Thanks for taking an interest and writing to Wagstaffe, Denny/Ziggy.
None of us can understand the pathology behind a prosecutor who not only has a wall/blind spot about Ayres' training, but on top of that tells a falsehood to a mother of a victim about having contacted Dr. Bert Brown, one of six doctors who trained with Ayres at Yale. Here's Dr. Brown, who says he can and wants to help her win her case and can refute Ayres' testimony from the first trial, but the prosecutor not only never contacts him, but then tells the mother of a victim in June "I contacted him but he never called me back."
It is now been four months since the prosecutor has had the info on Dr. Brown, and Dr. Brown still waiting for that call from her. Bizarrely, in her blog comment the prosecutor said that she will check into everything and asks people who have information on good witnesses to contact her.
Perhaps the prosecutor just told the mother of the victim that she had contacted Dr. Brown so that everyone would stop asking her about him and then the prosecutor wouldn't have to call Dr. Brown - ever. But why? Wouldn't you think she would want someone who could help her case? Why try to make Dr. Brown look bad and blame him for something he didn't do? This really defies all reason.
We would all have understood it if she had just said , " I have been too busy to call Dr. Brown but I will " What no one understands why she would make up a story and then try to make Dr. Brown - who just wants to help her win the case - and then try to make him look bad and put him down with a falsehood about him not calling her back.
Why would she say that Jacqueline Amati Mehler, who was at Judge Baker the same year Ayres was - was not "physically able to travel" when Amati Mehler told reporter Victoria Balfour that the prosecutor is "confused" and mistaken - that she travels all the time?
Why would the prosecutor in her blog comment on January 29, 2010, state that none of the Boston doctors the reporter found could confirm to her that they did not train to give physical exams to boys when the reporter has found 19 doctors and the COO of Judge Baker who WILL say that Ayres was not trained to give physical exams to boys? Why would she be more intent in proving the reporter wrong with her own false statements than being interested in looking at the truth about Ayres' training?
We might have understood it had she said "Well, our office doesn't have a lot of money and it's too expensive to fly in the Boston doctors." But why say, for example, that one is physically unable to travel and then put that statement on a public blog, where someone was eventually bound to check it ?
This makes us wonder: is the prosecutor used to making factually incorrect statements? Have people not challenged her in the past? Is this part of a larger pattern? Has she done this on other child abuse cases?
It's as if she doesn't want to know the truth about Ayres' training, or that she's afraid of it. Maybe it would mean facing something in herself. Whatever. The point is, you don't say you have contacted key witnesses to parents of victims when you haven't done it. That sounds like something a defense attorney might do.
Why does the prosecutor seem so intent on ignoring and/or repressing inculpatory evidence that could help her win the case ? What is going on here?
Anyone who is interested in finding out the answers can write to her boss, Steve Wagstaffe. [email protected]
None of us can understand the pathology behind a prosecutor who not only has a wall/blind spot about Ayres' training, but on top of that tells a falsehood to a mother of a victim about having contacted Dr. Bert Brown, one of six doctors who trained with Ayres at Yale. Here's Dr. Brown, who says he can and wants to help her win her case and can refute Ayres' testimony from the first trial, but the prosecutor not only never contacts him, but then tells the mother of a victim in June "I contacted him but he never called me back."
It is now been four months since the prosecutor has had the info on Dr. Brown, and Dr. Brown still waiting for that call from her. Bizarrely, in her blog comment the prosecutor said that she will check into everything and asks people who have information on good witnesses to contact her.
Perhaps the prosecutor just told the mother of the victim that she had contacted Dr. Brown so that everyone would stop asking her about him and then the prosecutor wouldn't have to call Dr. Brown - ever. But why? Wouldn't you think she would want someone who could help her case? Why try to make Dr. Brown look bad and blame him for something he didn't do? This really defies all reason.
We would all have understood it if she had just said , " I have been too busy to call Dr. Brown but I will " What no one understands why she would make up a story and then try to make Dr. Brown - who just wants to help her win the case - and then try to make him look bad and put him down with a falsehood about him not calling her back.
Why would she say that Jacqueline Amati Mehler, who was at Judge Baker the same year Ayres was - was not "physically able to travel" when Amati Mehler told reporter Victoria Balfour that the prosecutor is "confused" and mistaken - that she travels all the time?
Why would the prosecutor in her blog comment on January 29, 2010, state that none of the Boston doctors the reporter found could confirm to her that they did not train to give physical exams to boys when the reporter has found 19 doctors and the COO of Judge Baker who WILL say that Ayres was not trained to give physical exams to boys? Why would she be more intent in proving the reporter wrong with her own false statements than being interested in looking at the truth about Ayres' training?
We might have understood it had she said "Well, our office doesn't have a lot of money and it's too expensive to fly in the Boston doctors." But why say, for example, that one is physically unable to travel and then put that statement on a public blog, where someone was eventually bound to check it ?
This makes us wonder: is the prosecutor used to making factually incorrect statements? Have people not challenged her in the past? Is this part of a larger pattern? Has she done this on other child abuse cases?
It's as if she doesn't want to know the truth about Ayres' training, or that she's afraid of it. Maybe it would mean facing something in herself. Whatever. The point is, you don't say you have contacted key witnesses to parents of victims when you haven't done it. That sounds like something a defense attorney might do.
Why does the prosecutor seem so intent on ignoring and/or repressing inculpatory evidence that could help her win the case ? What is going on here?
Anyone who is interested in finding out the answers can write to her boss, Steve Wagstaffe. [email protected]
