishes to thank Wendy Murphy whose long list of accomplishments also includes visiting scholar at Harvard Law School. Murphy is an expert on unfair witness exclusions and has written about it in her book "And Justice For Some." Murphy spent many hours writing up an emergency writ for Balfour pro bono, and it was ready to go in the event had Judge Freeman not granted Balfour's motion to allow her back into the courtroom. Many thanks to all these lawyers - Murphy, Halley and Carr who worked around the clock for Balfour to make it happen. Balfour also wishes to thank LA sex crimes prosecutor Robin Sax for her Huffington Post piece on her exclusion from the courtroom. Despite Steve Wagstaffe's uncalled for put down of Sax in emails to citizens who had protested Balfour's exclusion that he had never heard of Sax, Ms. Sax is a regular legal analyst on Larry King Live, the Nancy Grace Show and Fox News. We think Wagstaffe would kill to be on some of those shows himself.
One only wishes the San Mateo District Attorney's office had displayed some grace and courtesy towards Balfour during this difficult time. Balfour hopes she never has to go through the hassle, heartache and emotional anguish she went through to get back in to the courtroom- ever again. All we can say is that if Balfour lived in San Mateo County, she would campaign for a clean sweep in the District Attorney's office in next year's election.
Elizabeth Pfeffer Beats us to the Punch!
Elizabeth Pfeffer, a local mainstream reporter has printed some detail about today's morning events, beating us to the punch today!
Read it in the Mercury News
Thanks Elizabeth, It's great to see mainstream press' continued involvement these last few days.
I'd like to add a comment about Officer Decker:
When I was interviewed by him, the only questions he asked were questions of clarification. If there were ANY "leading lines of questioning" I definitely did not pick up on them.
In fact, in reading about other victims testimony these last few days, a TON of unfortunate memories have come flooding back...Details about specifics that were NOT spelled out in what's been written or probably even mentioned in court, but that are very vivid and clear now. (I gave an example over on the Trials and Tribulations blog comments for yesterday's post. )
If Decker had asked me any leading questions, I'd have had these floods of memories then, too, and he would have had so much more info to go on, but I didn't get anything like that then... I only relayed the memories that have been foremost in my mind.
It's a tribute to his professionalism that he did not ask more leading questions.
Read it in the Mercury News
Thanks Elizabeth, It's great to see mainstream press' continued involvement these last few days.
I'd like to add a comment about Officer Decker:
When I was interviewed by him, the only questions he asked were questions of clarification. If there were ANY "leading lines of questioning" I definitely did not pick up on them.
In fact, in reading about other victims testimony these last few days, a TON of unfortunate memories have come flooding back...Details about specifics that were NOT spelled out in what's been written or probably even mentioned in court, but that are very vivid and clear now. (I gave an example over on the Trials and Tribulations blog comments for yesterday's post. )
If Decker had asked me any leading questions, I'd have had these floods of memories then, too, and he would have had so much more info to go on, but I didn't get anything like that then... I only relayed the memories that have been foremost in my mind.
It's a tribute to his professionalism that he did not ask more leading questions.
Victoria Balfour Allowed back in Court
Victoria Balfour has confirmed that she is back in court as of today!
I'm sure she'll let us know the details later tonight...
I'm sure she'll let us know the details later tonight...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I find the comment by Decker curious for other reasons. We have seen all this time that Decker has been the most professional person associated with this case. He has also been open in speaking with many parents and victims alike. If he feels that Balfour could jeopardize the case, HIS CASE, then maybe we should be open minded to consider that to be true. There is clearly things both sides are privy to that we are not in regards to Balfour. As a parent who is emotionally attached to this case, I am willing to accept that to be the case and respect Decker's professional judgment. It was Balfour's insistence that pushed the case forward, but it was Decker's hard work that brought it to trial. Both are entitled to some consideration on all our part.
July 2, 2009 8:46 AM
To 8:46 am, July 2, 2009
San Mateo Chief Deputy DA Steve Wagstaffe - the prosecutor's boss - has personally contradicted Decker's statement to Balfour on five separate occasions. He has informed her repeatedly that if she got on the stand it would be a disaster for the Weinberg.
Additionally, Wagstaffe's direct quote to Balfour was "So what if Weinberg calls you? It's no secret what you've done. It's all been printed. There's nothing there Weinberg can use."
Wagstaffe personally told Balfour that he believed that she will never be called to the stand because it would be "suicide" and a "disaster" for the defense. He also said that she would have nothing to add to Weinberg's case and would hurt it.
Wagstaffe also sent out many emails to San Mateo Citizens and others around the country that Weinberg had excluded Balfour as a "ruse "and that she would never be called. So he's gone public with this statement.
So who you gonna believe ? Chief Deputy DA Wagstaffe, or Decker ? Either Wagstaffe has no communication with his prosecutor and Decker, or he is not telling the truth to Balfour. At any rate, the San Mateo DA's office needs to get their stories straight... as it stands now, they're operating like a whipsaw.
We are sorry that you are a parent, but this is not Decker's case or Balfour's case or the prosecutors. This is the victims' case.
July 2, 2009 9:06 AM
The DA has wasted a ridiculous amount of energy worrying about Balfour. They need to focus their energies in explaining the many inconsistencies in the victims' statements to police.
After Weinberg examined Decker as his his first witness, many people were starting to doubt that the prosecutor can win their case.
Too bad that seventh victim dropped out. It's also too bad that another in statute victim who was molested that we know of has not come forward to the police.
July 2, 2009 9:12 AM
We heard that Detective Decker told a victim's parent that if Balfour were to be called to the stand, it could potentially destroy the DA's case. Huh?
James P. Fox and Steve Wagstaffe have been prosecutors for 39 and 32 years. They are responsible for this case. They have known about Victoria Balfour from the start, she has caused this case to exist. If they produce a case where she could harm or destroy it they deserve to lose it. Also it would have been a deliberate act.
Welcome to San Mateo County
Michael G. Stogner