Johnny the Shoeshine Boy says that ayres checked himself into Napa last night (10/25/2011).
10/27/2011 Update: There is now an article in the San Mateo Daily Journal stating that the prosecution has been informed of ayres' surrender to Napa State.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
New Article on ayres in the Times
There is a new article on the ayres story posted in the San Mateo County Times. Have a read:
http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_19191510
And a second article today: this one about the animosity between victim's advocate Victoria Balfour, and the prosecutor Melissa McKowan:
http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_19194847
Important point from comments about the above news article:
According to the article, McKowan placed Amati Mehler and another person who trained at Judge Baker, Dr. Joseph Mullen, on her witness list for the 2009 criminal trial, but she didn't call them to the stand.
BUT: look at what she says about the SAME witnesses on her blog comment.
Blog comment made by San Mateo prosecutor Melissa Mckowan. Confirmed as Mckowan’s by her supervisor, Assistant District Attorney Karen Guidotti:
http://williamayreswatch.blogspot.com/2009/12/yale-debunks-ayres-our-child.html
Melissa McKowan said...
But take my word for it, any "credible" tip that has come in has been looked into. So far, until this particular unattributed blog entry, I have never seen any "independent investigation" that has led to the discovery of an actual witness. For instance, the three (not four) Judge Baker Graduates who would allegedly have debunked Ayres' statements about being trained there--did NOT confirm to the police or the DA what it was alleged in the blogs that they would say. One told me that she had told the reporter who talked to her that she didn't know anything about Ayres and was in school later than him and that although she could say SHE was never trained to give exams, she "couldn't say for sure what his training was." That is NOT helpful. Another one refused to testify and the last one is physically unable to travel and lives in Europe.
Note that today (10/26/2011) is the deadline for william hamilton ayres to be admitted to Napa State Hospital, for an undoubtedly short stay before he is most likely released back into the community; the San Mateo County District Attorney having utterly failed to obtain any significant time in lockup or even registration for yet another child molester.
If ayres does manage to get himself admitted, then by this time next week (November 2nd, 2011) he will be receiving his $750,000 in bail money back.
http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_19191510
And a second article today: this one about the animosity between victim's advocate Victoria Balfour, and the prosecutor Melissa McKowan:
http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_19194847
Important point from comments about the above news article:
According to the article, McKowan placed Amati Mehler and another person who trained at Judge Baker, Dr. Joseph Mullen, on her witness list for the 2009 criminal trial, but she didn't call them to the stand.
BUT: look at what she says about the SAME witnesses on her blog comment.
Blog comment made by San Mateo prosecutor Melissa Mckowan. Confirmed as Mckowan’s by her supervisor, Assistant District Attorney Karen Guidotti:
http://williamayreswatch.blogspot.com/2009/12/yale-debunks-ayres-our-child.html
Melissa McKowan said...
But take my word for it, any "credible" tip that has come in has been looked into. So far, until this particular unattributed blog entry, I have never seen any "independent investigation" that has led to the discovery of an actual witness. For instance, the three (not four) Judge Baker Graduates who would allegedly have debunked Ayres' statements about being trained there--did NOT confirm to the police or the DA what it was alleged in the blogs that they would say. One told me that she had told the reporter who talked to her that she didn't know anything about Ayres and was in school later than him and that although she could say SHE was never trained to give exams, she "couldn't say for sure what his training was." That is NOT helpful. Another one refused to testify and the last one is physically unable to travel and lives in Europe.
Note that today (10/26/2011) is the deadline for william hamilton ayres to be admitted to Napa State Hospital, for an undoubtedly short stay before he is most likely released back into the community; the San Mateo County District Attorney having utterly failed to obtain any significant time in lockup or even registration for yet another child molester.
If ayres does manage to get himself admitted, then by this time next week (November 2nd, 2011) he will be receiving his $750,000 in bail money back.
Friday, October 21, 2011
San Mateo County - Come have sex with our children!
 |
| Armando Lopez-Galvez |
It seems that Armando Lopez-Galvez likes to have sex with young girls. Good thing he lives in Redwood City, which is part of San Mateo County!
He was apparently able to enjoy a young girl, and when the Belmont Police caught the man and told the San Mateo County prosecutors about 5 or six months ago, they reacted swiftly, and with great focus to make sure that the disruption to the poor, misunderstood man's life was minimized.
Between the San Mateo County DA, and the San Mateo County judges, they managed to bargain the fine citizen's charge down to a no-contest plea on only one count, sparing the man from potentially serving 10 to 12 years in prison on multiple charges.
They managed to get him down to a 308 day sentence with credit for time served! He does have to suffer through 3 years of probation, and will have to refrain from contacting the young girl, but thankfully, and as per usual, San Mateo County will NOT be burdening him with having to register as a sex offender. The County understands that a man should be able to violate 13 year old girls if he needs to!
If only the Belmont Police would quit pestering citizens who want to have sex with children, then the County would finally have some peace!
</sarcasm>
By the way, AS USUAL, The San Mateo Daily Journal seems to confuse the phrase "illegally fucking children" with "sexual relationship." Talk about being a mouthpiece for San Mateo County's strange predilections.
This has been YET ANOTHER unfortunate edition of: San Mateo County - Come Have Sex With Our Children!
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Another Blog Covers ayres Story
Another blogger covers the story about the DA and court allowing ayres to continue delaying and running around free.:
The blog PRACTIKEL: The only website worth visiting! has some rather strong opinions about the justice system as it applies to child molesters. The blogger would rather not have them taking up space in our public institutions - they offer up a rather more permanent solution -- a solution that Random Task would probably agree with.
The blog PRACTIKEL: The only website worth visiting! has some rather strong opinions about the justice system as it applies to child molesters. The blogger would rather not have them taking up space in our public institutions - they offer up a rather more permanent solution -- a solution that Random Task would probably agree with.
 |
| Oh, Behave! |
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
DA Backtracks on ayres Lockup Delay
There is a new article in the San Francisco Examiner about the delay to william ayres' commitment to Napa State Hospital to "treat" his alleged dementia, which allowed him to escape retrial on charges that he molested many young boys under the guise of providing psychiatric care.
The news article talks about the fact that prosecutor McKowan made one claim to the press -- The Court didn't provide necessary paperwork -- while DA Wagstaffe made an entirely different claim about availability of bed space. It also mentions that the DA claims that the judge denied a prosecution request to lock ayres up while awaiting a bed at Napa State. (How did Wagstaffe know that this was requested, if he didn't know that McKowan had claimed that the court was responsible, or that the judge had threatened contempt?) The article also repeats the 11-1 guilt vote on ONE charge for the criminal trial, even though news stories at the time reported that this was the case for SIX of the charges.
NOBODY seems able to get their story straight. At least they could all make an effort to tell the same lies.
Note: Reports from private investigators seem to show that ayres is in fact competent, at least as far as his defense at trial is concerned: competent enough to joke with medical colleagues about his alleged dementia and its relation to his defense maneuvers. (The medical colleagues who were enjoying the big joke with ayres and his vapid wife Solveig were: Larry Lurie, M.D., and Robert Kimmich M.D, both San Francisco shrinks and past presidents of the Northern California Psychiatric Society, a pathetic organization from which a great number of past officers were signatories of a letter pleading for financial help for child molester ayres while he was on trial.)
The news article talks about the fact that prosecutor McKowan made one claim to the press -- The Court didn't provide necessary paperwork -- while DA Wagstaffe made an entirely different claim about availability of bed space. It also mentions that the DA claims that the judge denied a prosecution request to lock ayres up while awaiting a bed at Napa State. (How did Wagstaffe know that this was requested, if he didn't know that McKowan had claimed that the court was responsible, or that the judge had threatened contempt?) The article also repeats the 11-1 guilt vote on ONE charge for the criminal trial, even though news stories at the time reported that this was the case for SIX of the charges.
NOBODY seems able to get their story straight. At least they could all make an effort to tell the same lies.
Note: Reports from private investigators seem to show that ayres is in fact competent, at least as far as his defense at trial is concerned: competent enough to joke with medical colleagues about his alleged dementia and its relation to his defense maneuvers. (The medical colleagues who were enjoying the big joke with ayres and his vapid wife Solveig were: Larry Lurie, M.D., and Robert Kimmich M.D, both San Francisco shrinks and past presidents of the Northern California Psychiatric Society, a pathetic organization from which a great number of past officers were signatories of a letter pleading for financial help for child molester ayres while he was on trial.)
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Analysis of ayres News Story
The Mercury News printed an article last night (Wednesday 10/5/2011) about the ayres hearing this past Monday which allowed the delay of ayres' commitment to Napa State. The Mercury News article can be found here.
The article mentions that the reporters talked to prosecutor McKowan, and apparently, she indicated to them that the reason for the delay is that the court did not submit all of the necessary paperwork.
The Mercury News also mentions that the original criminal trial, which ended in a mistrial, had ONE count that had an 11-1 for guilt vote.
Here are some problems with the news story:
Mistrial Vote Count: Immediately after the criminal trial (in June/July of 2009) there was some confusion in the press about what the actual jury vote count was. This was mostly cleared up after a day or so, with perhaps some minor discrepancies on the outlier votes. By August 4, 2009, the dust had mostly cleared and the final count, as best we could tell from multiple news sources was:
On 6 counts the vote was 11-1 in favor of conviction.
On 1 count the vote was 10-2 in favor of conviction.
On 2 counts the vote was 7-5 in favor of conviction.
I'm not sure why the press keeps incorrectly downplaying the vote count. They do the same thing with the number of times the trial dates were missed, even though their own papers posted a blurb each time the trial dates were re-scheduled due to some stupid excuse or other. (Not to mention the handy guide I've provided) Frankly it's maddening.
Missing Information: The Mercury News fails to mention the judge's statement that if ayres is not in lockup by the new date (Wednesday, October 26th, 2011) that someone would be found in contempt of court.
We're not 100% clear ourselves who would be found in contempt. The parents of a victim were in the courtroom, and they reported the information to us (apparently there was NO PRESS present). The parents indicate that it was Napa State that would be held in contempt, but that there's a possibility that it might have been ayres or McDougall that would be held in contempt, they weren't entirely clear.
Either prosecutor McKowan didn't tell the press about the contempt order, or perhaps the press didn't find it interesting enough to print, but I have a problem with that too....
Further: At last Monday's hearing, Judge Grandsaert ordered the defense attorney to make sure that the paperwork was properly provided to Napa State so that ayres could be in lockup by the new October 26th deadline. Which would lead me to believe that it was, in fact ayres and/or McDougall who would be found in contempt if ayres is not locked up by the new deadline.
Point: The fact that a contempt charge possibility was discussed by Judge Grandsaert at all is very problematic for McKowan.
Logical holes: If McKowan was the source of the information that the delay was because the court failed to provide the necessary paperwork to Napa State, then the whole question of a contempt order becomes a thorny logical problem:
IF McKowan told the press that the Court was responsible for the delay THEN it doesn't make ANY sense for the judge to have had ANY discussion of contempt. The press should have asked McKowan: "Why, then would ayres or his lawyer -- or even Napa State for that matter -- be held in contempt if ayres does not report by the new date." THEREFORE it doesn't make sense for McKowan to claim that the court was responsible for the delay, and I would argue that this is some kind of misrepresentation of fact, deliberate or otherwise... And the press should have pointed this out to McKowan (or whoever their source was.)
UNLESS Judge Grandsaert was saying that the COURT would be found in contempt if ayres isn't admitted by the October 26th. date (Because the Court was late in providing the paperwork.) BUT: it seems silly that the court would warn itself about the possibility of contempt against itself, AND it doesn't make any sense anyway, because the court ORDERED the defense attorney to make sure that the paperwork was submitted to Napa on time for his conviction.
The Good Lord knows, I certainly find the court in contempt, but I suppose that's irrelevant.
The simple statement that the Court was responsible for the delay should have opened a whole line of other questions for the press, but it apparently was lost on them... They seem incapable of understanding that they are being deceived.
Interesting that McDougall never has any comment for the press in defense of his client. He doesn't need to make any; the DA seems to be doing a pretty good job of covering for ayres at the expense of the court (If indeed, the statement that the Court was responsible came from McKowan.)
The article mentions that the reporters talked to prosecutor McKowan, and apparently, she indicated to them that the reason for the delay is that the court did not submit all of the necessary paperwork.
The Mercury News also mentions that the original criminal trial, which ended in a mistrial, had ONE count that had an 11-1 for guilt vote.
Here are some problems with the news story:
Mistrial Vote Count: Immediately after the criminal trial (in June/July of 2009) there was some confusion in the press about what the actual jury vote count was. This was mostly cleared up after a day or so, with perhaps some minor discrepancies on the outlier votes. By August 4, 2009, the dust had mostly cleared and the final count, as best we could tell from multiple news sources was:
On 6 counts the vote was 11-1 in favor of conviction.
On 1 count the vote was 10-2 in favor of conviction.
On 2 counts the vote was 7-5 in favor of conviction.
I'm not sure why the press keeps incorrectly downplaying the vote count. They do the same thing with the number of times the trial dates were missed, even though their own papers posted a blurb each time the trial dates were re-scheduled due to some stupid excuse or other. (Not to mention the handy guide I've provided) Frankly it's maddening.
Missing Information: The Mercury News fails to mention the judge's statement that if ayres is not in lockup by the new date (Wednesday, October 26th, 2011) that someone would be found in contempt of court.
We're not 100% clear ourselves who would be found in contempt. The parents of a victim were in the courtroom, and they reported the information to us (apparently there was NO PRESS present). The parents indicate that it was Napa State that would be held in contempt, but that there's a possibility that it might have been ayres or McDougall that would be held in contempt, they weren't entirely clear.
Either prosecutor McKowan didn't tell the press about the contempt order, or perhaps the press didn't find it interesting enough to print, but I have a problem with that too....
Further: At last Monday's hearing, Judge Grandsaert ordered the defense attorney to make sure that the paperwork was properly provided to Napa State so that ayres could be in lockup by the new October 26th deadline. Which would lead me to believe that it was, in fact ayres and/or McDougall who would be found in contempt if ayres is not locked up by the new deadline.
Point: The fact that a contempt charge possibility was discussed by Judge Grandsaert at all is very problematic for McKowan.
Logical holes: If McKowan was the source of the information that the delay was because the court failed to provide the necessary paperwork to Napa State, then the whole question of a contempt order becomes a thorny logical problem:
IF McKowan told the press that the Court was responsible for the delay THEN it doesn't make ANY sense for the judge to have had ANY discussion of contempt. The press should have asked McKowan: "Why, then would ayres or his lawyer -- or even Napa State for that matter -- be held in contempt if ayres does not report by the new date." THEREFORE it doesn't make sense for McKowan to claim that the court was responsible for the delay, and I would argue that this is some kind of misrepresentation of fact, deliberate or otherwise... And the press should have pointed this out to McKowan (or whoever their source was.)
UNLESS Judge Grandsaert was saying that the COURT would be found in contempt if ayres isn't admitted by the October 26th. date (Because the Court was late in providing the paperwork.) BUT: it seems silly that the court would warn itself about the possibility of contempt against itself, AND it doesn't make any sense anyway, because the court ORDERED the defense attorney to make sure that the paperwork was submitted to Napa on time for his conviction.
The Good Lord knows, I certainly find the court in contempt, but I suppose that's irrelevant.
The simple statement that the Court was responsible for the delay should have opened a whole line of other questions for the press, but it apparently was lost on them... They seem incapable of understanding that they are being deceived.
Interesting that McDougall never has any comment for the press in defense of his client. He doesn't need to make any; the DA seems to be doing a pretty good job of covering for ayres at the expense of the court (If indeed, the statement that the Court was responsible came from McKowan.)
Monday, October 3, 2011
Even More Delays
Today, the court was informed that, shockingly, Napa State does not have all of ayres' paperwork, and therefore he can't be committed this week, as previously ordered by the completely emasculated San Mateo County Court.
[NOTE Correction: contempt would be against NAPA, not ayres.]
The judge asked McDelay, ayres' asshat attorney, to contact Napa. On 10/26/2011, the judge will allegedly enter a cause for contempt of court charge against Napa State if ayres doesn't get checked into Napa Lock-up by then.
No idea what this means, or why Napa should feel threatened by Grandsaert. Seems like more Grandsaert/Wagstaffe hand-wringing and arm-flapping to distract from the fact that San Mateo county is entirely disinterested in getting child molesters off the streets.
On 11/2/2011, the molester and his dipshit wife will get their $750K back (assuming he's checked into Napa) so they can pay their blood money to all of their marginally ethical turd attorneys.
Maybe then, they can go out to lunch with Larry Lurie and Robert Kimmich, and joke about how funny it is for ayres to molest little boys and then carry on about duping the courts with claims of Alzheimer's. Aren't past presidents of the Northern California Psychiatric Society a hoot?
[NOTE Correction: contempt would be against NAPA, not ayres.]
The judge asked McDelay, ayres' asshat attorney, to contact Napa. On 10/26/2011, the judge will allegedly enter a cause for contempt of court charge against Napa State if ayres doesn't get checked into Napa Lock-up by then.
No idea what this means, or why Napa should feel threatened by Grandsaert. Seems like more Grandsaert/Wagstaffe hand-wringing and arm-flapping to distract from the fact that San Mateo county is entirely disinterested in getting child molesters off the streets.
On 11/2/2011, the molester and his dipshit wife will get their $750K back (assuming he's checked into Napa) so they can pay their blood money to all of their marginally ethical turd attorneys.
Maybe then, they can go out to lunch with Larry Lurie and Robert Kimmich, and joke about how funny it is for ayres to molest little boys and then carry on about duping the courts with claims of Alzheimer's. Aren't past presidents of the Northern California Psychiatric Society a hoot?
Friday, September 30, 2011
URGENT: Hearing Scheduled
URGENT: STATUS HEARING
Monday 10/3/2011 8:45am
There is an unexpected hearing listed as a "Status Hearing" scheduled for MONDAY, October 3rd, 2011 8:45am for william hamilton ayres, accused of molesting many young boys under the guise of providing psychiatric care.
ayres, the one time president of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has been stringing the courts along for more than 4 years, ultimately avoiding prosecution by convincing the San Mateo County District attorney that he is incompetent, in spite of the fact that two of three court appointed evaluating doctors found him to be competent. (The other doctor also originally found him to be competent, but changed her mind on the day the competency trial was set to begin.) But YOU can decide for yourself. There is video and a professional surveillance report showing him to be behaving in a very competent fashion, and even joking about using the Alzheimer's excuse to his advantage with "very good friends" Larry Lurie, M.D., and Robert Kimmich M.D, both San Francisco shrinks and past presidents of the Northern California Psychiatric Society, a pathetic organization from which a great number of past officers were signatories of a letter pleading for financial help for child molester ayres while he was on trial. (Lurie was also the author of the lovely letter)
Monday 10/3/2011 8:45am
There is an unexpected hearing listed as a "Status Hearing" scheduled for MONDAY, October 3rd, 2011 8:45am for william hamilton ayres, accused of molesting many young boys under the guise of providing psychiatric care.
ayres, the one time president of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has been stringing the courts along for more than 4 years, ultimately avoiding prosecution by convincing the San Mateo County District attorney that he is incompetent, in spite of the fact that two of three court appointed evaluating doctors found him to be competent. (The other doctor also originally found him to be competent, but changed her mind on the day the competency trial was set to begin.) But YOU can decide for yourself. There is video and a professional surveillance report showing him to be behaving in a very competent fashion, and even joking about using the Alzheimer's excuse to his advantage with "very good friends" Larry Lurie, M.D., and Robert Kimmich M.D, both San Francisco shrinks and past presidents of the Northern California Psychiatric Society, a pathetic organization from which a great number of past officers were signatories of a letter pleading for financial help for child molester ayres while he was on trial. (Lurie was also the author of the lovely letter)
Friday, September 9, 2011
ayres Fiasco Makes Front Page Examiner
[Original Post by DS: 09/09/2011 10:30PM PST]
The ayres commitment fiasco has now made front page news in the San Francisco Examiner, in a story by Mike Aldax. The story talks about the delay granted before commitment, and it also discusses a newly developing angle that ayres has to take care of health issues before going to Napa State (if indeed that ever actually happens) This is not something that was made clear in the courtroom, but apparently Karen Guidotti - the prosecutor's supervisor and chief deputy to DA Wagstaffe - told to the press at some point.
The three ring circus of different stories from the DA continues...
Significantly, the article discusses some of the human damage that ayes has caused to his victims, including alcohol and drug abuse, dangerous behaviors resulting in the death of some victims, and indeed, deep depression and even suicides.
Meanwhile stories are now in many papers and other news outlets all around the country. Many tell the same, or slightly modified versions of the Mercury News story released to the Associated Press:
Santa Maria Times, Sacramento Bee, MySanAntonio Texas, San Francisco Chronicle, Chron.com Houston Texas, Marin Independent Journal, The Republic of Columbus Indiana, KTVU, FoxReno, CT Post of Connecticut, and many others.
Please have a look at the Private Investigator's report and videos, if you haven't already seen them.
The three ring circus of different stories from the DA continues...
Significantly, the article discusses some of the human damage that ayes has caused to his victims, including alcohol and drug abuse, dangerous behaviors resulting in the death of some victims, and indeed, deep depression and even suicides.
Meanwhile stories are now in many papers and other news outlets all around the country. Many tell the same, or slightly modified versions of the Mercury News story released to the Associated Press:
Santa Maria Times, Sacramento Bee, MySanAntonio Texas, San Francisco Chronicle, Chron.com Houston Texas, Marin Independent Journal, The Republic of Columbus Indiana, KTVU, FoxReno, CT Post of Connecticut, and many others.
Please have a look at the Private Investigator's report and videos, if you haven't already seen them.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Napa on October 6th. 6 months likely
[Original Post by DS: 09/07/2011 11:10AM PST]
[Updates: 09/08/2011 06:10AM PST]
On September 7, 2011 william hamilton ayres had a placement hearing to establish the "treatment" he would receive for the dementia that he claims is preventing him from defending himself against charges relating to his molestation of many young boys, while they were entrusted to his "care" for alleged psychiatric treatment.
Last month, in a hearing with an un-announced time change probably designed to prevent the public,the press, and a county supervisor from witnessing the spectacle (and reporting it without the approved Wagstaffe Spin), the DA caved in and conceded to his claims of dementia in spite of the fact that two of three neutral, court appointed shrinks state that he is competent. (The third mysteriously changed her report moments before a competency trial was to start.) And in spite of the fact that the DA was presented with privately funded surveillance evidence that the molester ayres is out and about acting very competent, and even joking about his "dementia" claims with shrink pals Robert Kimmich and Larry Lurie, who has published a paper on Alzheimer's related dementia and its symptoms.
Prior to today's hearing, the DA and the prosecutor told several different stories about what was expected in terms of placement (As many as seven different stories if you count different press reports and reports from victim's families.) These ranged from minimal outpatient care locally, to permanent lockup (unless conditions improve) in state mental health facilities.
Today:
At 9:00am, the prosecutor, the defense attorney and Judge Grandsaert quietly discussed the fact that the court needed to hear information on a few other cases first, so they delayed the start time slightly. The Judge was overheard discussing the importance of the start time, and all three appeared to be amused with themselves and had a little laugh about the distress they caused at the last hearing. (Must be sweet to be an impartial judge.)
Once things got underway, Grandsaert mentioned ex-parte information received from a non-involved party, (We can safely assume that this is private investigator’s report.) He stated that it was non-admissible and possibly unlawful for him to review, and that it can’t be taken into consideration. (NOTE: Technically, Grandsaert is just blowing smoke up people's arses here... the information was provided to all sides, and thus, it is not ex parte. )
Grandsaert stated that if the public is not happy with their officials, then they should change their officials at election time. (Grandsaert was apparently already pissy because a bunch of the people from the un-related preliminary hearings didn’t show, didn’t do what they were told, etc…) The judge is right: the public has to decide if they want to keep bending over and letting people like him blow smoke up their asses or not.
Once Grandsaert stepped down off his lectern, McDougall, the defense weasel, indicated that he wanted a delay before commitment (we think he was asking for 90 days.) He submitted a report from Amanda Gregory, stating that it agreed with findings from Kirshner, (who felt that ayres’ condition was likely Alzheimer’s disease.) McDougall wanted it to be part of the record for “future hearings.” McKowan agreed to making it part of the court record, the judge agreed that the documents were relevant.
Discussion then centered around 1601A, which has to do with mandatory 180 day locked-up commitment in cases in which people have been harmed by a defendant who is claiming incompetency, insanity etc. McDougall seems to have had some alternative to Napa State in mind, but McKowan argued that there were no such alternatives with the required lockup indicated in McDougall’s report, and that if another facility were to accept him, they could lose their license (in light of 1601A) and therefore there were no alternative locations.
McDougall wanted a delay to make sure that paperwork was in order and properly accepted by Napa State before commitment. (I guess he learned from the Youshock snafu.) McKowan wanted ayres to be remanded to Napa today, and said that there was no basis for continuation.
McDougall seemed agitated about statements that McKowan made “outside of court” about Napa having all the information that they need, and insisted that it would not be right to transfer ayres today.
The judge ruled as follows:
The parties have 30 days to get paperwork to Napa and accepted by Napa doctors, (that they have the ability to accept and treat ayres) (9/8/2011 NOTE: According to the San Mateo Daily Journal, DDA Karen Guidotti is claiming that this 30 day delay is so that ayres' can deal with "his myriad medial issues." However, people who were at the hearing did NOT report this as the stated reason for the 30 day delay. Guidotti appears to be a bit of ditz though, having warmly greeted one of the parents of victims - who she had recently had a contentious meeting with - asking gregariously: "How are you doing!?" immediately after Guidotti's employee McKowan had just conceded ayres' incompetence at the start of the August 22nd competency re-trial. In either case, we now have yet another story from the DA's office about what's happening with ayres, and, as several people have pointed out, it's entirely feasible that "medical issues" are yet another loophole that the ayres/DA folks are working on to keep ayres out of lockup.)
Ayres is to be committed to Napa State on October 6th, 2011.
Hearing on October 13th 2011 to exonerate ayres’ bail, once notified by Napa that ayres is locked up and in treatment.
Report is due back from Napa in 90 days. (Not sure what the point of this report is.) (UPDATE: Joshua Melvin at the Mercury News reports that there may be some potential that at this point, if the doctors report that ayres is incurable, that he may then be eligible for a hearing to place him in some other care facility, potentially cutting his stay in Napa from 180 days to 90 days. )
Ayres must be locked up for 6 months. If the doctors decide he is competent after 6 months, then the DA and court can decide if they’d like to have a criminal re-trial. If the doctors decide that he’s still incompetent, then there will be another hearing to determine ayres’ placement at that time. The law does not appear to require indefinite lockup. (But also, note the update on the 90 day report from Napa...)
The hearing wrapped up at about 9:30am, so given the delays to the start of the hearing, it took about 15 minutes.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Several of us think that there is enough wiggle room in Grandsaert's ruling (Napa's review of the report to see if they're going to be able to "treat" ayres, the 90 day review, etc...) and with reports that getting a bed in Napa is very difficult, that it is fairly likely that ayres will never get to Napa, and that he'll end up with some other alternate arrangement. So please don't bank on even this insignificant incarceration as any kind of consolation.
Additional information:
McDougal also fussed over a 2005 case, the “Vargas” case, and/or a related 2010 case that has not been published yet. As best I can tell via Google searches, this appears to be a reference to the Vargas case in Fort Bragg, in which a man killed the man who molested him as a child. After the boy was molested, as an adult, he allegedly became the “lover” of the man who molested him. There is another "Vargas" molestation case in which a girl was molested by a man who was known to be a molester, but the details were somewhat convoluted... Both cases seem to discuss consent issues, essentially relating to the defense trying to shift some of the blame to the victims because the defense claims that they, as adults, or their adult guardians made the decision to put themselves at risk. Not sure what this was all about, or if one of these are even the correct “Vargas” case, but regardless, McDougall appears to be maneuvering to protect his child molesting client from further criminal/civil lawsuits by entering all of this detritus into the record.
Rant:
By the way, the court and/or the DA's office has been looking at the blog all morning since the hearing, so I'll take the opportunity to say that I think it's pretty lousy that you all (including the court) didn't look a little harder at the conflict of interest you have, given the long incestuous relationship you've had with the molester.
I'll add that Grandsaert's slap in the face to the frustrated victims and their families by suggesting that their only recourse is through elective process is only exacerbated by the fact that the public finds this kind of crime too icky to focus on, and therefore any kind of public uprising, no mater how justified, is unlikely to happen. This kind of cheap shot is about as clever as the tactics of a schoolyard bully, and you should be ashamed of your performance today, Grandsaert. Time to grow up.
Thanks for takin' my money, assholes!
[Updates: 09/08/2011 06:10AM PST]
On September 7, 2011 william hamilton ayres had a placement hearing to establish the "treatment" he would receive for the dementia that he claims is preventing him from defending himself against charges relating to his molestation of many young boys, while they were entrusted to his "care" for alleged psychiatric treatment.
Last month, in a hearing with an un-announced time change probably designed to prevent the public,the press, and a county supervisor from witnessing the spectacle (and reporting it without the approved Wagstaffe Spin), the DA caved in and conceded to his claims of dementia in spite of the fact that two of three neutral, court appointed shrinks state that he is competent. (The third mysteriously changed her report moments before a competency trial was to start.) And in spite of the fact that the DA was presented with privately funded surveillance evidence that the molester ayres is out and about acting very competent, and even joking about his "dementia" claims with shrink pals Robert Kimmich and Larry Lurie, who has published a paper on Alzheimer's related dementia and its symptoms.
Prior to today's hearing, the DA and the prosecutor told several different stories about what was expected in terms of placement (As many as seven different stories if you count different press reports and reports from victim's families.) These ranged from minimal outpatient care locally, to permanent lockup (unless conditions improve) in state mental health facilities.
Today:
At 9:00am, the prosecutor, the defense attorney and Judge Grandsaert quietly discussed the fact that the court needed to hear information on a few other cases first, so they delayed the start time slightly. The Judge was overheard discussing the importance of the start time, and all three appeared to be amused with themselves and had a little laugh about the distress they caused at the last hearing. (Must be sweet to be an impartial judge.)
Once things got underway, Grandsaert mentioned ex-parte information received from a non-involved party, (We can safely assume that this is private investigator’s report.) He stated that it was non-admissible and possibly unlawful for him to review, and that it can’t be taken into consideration. (NOTE: Technically, Grandsaert is just blowing smoke up people's arses here... the information was provided to all sides, and thus, it is not ex parte. )
Grandsaert stated that if the public is not happy with their officials, then they should change their officials at election time. (Grandsaert was apparently already pissy because a bunch of the people from the un-related preliminary hearings didn’t show, didn’t do what they were told, etc…) The judge is right: the public has to decide if they want to keep bending over and letting people like him blow smoke up their asses or not.
Once Grandsaert stepped down off his lectern, McDougall, the defense weasel, indicated that he wanted a delay before commitment (we think he was asking for 90 days.) He submitted a report from Amanda Gregory, stating that it agreed with findings from Kirshner, (who felt that ayres’ condition was likely Alzheimer’s disease.) McDougall wanted it to be part of the record for “future hearings.” McKowan agreed to making it part of the court record, the judge agreed that the documents were relevant.
Discussion then centered around 1601A, which has to do with mandatory 180 day locked-up commitment in cases in which people have been harmed by a defendant who is claiming incompetency, insanity etc. McDougall seems to have had some alternative to Napa State in mind, but McKowan argued that there were no such alternatives with the required lockup indicated in McDougall’s report, and that if another facility were to accept him, they could lose their license (in light of 1601A) and therefore there were no alternative locations.
McDougall wanted a delay to make sure that paperwork was in order and properly accepted by Napa State before commitment. (I guess he learned from the Youshock snafu.) McKowan wanted ayres to be remanded to Napa today, and said that there was no basis for continuation.
McDougall seemed agitated about statements that McKowan made “outside of court” about Napa having all the information that they need, and insisted that it would not be right to transfer ayres today.
The judge ruled as follows:
The parties have 30 days to get paperwork to Napa and accepted by Napa doctors, (that they have the ability to accept and treat ayres) (9/8/2011 NOTE: According to the San Mateo Daily Journal, DDA Karen Guidotti is claiming that this 30 day delay is so that ayres' can deal with "his myriad medial issues." However, people who were at the hearing did NOT report this as the stated reason for the 30 day delay. Guidotti appears to be a bit of ditz though, having warmly greeted one of the parents of victims - who she had recently had a contentious meeting with - asking gregariously: "How are you doing!?" immediately after Guidotti's employee McKowan had just conceded ayres' incompetence at the start of the August 22nd competency re-trial. In either case, we now have yet another story from the DA's office about what's happening with ayres, and, as several people have pointed out, it's entirely feasible that "medical issues" are yet another loophole that the ayres/DA folks are working on to keep ayres out of lockup.)
Ayres is to be committed to Napa State on October 6th, 2011.
Hearing on October 13th 2011 to exonerate ayres’ bail, once notified by Napa that ayres is locked up and in treatment.
Report is due back from Napa in 90 days. (Not sure what the point of this report is.) (UPDATE: Joshua Melvin at the Mercury News reports that there may be some potential that at this point, if the doctors report that ayres is incurable, that he may then be eligible for a hearing to place him in some other care facility, potentially cutting his stay in Napa from 180 days to 90 days. )
Ayres must be locked up for 6 months. If the doctors decide he is competent after 6 months, then the DA and court can decide if they’d like to have a criminal re-trial. If the doctors decide that he’s still incompetent, then there will be another hearing to determine ayres’ placement at that time. The law does not appear to require indefinite lockup. (But also, note the update on the 90 day report from Napa...)
The hearing wrapped up at about 9:30am, so given the delays to the start of the hearing, it took about 15 minutes.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Several of us think that there is enough wiggle room in Grandsaert's ruling (Napa's review of the report to see if they're going to be able to "treat" ayres, the 90 day review, etc...) and with reports that getting a bed in Napa is very difficult, that it is fairly likely that ayres will never get to Napa, and that he'll end up with some other alternate arrangement. So please don't bank on even this insignificant incarceration as any kind of consolation.
Additional information:
McDougal also fussed over a 2005 case, the “Vargas” case, and/or a related 2010 case that has not been published yet. As best I can tell via Google searches, this appears to be a reference to the Vargas case in Fort Bragg, in which a man killed the man who molested him as a child. After the boy was molested, as an adult, he allegedly became the “lover” of the man who molested him. There is another "Vargas" molestation case in which a girl was molested by a man who was known to be a molester, but the details were somewhat convoluted... Both cases seem to discuss consent issues, essentially relating to the defense trying to shift some of the blame to the victims because the defense claims that they, as adults, or their adult guardians made the decision to put themselves at risk. Not sure what this was all about, or if one of these are even the correct “Vargas” case, but regardless, McDougall appears to be maneuvering to protect his child molesting client from further criminal/civil lawsuits by entering all of this detritus into the record.
Rant:
By the way, the court and/or the DA's office has been looking at the blog all morning since the hearing, so I'll take the opportunity to say that I think it's pretty lousy that you all (including the court) didn't look a little harder at the conflict of interest you have, given the long incestuous relationship you've had with the molester.
I'll add that Grandsaert's slap in the face to the frustrated victims and their families by suggesting that their only recourse is through elective process is only exacerbated by the fact that the public finds this kind of crime too icky to focus on, and therefore any kind of public uprising, no mater how justified, is unlikely to happen. This kind of cheap shot is about as clever as the tactics of a schoolyard bully, and you should be ashamed of your performance today, Grandsaert. Time to grow up.
Thanks for takin' my money, assholes!
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Reminder: ayres Placement Hearing Wednesday
This is a reminder that the placement hearing for william hamilton ayres, accused of molesting many young boys, is scheduled for TOMORROW, September 7th at 9am.
Remember also: at the last hearing, the DA, the defense, and Judge Grandsaert pulled a fast one on the public, the press, and a county supervisor by holding the hearing 15 minutes early, and finished before the scheduled start time.
Remember also: at the last hearing, the DA, the defense, and Judge Grandsaert pulled a fast one on the public, the press, and a county supervisor by holding the hearing 15 minutes early, and finished before the scheduled start time.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Times Calls ayres Retrial Hearing "SUSPICIOUS"
The print edition of Saturday, August 27, 2011 San Mateo County Times has the following headline:
"Court in Session... A Little Early: Time of Ayres' retrial hearing is suspicious"
The article, a brief "Insider" blurb that got top billing on the paper calls attention to an important issue that I had originally missed. When I first reported on the August 22 hearing, I did not notice the TIME that I got reports from people at the hearing. I heard from them at about 9:10am. It was actually finished BEFORE the scheduled 9am start time.
Here are some snippets from the San Mateo County Times Article:
The reporter in the Times goes on to call the behavior fishy, talks about Wagstaffe's excuse, and sarcastically chides Judge Grandsaert's questionable decision.
Go on over to the San Mateo County Times article (pdf) to read about it. Note that the online version has changed the headline to the somewhat less confrontational: "The Insider: Ayres hearing time travels"
Yet more coordinated, suspicious behavior by the molester, the DA, and the Judiciary. It floors me that many don't see the collusion.
"Court in Session... A Little Early: Time of Ayres' retrial hearing is suspicious"
The article, a brief "Insider" blurb that got top billing on the paper calls attention to an important issue that I had originally missed. When I first reported on the August 22 hearing, I did not notice the TIME that I got reports from people at the hearing. I heard from them at about 9:10am. It was actually finished BEFORE the scheduled 9am start time.
Here are some snippets from the San Mateo County Times Article:
District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said the hearing in San Mateo County Superior Court Judge John Grandsaert's courtroom would begin at 9 a.m. Grandsaert himself listed the time of the hearing as 9.
So the Insider, and Supervisor Dave Pine, were a bit surprised to learn, when they arrived at 9, that the hearing was already over. It had begun at 8:45
The reporter in the Times goes on to call the behavior fishy, talks about Wagstaffe's excuse, and sarcastically chides Judge Grandsaert's questionable decision.
Go on over to the San Mateo County Times article (pdf) to read about it. Note that the online version has changed the headline to the somewhat less confrontational: "The Insider: Ayres hearing time travels"
Yet more coordinated, suspicious behavior by the molester, the DA, and the Judiciary. It floors me that many don't see the collusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)