GUILTY CA - Dr. William Ayres for child molestation, San Mateo, 2007 #2

[Belinda]

This case just continues to horrify me so much. My heart bleeds for all these poor children that thought they were gonna get help, only to be victimized, oftentimes after already suffering various forms of abuse and trauma. That they didn't receive treatment on top of it is further evidence that these so-called experts, at the top of their field, need to be looked at with a microscope.

For the prosecution to keep dropping the ball, whether intentionally or by incompetence, should be criminal in and of itself.

 

[Mercyneal]

Last August, 2010, after the mistrial in the Ayres case, reporter Victoria Balfour, who was puzzled as to why the prosecution had not ever challenged Ayres' lawyer Doron Weinberg's statement to the jury that Ayres' giving physical exams to boys in therapy was part of his "therapeutic model," made an appointment to meet with Stephen Schaffer, the Chief Operating Officer of Judge Baker Children's Center in Boston. Ayres trained there from 1959 to 1963 and has told at least two child psychiatrists that he was trained to give genital exams to boys in therapy at Judge Baker.

Judge Baker COO Schaffer, who had never heard of the Dr. William Ayres criminal case,was stunned when Balfour asked him if Judge Baker Center had ever trained child psychiatrists to give genital exams to boys in therapy. He went dead white and said "NO!!!" His next question was, "Why didn't the San Mateo County District Attorney's office ever call me about this?"

Balfour posted her interview with Schaffer on the William Ayres blog in August, 2009. Here's an excerpt:

The San Mateo County Times in a June 19, 2009 article "Books Depicting Nude Young Boys Suppressed in Ayres Trial" also mentions that Ayres told his colleagues "medical exams" in therapy were part of his training:

Excerpt:

The defense has argued that Ayres performed physical examinations on some of his patients as part of his "therapeutic model." He is the former president of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

He told colleagues that he performed medical examinations because it was the way he had been trained. He had done his residency in the early 1960s at the Judge Baker Center in Boston, one of the country's premier centers for the study of child psychology.


We asked Schaffer whether whether any child psychiatrists who had gone through training at Judge Baker at any time had been trained to give complete physical exams, including the genitals - as a regular and frequent part of therapy, as Ayres claims.

"No!" said Schaffer. "The idea that our psychiatrists were trained to give physical exams like that in therapy is just preposterous. It's absurd. It's horrifying. I've been in the field for a long time and I have never heard of child psychiatrists being trained to do this. We've trained close to 1000 psychiatrists and we have never taught this. I just can't imagine it."

We asked Schaffer how he felt about Ayres' "justification" of his touching boys in therapy by putting it all on Judge Baker.

"It's upsetting for us as an institution that Ayres would say this and also upsetting that he got away with it for so long," he said. "If it was reported at Judge Baker that our psychiatrists ever put a hand on a child, that psychiatrist would be put on leave and he would be reported to the police. "


Read more on the interview here:
http://williamayreswatch.blogspot.com/2009/08/judge-bakers-chief-operating-officer.html#more

 

[Missizzy]

Dr. Schaffer sounds indignant and appalled about this allegation made by Ayres. I have to ask then, why doesn't this man speak out even more loudly?

Ayres is actually besmirching the work of many fine men and women. Why aren't they, as a group, denouncing these lies?

 

[Mercyneal]

Today some of us who are working to fact check Ms. Mckowan's statement on the Ayres blog about contacting Boston doctors whom reporter Victoria Balfour tracked down.

We have uncovered a THIRD version from Mckowan - as told to the mother of an in statute victim- as to why they didn't use the doctors. We will post this bizarre third version after we have first notified the proper authorities.

It just gets worse and worse.

 

[Missizzy]

I hate to sound like a broken record but I'd love to know that some of Ayres's evaluations were currently being evaluated themselves. A psychiatric eval of a child must follow a certain format and template. They are quite detailed and contain the results of mandated tests that must be completed in order to reach a diagnosis.

These are the sorts of ducuments that families keep. They seem "important" and are tremendously expensive (no matter who pays). They have a tendency to stay in a child's file forever and follow them through educational settings and treatments stays.

I would suggest starting a collection of these. Even with the children's names redacted, they would be a great indicator of just what this man was doing professionally for these children....other than molesting them and twisting their spirits.

 

[Mercyneal]

As stated yesterday, I just learned of yet another story by prosecutor Melissa Mckowan as to why she did not contact the Boston doctors that reporter Victoria Balfour found, who said that Ayres was lying about his training and they had never done physical exams on boys in therapy. You will remember that in a statement on the Ayres blog back in January Mckowan wrote that she contacted the doctors but one of the doctors didn't know anything about Ayres (false) and didn't train with him(false) and that another doctor (which was actually the same doctor, only Mckowan got confused) wasn't "physically able to travel." (False as it has been shown that the doctor travelled from Rome to Chicago just a few days after the trial ended.)

Now, the new story she told the mother of a victim for her reasons for not contacting the doctors. The mother of the victim says that at the trial last summer, Mckowan told her, "Ayres lied about where he went to medical school. He said he never went to the one in Boston. We found out too late. That's why we never called the doctors."

This is just a completely perplexing statement that makes no sense. In Ayres' deposition for a molestaton civil trial in him in 2004, he correctly states that he went to the University of Wisconsin Medical School and that he went to Judge Baker in Boston for child psychiatry training. Ayres has lied about many things, but he is speaking the truth here. Furthermore, Judge Baker isn't even a medical school. Also, we have actually seen the copy of Ayres resume that his lawyer gave to the prosecution for the trial. The copy of the resume that the prosecution had, correctly states that Ayres went to the University of Wisconsin Medical School and to Judge Baker in Boston for training. We are very confused as to where Ayres has ever lied about which medical school he has gone to.

And anyway, even if he had lied about his medical school (which looks highly doubtful) all the prosecutor had to do was to put in a quick call to the school itself. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to check something like that. Was the prosecutor trying to say that Ayres was saying he never went to Judge Baker? If so, he didn't say that in the deposition, which the prosecutor quoted freely from during the trial. In the civil suit, he talked about his training at Judge Baker.

And also, even if the prosecutor discovered that he had lied about his medical school, what would that have to do with finding the doctors in Boston? Does she mean to say that she thought he lied about training in Boston, so the doctors who told Balfour that they trained with him were lying too?

And is she saying that they found out that he wasn't lying about Boston but by that point it was too late to put in a few calls to the doctors who trained with Boston?

And most importantly: Why did she write under her own name on the Ayres blog that she had contacted the doctors in Boston, yet tell the mother of a victim that she hadn't called them because it was "too late?"

Can anyone make sense of these not one but two excuses?

A citizen has already written to San Mateo Chief Deputy DA Steve Wagstaffe that people over at Websleuths are concerned about the prosector's response.
He told the citizen that he had read the Ayres thread on Websleuths and was going to ask the prosecutor to provide "more information."

We want to give a shout out to that citizen who has already expressed her concern to Wagstaffe. Anyone here feel like writing to him about the discrepancies in Mckowan's stories about contacting the Boston doctors who knew Ayres?

Here is Steve Wagstaffe's email. We encourage you to contact him. The reporters in the Bay Area also have this new information.

 

[Mercyneal]

Here is a small excerpt from San Mateo Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe's response to the citizen who wrote to him about the concerns expressed about the Ayres prosecution here on Websleuths:

I am of course concerned about the manner in which my prosecutors are handling the Ayres case and also with the perception of our work in the public eye. I have reviewed the websleuth link you provided and recognize I need more information from the prosecutor on the case, Ms. McKowan and her supervisors.

 

[Mercyneal]

San Mateo Chief Deputy DA Steve Wagstaffe's email. He is up for election in November, with no challengers. What a shame:
[email protected]

 

[Mercyneal]

A victim in the Ayres case has now told me a third story that he says Mckowan told him as to why she never called the Boston doctors to the stand who would have testified that Ayres was lying about his training.

She said that she didn't call them because Ayres himself never brought up his training in Boston. This makes no sense, as the prosecutor called in other child psychiatrists, including one from Stanford, who spoke generally about how child psychiatrists are not trained to give physical - especially genital exams - to boys in therapy.

If the prosecutor can call in expert witnesses who did not even train with Ayres to testify about doctors' training, wouldn't it then follow that she could also call in expert witnesses who actually trained with Ayres to talk about his training?

So far we count three different stories that the prosecutor has told people as to why she didn't call those doctors who trained with Ayres. We feel that she has told other stories to other people.

 

[Mercyneal]

Yesterday we spoke to an expert witness for the prosecution in the Ayres trial last summer. This expert witness expressed shock at how little prep work Mckowan did for the case. This expert has testified in about 75 pedophile priests cases. The expert says on average, they meet with prosecutors at least three times and they prep for an average of eight hours. The expert says that Mckowan only met them once for "less than an hour."

The expert says that Mckowan likes to do cases cold.

We hear that Mckowan did little prep work in the case in which she and the District Attorney's office is being sued as well. Sources say that she had the case for two and a half years , but waited until a week before to start prepping for that child abuse case. She informed the family of the victim that she had not lined up any expert witnesses for the case and then asked the family if they could pay for an expert themselves. Is that standard practice- asking a family to locate an expert witness and then paying for them themselves?

 

[Mercyneal]

Here's what Chief Deputy DA Steve Wagstaffe wrote in an email to a person in San Mateo County who wrote to him to let him know that some Websleuthers had become concerned about the actions of prosecutor Melissa Mckowan on the Ayres case:

From: Steve Wagstaffe <[email protected]>
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 7:34:39 AM
Subject: Re: Your Office has become the Topic of National Discussion

Good morning xxxxxxxx,

Thank you for your e-mail. I appreciate the information you have provided to me. I am of course concerned about the manner in which my prosecutors are handling the Ayres case and also with the perception of our work in the public eye. I have reviewed the websleuth link you provided and recognize I need more information from the prosecutor on the case, Ms. McKowan and her supervisors. You are kind to bring this to my attention.

We both share the desire that justice be accomplished in the Ayres case. Your concern is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Steve Wagstaffe
__________________________________________________

Although this could be just political b.s. the content of this email is an ever-so-slight improvement over the email he sent to another citizen of San Mateo County in June 2009 where he said " I don't understand why everyone is so angry at Melissa Mckowan."

He's not siding with Mckowan totally in this email.

 

[ohiogirl]

I hope he means it.

 

[Missizzy]

I don't think it ever hurts to let our DA's know that people are watching. My guess is that the man will learn a few things from reading this post.

As the parent of three children adopted from the San Mateo County foster care system, I expect full transparency concerning the safety of children in that county.

Mr. Wagstaffe, I implore you to provide oversight in this most important case. Please leave no rock unturned while investigated this monster. So many victims are hurting. Ayres must pay for his actions. He hurt children who were under the protection of the State and County!!

 

[Belinda]

I think Mr. Wagstaffe could learn a great deal about this case here, thanks especially to Mercyneal's unwavering interest and research.

Mr. Wagstaffe, I implore you to do the right thing here. Too many children have been hurt by Dr. Ayres. He must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It is imperative that our children be protected.

 

[Mercyneal]

Many of us are puzzled as to why the San Mateo prosecutor did not challenge Ayres' lawyer's bogus defense that physical exams of boys in therapy was standard practice when Ayres was training. Here is an article from San Mateo County Times on June 19, 2009, during the trial. Entitled &#8220;Books Depicting Nude Young Boys Suppressed in Ayres Trial&#8221;, the article says the following:

The defense has argued that Ayres performed physical examinations on some of his patients as part of his &#8220;therapeutic model.&#8221; He is the former President of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

He told colleagues that he performed medical examinations because it was the way he had been trained. He had done his residency in the early 1960s at the Judge Baker Center in Boston, one of the country&#8217;s premier centers for the study of child psychology.
_________

On this website, some of us are especially puzzled as to why the prosecutor did not bother to look into Ayres' Boston training, as she had already been told by his former partner Dr. Hugh Ridlehuber ( who died a few months before the trial) that Ayres had told him that he had been trained to give physical exams-that included the genitalia- at Judge Baker in Boston.

After the mistrial, reporter Victoria Balfour, who had already tracked down four doctors who had trained with Ayres in Boston in the 1960s before Ayres was arrested - doctors who told her Ayres was lying about his training, but for varying reasons (See other posts) the prosecutor didn't use them - set about to find and interview more doctors who had trained with Ayres in Boston at Judge Baker. In all, she interviewed 20 doctors. Many of the interviews have been posted over at the William Ayres blog. We will give you a condensed sampling of some of those interviews with the doctors who trained with Ayres.

The question she posed to each of the twenty doctors was this:

During your training at Judge Baker, were you at any time trained to give physical exams to children as a routine and regular part of therapy -- physical exams that would include an examination of the genitalia?

Here are some of their answers.

- Dr. Lee Willer: "I trained with Ayres. Neither he nor I nor anyone else in our training group was trained to give physical exams to children as part of therapy. In fact, we were advised NOT to do physicals on children.

- Dr. Nicholas Verven: I was not trained to give physical exams to kids in therapy. Physical exams of children would not be supported by the training we had. I knew Ayres at Judge Baker, and Ayres was certainly not trained to do this at Judge Baker.


Dr. Irving Hurwitz: " I remember Bills Ayres and his wife Solveig, who taught at the Manville School at Judge Baker. Judge Baker was a bastion of psychoanalytic teaching and it imposed very strict rules as to how therapy with children would be done. Physical exams were not done. Any hint that any therapist would be doing physicals would raise serious concerns."

Dr. Gordon Harper: "We didn't do physicals on children in therapy at Judge Baker. In my career, I don't know of any child psychiatrist who has been trained that way. Although I have heard of other child psychiatrists who've molested kids who have used Ayres' line about being "trained" to give physicals to kids. That's just a dodge that child psychiatrists who are molesting children use."

Dr. Milton Shore: Never, never did you touch a child in therapy! It was very implicit. You didn't do physical exams. Period."

Dr. David Reiser:"Absolutely not!! If there had been any instance in which a child needed a physical exam, the physical exam would have been done at Children's Hospital, right across the street. I am 83 years old and have been practicing child psychiatry since 1954, and I have never conducted a physical exam on a child in therapy in my entire career. I don't know anyone who has. It would be a violation of boundaries. Giving a physical to a child in therapy is like having a priest do physical exams on people who get confession."

 

[Mercyneal]

This week, an Ayres victim told us that he knew of a third reason prosecutor Mckowan gave for not bringing up Ayres&#8217; Boston training or having doctors from Judge Baker testify. During the trial in 2009, Mckowan told the Ayres victim said that she never brought up Ayres&#8217; Judge Baker training &#8220;because Ayres has never brought it up.&#8221;

This is puzzling. In Ayres&#8217; October 27, 2004 deposition for his civil case,(five years before the criminal trial) Ayres discusses his training at Judge Baker. Here is an example, on Page 34-35:

Q: All right. When you were back at Judge Baker Institute, you were doing a residency there?
Ayres: Yes.
Q: All right. In doing your residency, were you doing a lot of clinical work?
Ayres: Yes.
Q: What did that entail?
Ayres: Well, we would be assigned cases of families. We would interview the families. We would interview children, and we would then treat the children if they &#8211; I think they were initially screened by the social work department as to whether it was an appropriate case. And then we were supervised twice a week by two different senior faculty members.

Ayres: And so they would &#8211; and we had to attend lots of conferences, some of which were didactic to learn about various things. And we were &#8211; so we were exposed to a lot that was then current, you know, child psychiatric.

______

To that end, as prosecutor Mckowan quoted freely from Ayres&#8217; deposition in the trial, we don&#8217;t understand why she couldn&#8217;t bring up his Judge Baker training. Additionally, Ayres himself said on the witness stand at the criminal trial that he did his training at Judge Baker in Boston. We are not lawyers, but doesn&#8217;t that mean he brought up his own training at the trial? Also, his lawyer Doron Weinberg also told the jury that Ayres was trained at Judge Baker. Additionally, as Mckowan brought on a child psychiatrist from Stanford to talk about how child psychiatrists were trained when Ayres was being trained in the 1960s, couldn&#8217;t Ms. Mckowan have brought in actual doctors who trained with Ayres in Boston at Judge Baker? Wouldn&#8217;t that have made more sense? The reason I ask is because we have spoken to at least two former jurors on the trial, and they said that they believed Weinberg when he said that Ayres had indeed been trained to give physical exams to boys in therapy in Boston.

 

[Mercyneal]

I wouldn't count on Chief Deputy DA Steve Wagstaffe checking out Websleuths on a regular basis. However, he does respond to the public - and to the media, especially.

But sleuthers here are welcome to email him to urge him to look at the Ayres thread on Websleuths.

His email:
[email protected]

 

[Missizzy]

Dr. Reiser's comment is amazingly on point. EXACTLY the sort of breached boundaries. What a timely and perceptive comment.

"It would be a violation of boundaries. Giving a physical to a child in therapy is like having a priest do physical exams on people who get confession."

 

[Mercyneal]

We're keeping a tally of the excuses that prosecutor Melissa Mckowan gave for not calling on the doctors who trained with Boston in the 1960s who said he was lying and that they were not allowed to touch kids in therapy.

Here's a running list. We are sure more will crop up.

1) The doctors reporter Victoria Balfour found "didn't know anything about Ayres." False
2) The doctors "didn't train "with Ayres. False
3)One doctor was "physically unable to travel." False
4) "Ayres lied about where he went to medical school and when we found out it was too late to call the doctors." Hogwash. Where he went to medical school is one of the few things Ayres has never lied about.
5) "Ayres didn't bring up his Boston training on the stand. " Really, shockingly false. Not only did we hear him discuss his Boston training on the stand, but we have before us the actual transcript of his testimony.
Just a few examples:

Page 7:" And so I moved to Boston and was then trained at Judge Baker Guidance Center, which is part of Harvard Boston Children's Hospital Unit."

Page 10: Ayres' lawyer: "After you finished -- getting back to where we were in your residency -- you finished this two-year residency at Judge Baker Boston Children's Hospital in child psychiatry...

Ayres then goes on for the next TWO pages to talk about his training at Judge Baker.

We were there at the trial when Mckowan told a victim that she didn't call the Boston doctors because "he never brought up his training there." How on earth does she get away with this?
As at least two jurors believed Ayres' lawyer that he had been trained to give physical exams to kids in therapy, we believe her failure to address and investigate Ayres' Boston training cost her the case.

 

[Mercyneal]

We thought we'd bring you up to speed here with a bizarre event that occurred during the Ayres trial in California in 2009. .

Reporter Victoria Balfour- who blew the whistle on Ayres; investigated him for five years and turned over the names of victims she had found to the San Mateo Police Department so that they could get a search warrant- called San Mateo Chief Deputy DA Steve Wagstaffe in May 2009 and asked if it would be OK to attend the trial.

Sure, Wagstaffe told Balfour. Come on out. We're not calling you as a witness. And it would be "suicide" for Ayres' lawyer to call you.

So Balfour buys a plane ticket from New York to California. She's been waiting for this day for five years, ever since a stranger named Steve confided to her in 2002 that he had been molested by a child psychiatrist named Dr. William Ayres.

But when she gets into the courtroom, something bad happens. Prosecutor Melissa Mckowan- who would not have been trying the Ayres case had it not been for Balfour's work, comes barreling over to Balfour and says in a manner that is both hostile and threatening: "What are you doing here? If Ayres' lawyer sees you he is going to subpoena you." Balfour, shocked by the prosecutor's hostile tone, replied, " I checked with your boss, Steve Wagstaffe, and he gave me the go-ahead to come out here. He said I wouldn't be called as a witness."

This made Mckowan even angrier. "Steve doesn't know what he's talking about!" she snapped. (Gee, one would think one would think twice about talking about one's boss like that in public- especially as the mother of an Ayres victim was sitting right next to Balfour and heard the whole thing!) Mckowan insisted that Ayres' lawyer was going to call her to the stand.

Confused, traumatized and upset, Balfour went immediately up to the office of Mckowan's boss, Steve Wagstaffe. He assured her that Mckowan was wrong, that Ayres' lawyer would never call her to the stand and that she had "every right" to be in the courtroom. Wagstaffe agreed that Mckowan had acted improperly towards Balfour and promised to speak with Mckowan.

It does not appear that he did, because the hostility from Mckowan towards Balfour escalated over the next few days. Mckowan's statement that Ayres' lawyer would subpoena Balfour appears to be off the mark - which was understandable because he didn't know what Balfour looked like!

But Mckowan was determined to get Balfour out of the courtroom- Finally, she made her move. During a pretrial hearing, the judge in the Ayres case announced that anyone who was going to be a witness had to leave the courtroom. Weinberg looked at Balfour and did not ask her to leave. Of course he wouldn't as he knew she was never going to be a witness!! It was Mckowan who leaned over to Ayres' lawyer, giggling, and pointed out Balfour to Ayres' lawyer. It was only then that Weinberg, Ayres' lawyer, in a casual fashion asked Balfour to leave. The look of triumph on Mckowan's face was something to behold.

Balfour went back up to the office of Steve Wagstaffe who for the third time stated that Balfour had every right to be in the courtroom and would never be called as a defense witness. He promised to speak to Mckowan about helping Balfour- the person who handed the DA their case- to get back in the courtoom. Later, Wagstaffe told Balfour in a voice mail ( like a coward he called Balfour and left a voice mail at 5:01 pm , when the courts had already closed) and told her there was nothing he could do to help Balfour as Mckowan had accepted Balfour's exclusion and had not asked Ayres' lawyer for "offer of proof." That's what good prosecutors do when they think someone is being unfairly excluded from the courtroom. But not Mckowan!

Fortunately, Balfour had some feisty journalist friends back in New York City who urged her to fight the exclusionary order. So Balfour even found herself, with some trouble, a local lawyer who agreed to work pro bono and help her get back into the courtroom. But meanwhile, she was missing the trial -- the trial that wouldn't be happening had it not been for her investigative and advocacy work.

The news for Balfour got worse. When her lawyer called Mckowan, Mckowan was, the lawyer told Balfour,"Extremely hostile" to the idea of permitting Balfour into the courtroom. Balfour felt betrayed by the San Mateo County DA's office, and in truth, she was.

No one -including some of Balfour's friends who were partners in shark -like law firms in New York City could figure out what was up with Mckowan and her aversion to having her in the courtroom. Nor could they figure out what the heck was up with the bizarre mixed messages the DA's office was sending to Balfour. On the one hand, there was Steve Wagstaffe, next in line for the top DA job, assuring Balfour that she had every right to be in the courtroom. Then you have his employee, Melissa Mckowan who appeared to have a demonic need to shover her out. Balfour's lawyer friends back in New York couldn't figure out what was up with the San Mateo DA's office Was Wagstaffe a weak manager with no control over his out of control employees, they asked themselves? Or was he just being two-faced- telling Balfour whatever she wanted to hear?

It took Balfour two attempts and three lawyers to finally get back in to see the trial. But by that time she had missed more than half of it- a trial she had been hoping to see for five years.

And this is the part we don't get: after being so hostile and doing everything she could to keep Balfour out of the courtroom, the first day Balfour was able to attend the trial - with no thanks to Steve Wagstaffe or the San Mateo District Attorney's office- prosecutor Mckowan actually had the gall to walk up to Balfour and ask her if she would look over Ayres' resume - which was pages and pages long- to see if it was "Ok." People wondered how Mckowan dare ask Balfour such a thing... What we were more concerned about was why Mckowan was asking Balfour to check out Ayres' resume.... five minutes before she was to cross examine Ayres!!

To be continued.....