A Few News Updates for Today

[Original post date: 03/03/10  08:43am PST by Deep Sounding] 
[UPDATES: 03/03/10  10:00am PST by Deep Sounding] 

There are a few items in the news today about william hamilton ayres, accused of molesting young boys under the guise of practicing psychiatry under the auspices of the "American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry."

Credit goes to Taylor over at the San Mateo Daily Journal for drawing our attention to several news items:

[UPDATE: 03/03/10  10:00am PST by Deep Sounding] 
New England Cable News Television will be doing a segment on william ayres TONIGHT (March 3rd, 2010):
The Broadside show with Jim Braude. 6:00 pm and 8:00 pm EST. According to Taylor:

The Guest is Boston lawyer Mitchell Garabedian who made a name for himself by representing the hundreds of victims of Father Geoghan (pedophile priest who was murdered in prison.) Garabadian will be talking about the Ayres case and the standard of care for doctors in Massachusetts. He will also be encouraging victims of Ayres in Boston.

First news item: Michael Rezendes of  The Boston Globe has run a first page article on ayres, giving some background in the case, and the status of the current search for victims in that area. (According to the article, none have turned up so far...) They appear to have worked out where all of ayres' employment records are, as well as the fact that patient files still exist. (But obviously would require patient release for access.) You can see the full first page image of The Boston Globe here. Rezendes has done some digging in some pretty interesting directions, I'd say that the thing that I found to hit home the most is the discussion on the difficulty of prosecuting these kinds of cases, particularly where there is likely to be very little forensic evidence even immediately after the commission of the crime.


The second news item that Taylor points out to us is that as a result of The Boston Globe article, there is a news blurb on Boston's NBC news affiliate. The news clip very briefly re-iterates that authorities are actively looking for more of ayres' victims there.


The third item of interest:  Victoria Balfour, who was instrumental in pushing for the prosecution of ayres, and possibly more importantly in getting the word out to the press, is going to be giving another talk, this time on the other side of the country.

[UPDATE: 03/03/10  10:00am PST by Deep Sounding]

Victoria is also interviewed by NPR Boston station WBUR in a news segment that is apparently running throughout the day today.

I think that the press coverage has been particularly important in this case because the molester was lauded by the county, lauded by the various and sundry medical associations with which he was affiliated. Meanwhile, he was prancing around molesting young boys who were being sent to him by county judges, and he was being made out by county officials as the go-to guy to send your kids to. What an embarassment for the county. I'm guessing they would have been happy to continue to sweep the dirt under the rug, but for the fact that someone (Victoria) started running around to the press to let them know about the evil that was afoot.

But I digress...

Victoria will be giving a talk at the "MaleSurvivor 2010 International Conference" at John Jay College in New York City. The conference runs March 18th through 21st. Victoria will be speaking on March 20th, from 10:30a until 12p. She will be speaking specifically on the william ayres case. We wish her the best, and know that she will knock them dead, as she always does.

Minor Update: New Feature

I have updated the blog to include a "Tab Bar" with links to a few "fixed" pages with some information about ayres, court dates, etc... The bar is just under the page header graphic above. Included are 4 pages:

"Home" - The main blog entry page (You're on the Home tab right now.)

"About william ayres" - some stuff about ayres. There's a small bit of new content here today.

"In ayres' Own Words" - some of the stuff that ayres said in his testimony. (As I recorded it. I'm going to add some content here in awhile.)

"ayres' Court Dates" - Information on all of the upcoming court dates. This used to be on the side bar, and I'm moving it here permanently. I just checked on upcoming dates today. No changes.

"Missed Trial Dates" - Information on the many rescheduled "Start of Trial dates." This also used to be on the side bar.

We Bring You McDougall's Jury Questionnaire- Grammatical Errors Included!

Click Image for Document Link

[Original post date: 01/24/10 07:30am PST by Trapellar] 
 Recently we were able to get our hands on one of those juror questionnaires Ayres' new lawyer, Jonathan McDougall, sent off in December to the jurors in the first trial. The jurors were under no obligation to return the six-page questionnaire and we have no idea how many - if any - even responded to it. Judge Freeman also ordered that any responses would be maintained by McDougall and would not be revealed to the public without a further court order


The questionnaire is divided into four parts:


1) VERDICTS
2)TRIAL EVIDENCE
3)TRIAL ATTORNEYS
4)TRIAL PUBLICITY

In the VERDICTS section, we're not sure why McDougall bothered to ask the jurors for the breakdown of the final vote for each victim. Both Doron Weinberg and the prosecutor spoke to the jury right after the mistrial and heard for themselves what the breakdown was. Why go through this all over again when McDougall already knows the answer?

Another thing : will a juror - nearly five months after the end of the trial- be able to recall enough to answer a question like this one: "What concerns or issues created the division of the votes.(Sic) Be specific for each victim if possible. (For example, the credibility of one or more of the victims or other witnesses, or the believability of Dr. Ayres, or the delay in reporting the events, etc.")

That last part about the "delay in the reporting the events" seems way off to us. Although studies have shown that the vast majority of male victims never report the abuse to authorities (let alone tell their spouses or other family members or friends) in their lifetime. In this questionnaire, McDougall appears to be stating as fact that it naturally follows that a delay in reporting abuse by victims would affect their believability. And in the TRIAL EVIDENCE section, he brings it up again: " Which of the complaining witnesses/victims did you or the other jurors struggle to believe, if any? How did the delay in reporting affect their believability?

If he's planning to go down this path at the next trial, we can tell you right now it's a lost cause. There have been literally hundreds of books, journal articles, newspaper articles and experts who say that most victims never report the abuse at all or when they do come forward, it's decades later. This point has been hammered on so often by experts in the mainstream media in recent years (especially in the wake of the pedophile priests scandals) that at this point, most Americans know that one of the most common characteristics of an abuse victim is to not come forward for years after the abuse. A few years ago, every once in a while you'd see some ignoramous on a readers' section of a newspaper story about a pedophile make a sneering remark like,"Why did it take the victim so long to come forward?" But we've noticed lately that remarks such as theseare becoming a true rarity. People are a lot more educated about the characteristics and behaviors of abuse victims, and you can be sure if he tries to bring that up, the San Mateo DA's office will shoot him down fast!

Under the TRIAL PUBLICITY section, we were frankly astonished by this question:

"What effect did the trial publicity and internet reporting have on you or the other jurors? Were the deliberations effected (sic) in any way?"

Never mind our surprise that an Ivy League graduate like McDougall would commit a glaring grammatical error by using "effected" instead of the correct word,"affected." The larger issue is: the jurors were admonished by Judge Freeman not to read the papers or any other publicity about the case. As far as we know, they obeyed her. Where is McDougall's evidence that anyone read anything about the case during the trial? For him to state this as fact is irresponsible.

By the way -that misuse of "effected" was not the defense lawyer's only grammatical error. Here's another in this question in the TRIAL ATTORNEYS section: "Anything done by the attorney's have an impact on your vote or the votes by the other jurors?

[Some additional commentary from Deep Sounding]:
I've added a few comments to the scanned document. I realize that it's a bit nit-picky to look so hard at the grammar in this document, but it is STRIKING that a well paid attorney, who claims to have attended Brown and Pepperdine would produce such a poorly worded, confusing document, given the relative simplicity of the questions which I believe were intended.

In general, I don't really have any feelings either way about the relative value of the questions asked. I don't find them to be overly informative, nor are they overly offensive. For the most part, I'm left with a bit of a sad sense of distaste for the entire judicial system. I seems like it has more to do with out-maneuvering the opponent with insignificant technicalities than it has to do with any real justice. On that note, here's an interesting observation about the questionnaire:

There are some variations on questions of outside (press/internet) influence during deliberations. In his opening, McDougall tells the jurors: "All answers are assumed to the best of your recollection, and are NOT sworn under any penalty of perjury or other negative effect. Please complete any question you can..." While this may be true of the questionnaire, I think there may be a bit of an interesting gotcha, which McDougall isn't being entirely open about:

I'm fairly certain that at one point during the trial, the jurors were asked to individually confirm that they were not reading external sources of information about the case ( media and internet). These answers were given under oath, and each of them affirmed that they had obeyed the court's instructions NOT to look at these sources during the trial.

While the jurors may not be under oath or penalty of perjury for answering questions on the questionnaire incorrectly, they could feasibly be in jeopardy of charges of juror misconduct or perjury if their answers to the questionnaire conflict with statements that they made in court, when they were under oath.

Seems like a bit of a nasty little trap, and I find myself wondering if that was the whole point of McDougall's little fishing expedition. Further, it seems like a bit of an oversight on the court's part that they would allow McDougall to open up that kind of a trap without a warning to the jurors.

In all though, we thought the questionnaire was a snoozefest.

Ohio Pediatrician Gets 21-27 Years For Molesting Adolescent Boys

We've got two new William Hamilton Ayres stories in the works, and they'll be ready within the next couple of weeks.

Meanwhile, we thought some victims in the Ayres case might be encouraged by the news that Ohio pediatrician Dr. Mark Blankenburg - whom we first wrote about in October - was just sentenced to 21-27 years for his sex crimes against his adolescent boy patients.

According to the Cincinnati Enquirer, Judge Keith Spaeth had some harsh words for the disgraced doctor:

Spaeth said Blankenburg was sexually fixated on adolescent boys, and the doctor acted upon his urges repeatedly, with no appreciation of the wrongfulness of his actions. The victims suffered serious harm, Spaeth said.“Their lives are a wreck,” the judge said.

In the Enquirer story, a forensic psychologist who evaluated Blankenburg says that "he seems “oblivious” to the seriousness of his offenses and the consequences...

Some nuggets from the nine page report on Mark Blankenburg by forensic psychologist Bobbie Hopes :

-“His own sexual and emotional maturity does not appear to have progressed past adolescence, despite his superior intellect and professional success.”

Blankenburg said he never forced anyone to have sex, the report says. And, “he professed that each time he was involved with an adolescent male, he was in love with them and believed or hoped that they were in love with him,” Hopes wrote. Blankenburg told the psychologist, " I always hoped for love."

- The doctor’s “emotional neediness and immaturity,” coupled with narcissism, “may partially explain why he chose to have relationships with much younger men from such unstable backgrounds,” the report said.

Blankenburg showed no signs of being a psychopath or being mentally ill, the psychologist said, but he did behave inappropriately during the evaluation. “He was unusually happy and seemed oblivious to his current legal circumstances and incarceration. He chuckled and laughed aloud at times, and he scoffed at his charges and (at) the thought that anyone would believe what others said about him during his trial,” Hopes’ report says. She also described Blankenburg as arrogant and condescending.

Hmmm, that line "seemed oblivious to his current legal circumstances" might strike a chord with those who attended the Ayres trial in July, when Ayres and his wife often acted as if they were at a party. Case in point: William Ayres' inappropriate and bizarre "Isn't it a lovely day"comments to the parents of victims; his cheery waving to parents of victims; Solveig's greeting visitors with a big smile and hug to the courtroom as if they were guests at a wedding.

And come to think of it, the words "arrogant and condescending" have also been used in conjunction with Ayres by those who knew him - especially if they were low on the food chain, like the secretaries at the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, or probation officers at Hillcrest- you know, the people who weren't in a position to give him access to boys.

As for Mark Blankenburg, it's not over yet. He still faces trial on a dozen child pornography cases.

And as for Scott Blankenburg, Mark's identical twin pediatrician brother, he's under house arrest and his movements are electronically monitored as he awaits trial in April on sex, drug, money and pornography charges involving minors.

Cincinnati Enquirer story, "Doctor Gets 21-27 Years For Sex Crimes" here: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100108/NEWS0107/301070029/Pediatrician+faces+prison+for+sex+crimes
Our Original October 2009 post on the pedophile Blankenburg twins here: http://williamayreswatch.blogspot.com/2009/10/now-this-is-way-to-do-it-arrested-in.html

UPDATE, JANUARY 12, 2010: SCOTT BLANKENBURG EXPECTED TO TAKE GUILTY PLEA

This just in: The attorney for Mark Blankenburg's identical twin, pediatrician Dr. Scott Blankenburg - who was slated to go on trial this April for molesting adolescent male patients- has just announced that his client will plead guilty to the charges.

Wise move!

Story here in the Dayton Daily News:
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/crime/attorney-scott-blankenburg-expected-to-plead-488941.html

Baltimore County State's Attorney's Office Studies Ayres Case as it Weighs Decision To Prosecute Dr. Frontera

We just spoke with Jason League, Chief of the Child Abuse Sex Offense Division of the Baltimore County State's Attorney's Office in Maryland to ask him for updates on the Dr. Miguel Frontera case. As we have pointed out, there are some strong similarities between the child molestation cases of William Ayres and Miguel Frontera.

Although Frontera has not yet been criminally charged, League said he has indeed been looking at all of the new details that have been provided about Frontera's activities from his former patients since news stories first appeared about Frontera appeared in November. Additionally, League told us he has been "studying" San Mateo's William Ayres child molestation case in his effort to make a decision about whether to prosecute Frontera

We hope ultimately League's office will decide to prosecute Frontera. After all, the Maryland Board of Physicians has already determined that Frontera had engaged in"sexual misconduct" with his young boy patients.

And by the way -- League told us that there's no statute of limitation for child molestation victims in the state of Maryland. If that had been the case in California, Ayres would have been arrested a whole lot sooner!!


UPDATE: January 8, 2010 : Meredith Cohn, a reporter from the Baltimore Sun told us that several new victims of Frontera contacted her after her story came out. Let's hope these new victims contact Jason League at the Baltimore County State's Attorney's office.

Meanwhile, we found a photo of Dr. Frontera on Facebook-- with two boys on his lap!
http://www.facebook.com/people/Miguel-Frontera-MD/748839359

Maryland Psychiatrist Busted For Child Molestation Actually Admits: Physical Exams Were "Not, You Know, Necessary," "Very Out Of the Mainstream"

"I'm pretty much the accepted model"- Testimony of William H. Ayres, July 8, 2009.

--------------------------------------------

"I now realize that it is not, you know, necessary. I'm very out of the mainstream of psychiatry." Statements made by Towson,Maryland child and adolescent psychiatrist Dr. Miguel Frontera in 2006 to officers from the Crimes Against Children Unit of the Baltimore County Police Department in 2006 when questioned about the need to perform genital exams on two boys, age 10 and 12 who had come to him for behavioral issues associated with ADD.

-----------------------------------------------

"In his interview with the Board, the Respondent stated that his examinations were either 'not necessary' or were 'uncalled for.'... The Respondent also admitted that he could have performed physical examinations on his minor male patients while they were clothed but did not do so 'out of habit.'"From Section 16 of the Maryland Board of Physicians' Order for Summary Suspension of Dr. Miguel Frontera's License to Practise Medicine, November 2009

**********************************************************************************
Is there a mini-epidemic of child psychiatrists who molest children ? Because recently we stumbled upon yet another such case- this one very similar to the Ayres one. This past November, the Maryland Board of Physicians suspended the medical license of Dr. Miguel Frontera, an adolescent and child psychiatrist from Towson Maryland for touching the genitals of five boys, -aged 10 to 12 -he was treating for behavioral issues between 2000 and 2009.

According to the report put out by the Maryland Board of Physicians, Frontera's case was reviewed by a psychiatrist who was board certified in adult psychiatry, child and adolescent psychiatry and forensic psychiary. The reviewer found that Frontera "engaged in unprofessional conduct in the practise of medicine, immoral conduct in the practice of medicine, sexual improprieties and sexual misconduct with patients."

After perusing the report ourselves, we can say that the Maryland Board of Physicians sure has different ideas about appropriate standards for psychiatrists who are treating minors than William H Ayres does. Because they punished Frontera for exactly the same things that Ayres blithely admitted were part of his routine for years.

Here are some of the Board's findings against Frontera:

1) Failing to Notify Parents About Physical Exams:
Both Ayres and Frontera performed genital exams on the boys without the parents' knowledge. Indeed, in some of the cases, Frontera forgot to mention he was even doing a physical exam. In one case, when a terrified boy who had already had his genitalia touched extensively by Frontera discovered that Frontera was going to "examine" him again on the second visit, asked that his mother be present in the room. Frontera refused. As for Ayres, there have been reports that he actually asked parents to leave the waiting room altogether.

2) Failure to Use a Chaperon During The Exam:
Remember when Ayres testified he didn't examine girls because they would need a chaperon and in the process bizarrely implying that boys don't need chaperons? Well in Maryland, for a doctor to examine a minor of either gender without a chaperon is a big no-no. Frontera, it seems never used one (and apparently, just like Ayres, he never did physical exams on girls)
What was Frontera's excuse for not having a chaperone with boys? Well, he told the Board that he "did not provide a chaperon during physical examinations or request this patients' parent(s) remain in the room when performing them because of embarrassment he experienced as a child when undergoing physical examinations in the presence of his mother"!!

3)Failure to Leave the Room When the Boys Undressed:
For both Ayres and Frontera, this was standard practise.

4)No Examining Table:
Ayres "examined" his victims on the table where they'd made clay models. Frontera used an ordinary couch.

5) No Medical Reason to Make A Boy Undress:
According to the Maryland report, Frontera "failed to weigh the intrusiveness of a physical examination against its probative or diagnostic value;" Frontera "had patients undress, which did not further support the diagnosis of treatment plan;" Frontera "required minor male patients to undress during parts of an examination that did not require the patients be unclothed."

As for Ayres, we all know he just gave physicals when he felt like it, for no reason whatsoever. Whether a boy came to him because he was being bullied at school or was suicidal, his diagnosis was the same: off with his pants!! And then Weinberg and he tried to come up with some cockamamie excuse for Ayres' pedophiliac urges.

But there's one big difference between the two disgraced psychiatrists: Frontera at least admitted that his examinations were "not necessary," "uncalled for," and "out of the mainstream."

Ayres,on the other hand had the gall to testify that he was "the accepted model." As for being the proven model, try telling that to Ayres' former colleagues at Judge Baker who say that if Ayres had ever been caught giving a genital exam to a boy during therapy, he would have been instantly fired.

Read the rest of the Maryland Board's Suspension Order against Frontera here:

https://www.mbp.state.md.us/bpqapp/Orders/D3755911.069.PDF

Merry Christmas

Caravaggio: Adoration of the Shepherds

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this [shall be] a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

-Luke 2: 8-14

Merry Christmas!

Ayres Was Notified By Certified Letter that He is No Longer a Member of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

Back during the trial, some little birdy must have immediately notified the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry- an association that Ayres was once president of- after Ayres got up and testified that he was still a member of that organization.

Because on July 23, 2009- while the trial was still going on, the Academy terminated Ayres' membership.

"He was notified in writing by certified letter," said Rob Grant, communications director of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. "Our termination policy for members is a carbon copy of the APA's; once your license has been suspended or terminated, your membership is terminated."

Good to know Ayres won't be able to pull this little stunt at the next trial. We can't wait to hear the prosecutor tell the jury that his precious memberships have been terminated!!!

Ayres is No Longer A Member of the American Psychiatric Association

On July 8, 2009, when William H. Ayres took the stand, one of the first things his lawyer Doron Weinberg asked him was this:
"Are you a member of the American Psychiatric Association?"

Ayres replied, "Yes, I am."

Weinberg went on to say "What is the nature of your membership? Do you hold a particular position?

Ayres: "It's something like distinguished and very old, but it doesn't say 'very old. 'Distinguished Senior'"

Weinberg: "Distinguished Life Fellow?"

Ayres (acting coy): " I don't know the exact word."

Weinberg: "Distinguished Life Fellow?"

Ayres: "Pardon me?"

Weinberg: "Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Associates?"

Ayres: "Yes, I'm still alive."

_____

For those of us who were in the courtroom that day, listening to that exchange, all we could think was :"Huh? Would the American Psychiatric Association really permit someone whose medical license had been suspended by the Attorney General of California, to continue to be a member of its esteemed organization?

The application to become a dues paying member of the APA has an Ethics section that asks the following questions:

http://www.psych.org/Resources/Membe...plication.aspx

Ethics

1) Has your license to practise medicine ever been revoked or suspended?

2)Are you currently charged with illegal or unethical conduct by a regulatory or law enforcement agency or by a professional society?

Well, it turns out that Ayres didn't alert the APA that his license had been suspended by the Attorney General of California after his arrest - as he was supposed to do.

So, this week, after seeing Ayres state in the court transcript that yes, indeed he was still a member of the APA, we decided to check in with the Ethics Committee of the American Psychiatric Association to set the record straight. And boy, did they set the record straight fast!!!

We received an email from Linda Hughes, Director, Office of Ethics and District Branch and State Association Relations of the American Psychiatric Association, who stated in no uncertain terms that as of this week Ayres is NO LONGER a member of the APA.

Here is what Ms. Hughes then went on to tell us on the phone today: "Ayres is no longer a member. You have to have a license to practise medicine, and if you don't have one, you can't be a member. We are aware that he was arrested two years ago, and that he no longer has a license and can't practise medicine. As of this week, his membership was terminated"

As for his "Distinguished Life Fellow" status, Ms. Hughes said, " He no longer has that title. He is a former Distinguished Life Fellow, but he is not one now. "

In no uncertain terms -- Ms. Hughes made it very clear that her association has no ties whatsoever to Ayres these days. They clearly don't want to be tainted by any connection to him now.

Trial Dates set for Civil Lawsuits

[Original post date: 12/18/09 12:00pm PST by Deep Sounding] 

Trial dates were set today at the case management hearing for four civil lawsuits against defendant "John Doe #1" (william hamilton ayres, one time president of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) relating to his molestation of young male patients under the guise of providing "psychiatric treatment."

ayres was represented on the phone by his attorneys (I believe from two firms: Sideman & Bancroft LLP for three of the cases, and Donnelly Nelson Depolo & Murray LLP for the CIV467743 Case.)

The four plaintiffs are represented by two firms: The Law Offices of Carcione, Cattermole, Dolinski, Okimoto, Stucky, Ukshini, Markowitz & Carcione, LLP for three of the cases, (They are local) and one member of the firm was present to represent their plaintiffs,  and The Drivon Law Firm for case number CIV467273 was present on the phone.

Superior Court Judge George A. Miram indicated that it is now time to set trial dates for the cases, and as he did with most of the cases heard today, he encouraged mediation.

One of ayres' lawyers asked for some time to "work up the case a little bit" and the judge promptly admonished her that this was a very old case, and that mediation could be set early or late, but that they would be setting a trial date. [In the October-ish timeframe]

There was some  brief discussion about the stay for discovery having been lifted. The attorney for the plaintiff in CIV467273 mentioned that he was not part of that motion, but that the facts in the case are the same as in the other three cases handled by the Carcione firm, and wanted to clarify how this would proceed. The judge asked ayres' attorneys if they would stipulate that the stay is lifted for that case as well, and they agreed. As of today's date, the stay of discovery has been lifted for all parties.

No one objected to setting up mediation prior to trial.

The judge asked if they wanted concurrent or back-to-back trials, and the plaintiffs asked for back-to-back, stating that there might be some consolidation at some point. ( I'm assuming that most of this has to do with the outcome of the criminal trial, and possible settlements/advantages of a unified front that will come from that.)

There was some minor haggling over the trial dates: The Carcione firm was prepared with something like "earlier than that would be fine"  and the other plaintiff's attorney was happy with "anything after October 18th."

One of the defense attorneys was argumentative when one of the dates was set for August 30th. When the judge asked (twice) why this was a problem, she replied "Well only because you had mentioned October..."  (This was the same attorney who, in the last case management hearing, interrupted the judge to erroneously claim that there was a defendant who had not been served, in an attempt to buy more time. She sounds like a real "winner" ... I'm guessing her family are all spending Christmas wherever she is not.) 

So the judge grudgingly moved the date of that trial to early November.

The trial dates are as follows:
CIV467741 September 13th, 2010
CIV467743 October 4th, 2010
CIV467273 October 18th, 2010
CIV467742 November 1, 2010

(The estimated duration is 15 days for each, and so there is some overlap, which was intended.)
[Update: 1/11/10 9:00pm PST by Deep Sounding]:
I'm fairly certain that the durations initially discussed were 15 days. (The judge was querying each side about expected duration, and setting the longest estimate as the expected duration.) At some point that estimate must have been reduced to 10 days, as that's what is currently showing in the court documents for each of the respective cases.
Everyone was then trotted off to schedule mediation timeframes.

Oh, and there were several members of the press present.
(Just a bit of holiday kidding there... I'm pretty sure there were none.)

Case Number information follows:

NOTE: there is a glitch with links into the court document system, and you will have to click on one of those links AGAIN after the first click results in a blank results page. The links should work after that. NOTE ALSO that those case information pages have some Acrobat files attached with additional detail. See the links on the right-hand side under the "Image" column on the court information pages.
CIV467273, CIV467741, CIV467742, CIV467743

Yale Debunks Ayres: "Our Child Psychiatrists Have Never Trained Pediatric Interns To Do Physical Exams"

We were perusing the court transcript of Dr. Ayres' testimony from the first criminal trial recently when a name caught our eye on page 30: "Al Songden." That's the child psychiatrist at Yale whom Ayres said told him "not to wear rubber gloves" when Ayres, as a pediatric intern, was conducting physical exams. Here are Ayres' exact quotes about Songden:

"But along came Al Songden, who was a child psychiatrist, a very young child psychiatrist at Yale at that time... So what happened is, he trained us. And the training I thought, was particularly useful, and I was very interested. And he said that children are scared, and don't put rubber gloves on because they're going to think that you think they're dirty, and they're going to find that strange."

That got us thinking..... would a child psychiatrist really be advising an intern in pediatrics- a completely different specialty-- on the ins and outs of a physical exam and particularly on something as specific as the wearing of rubber gloves? And wouldn't Yale's own pediatric faculty be teaching Ayres - in his one and only year of pediatrics training- on how to conduct a physical exam?

So we decided to hunt down this "Al Songden" ourselves and get it straight from the horse's mouth. But it turns out there is no "Al Songden," according to a number of old time staffers at Yale. The child psychiatrist Ayres was actually referring to was Dr. Albert Solnit, a pioneering psychiatrist at Yale's Child Study Center. Dr. Solnit died in a car crash in 2002. Still, there are a number of people around at Yale who knew Solnit well and worked with him.

First we got the scoop on Dr. Solnit from the pediatrics side at Yale. We spoke with pediatrician Dr. Howard Pearson, a 1954 graduate of Harvard Medical School who has been on the staff of pediatrics at Yale since the 1960s. Pearson knew Dr. Solnit and his work very well.

We asked Dr. Pearson if Solnit or any other child psychiatrist in the history of Yale had trained pediatric interns on how to do physical exams.

Pearson shot that one down immediately and unequivocally. "Nonsense," he said. "Child psychiatrists like Solnit, who were from the Child Study Program at Yale have had historically a very minor role with pediatrics. Pediatric residents might hear a couple of lectures by a child psychiatrist, or once in a great while a psychiatrist may be called in for a consultation, but that's it. Solnit would certainly not have been brought in to teach pediatric interns about physical exams, because at Yale, child psychiatrists don't do physical exams. It's just nonsense!!"

Ok, so having cleared that up from the pediatrics side, we moved on to the child psychiatrist's point of view at Yale. For that we sought out child psychiatrist Dr. John Showalter, who was the first Albert J. Solnit Professor at the Yale Child Study Center. Showalter told us that he was very close with Solnit. "He was like a father to me," he said.

Although Showalter is a child psychiatrist, like Ayres, he did his first year of residency as a pediatric intern at Yale. We asked him if Solnit had either trained him or talked to him about doing physical exams when he was in pediatrics.

"Solnit never talked to me about rubber gloves or physical exams, ever," recalled Showalter. "He told us how to talk to children when they were anxious or depressed and how to talk to the families. The pediatric training was left up to the pediatric faculty. During the years I knew Solnit as a child psychiatrist, he never talked to me about giving physical exams to kids. Solnit was a famous child analyst, and he never did physicals on children in therapy."

Ok then. So now we know: Ayres was making this all up about Dr. Solnit. What's also very important, to note is that both Dr. Solnit and Ayres' old boss George Gardner at Judge Baker, were first trained as pediatricians and then as child psychiatrists.

These doctors had years of training in pediatrics, while Ayres had only one measly year of pediatrics before moving on to adult psychiatry.
But for decades Ayres has been using that one measly year of pediatrics as an excuse to give his own special brand of hands on therapy to boys.

But wait!! Drs. Gardner and Solnit - who were trained as both child psychiatrists AND pediatricians- with years' more experience than Ayres- never physically examined children in therapy. They knew how dangerous and damaging that would be to a child in therapy. They understood that the specialties of child psychiatry and pediatrics are SEPARATE specialties, and needed to be kept that way. They respected the boundaries between the two specialties and didn't- as Ayres did- get them all tangled and snarled up in their heads.

But then, as we have seen with Ayres and his victims, Ayres has never respected the boundaries between anyone or anything.

As Ayres can no longer blame either Judge Baker or Yale for his pedophilia, we wonder what excuse he's gonna come up with next. Whatever it is, we'll be there, ready to fact check it to kingdom come!

Judge Baker Had A Staff Pediatrician When Ayres Was There!

We just recently got our hands on a 1964 annual report from Judge Baker Guidance Center in Boston. As readers here may remember, that's where Ayres worked from 1959-1963. Imagine our surprise when we read that Judge Baker had a staff pediatrician - as well as three nurses!!! The staff pediatrician - Josephine L. Murray is now 89 and couldn't talk to us because she is suffering from Alzheimer's and has no memory, according to our caregiver.

Still, we wanted to know if there was a staff pediatrician when Ayres was there. So we called psychologist Pauline B. Hahn, who was at Judge Baker for more than 50 years. Hahn is 86 and sharp as a tack. She's also the go- to person for people who want to know about the history of Judge Baker. Back in August, Hahn who worked at "the Baker" from the 1940s to the 1990s told us that at no time has any child psychiatrist there been permitted to give physical exams to children in therapy. Now, Hahn tells us that Judge Baker has always had a staff pediatrician!!!

Well, now. So where does that leave Ayres? Back then, was he of the mindset that pediatricians were "too quick " with exams and not thorough enough - as he actually had the gall to say at the trial in July ? Did he practise his own special brand of hands-on therapy there? It's looking increasingly likely......

And here's another interesting nugget: we talked to an educator who worked at the Manville School at Judge Baker when Ayres was there.The Manville School was the residential school for the kids at Judge Baker, and the classrooms were in the basement of the building. This man recalls that a woman named Solveig Troxel( who, in March 1962 would become Ayres' wife) taught young boys at the Manville School, and that Ayres used to come and "hang around her classroom a lot and watch the boys." I guess that's what made Solveig so attractive-like Judge Marta Diaz- she offered a pipeline to boys!!

This educator distinctly remembers that Ayres was angry at the esteemed head of Judge Baker- George E. Gardner. Gardner went to Harvard undergrad and to Harvard Medical School, had (unlike Ayres) many studies and papers published and was one of the most beloved and respected directors of Judge Baker. Still, this Judge Baker educator remembers that Ayres wrote a "scathing memo" criticizing his boss, George Gardner because Ayres thought he wasn't "paying enough attention to the Manville School." This former colleague remembers that Ayres' critical memo was circulated among the staff.

We asked former Judge Baker psychologist Pauline Hahn whether it was normal for young psychiatrists to foment dissent and be critical of Gardner. Hahn said it was unheard of. "Ayres picked the wrong person to attack!" she said. And then she told us that it was Gardner himself who had actually secured the money from a benefactor that would create the Manville School. "To say that Gardner didn't do enough for the Manville School is just NOT accurate - it's ridiculous!" she said.

So then, what possibly could be behind Ayres' attack on his far more accomplished boss? We can only wonder... Had Gardner already called Ayres to the carpet about his problems with boundary issues with boys? We know that Ayres has been vindictive towards doctors in California who spoke out against him... so was Ayres being vindictive towards Gardner for daring to speak out against his touching kids? Was this "memo" a coverup - an excuse that Ayres used to leave Judge Baker, when in fact he may have already been asked to leave? Did he not get the support from his colleagues in his attacks against Gardner?

For Ayres to leave Judge Baker "abruptly" -as Joel, one of his former patients recalls- sure seems strange. Ayres was ambitious, and according to a 1953 article in Time magazine, Judge Baker was THE place to be for child psychiatrists. According to Time, "Boston has become a hub for child psychiatry" and Judge Baker was the center of that hub.

For an ambitious doctor like Ayres to move from the hub of child psychiatry - and with its ties to Harvard Medical School - to private practise in a small town in California that most people have never heard of seems most odd indeed....

Finally, there's Ayres' own testimony during the trial on the circumstances of his leaving Judge Baker. When asked by his lawyer Doron Weinberg what he was doing in 1963, Ayres replied " I also decided-- I had been in psychoanalysis for a while in New Haven and then again in Boston. And I decided that I was not going to reapply to the Institute of Boston, who had encouraged me to finish my training and then to reapply, but that I would rather go east-- go west and enjoy the weather."

"Would rather go East..." hmm, sounds like a Freudian slip to us.

In the transcript of Ayres' testimony what strikes us as odd is that Ayres doesn't talk about his actual training at Judge Baker - the only place where he studied child psychiatry at all. In other parts, he talks about his one year of pediatric training at Yale but in the one key area- his four years of child psychiatry training- he is curiously distant and detached and pretty much mum....

Instead of referring to his time as being at Judge Baker, he refers to it as being "at Harvard." Which is really strange- because every single one of the forty or so doctors we've spoken to have who have trained at Judge Baker all call it working at Judge Baker. The reason for this is that there are about seven institutions in Boston like Judge Baker that are affiliated with Harvard, such as Mass. General or Children's Hospital. A child psychiatrist who trained at Children's Hospital says they trained at Children's Hospital. Ditto those who worked at Mass. General and of course for Judge Baker. We have yet to encounter a single child psychiatrist who has referred to his training as working at Harvard.

We suspect Ayres uses the word "Harvard" in place of Judge Baker because he's trying to prevent us from looking too closely at his time at Judge Baker. Way, way, too late for that...And a little birdy has told us we're not the only ones looking at his Boston days, either.

To be continued....