ziggy
Active Member
Nope. I wrote it on my pc at home and I'm at work. I'll post a copy tonight if I can. I'll have more time for the other contacts tomorrow and Friday.
GUILTY CA - Dr. William Ayres for child molestation, San Mateo, 2007 #2
- Thread starter Cubby
- Start date
-
FL FL - Watson Island, BlkFem 790UFFL, 16-26, in Japanese Gardens, Feb'81
- Latest: justbrowsingiguess
-
-
It has been suggested to me that people should also write to the State Bar of California.
The complaint form is available online and only takes a couple of minutes to fill out. You will also need to send a brief cover letter. But you can include the letters that you already sent to Wagstaffe and Fox.
Complaint form:
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=dhPvDU_guk4=&tabid=200
If you do send a complaint, don't harangue. Just include the facts and be specific. Read the posts on the San Mateo Daily Journal Forum, including " The DA's Curious Blind Spot: The Training of Dr. William Ayres" The DA's Curious Blind Spot: The Training of Dr. William Ayres - San Mateo Daily Journal - Forum the threads about the Boston Doctors vs. the San Mateo DA's office: A Growing Controversy over at the Ayres blog: www.williamayreswatch.blogspot.com
Address:
Office of Chief Trial Counsel/Intake
The State Bar of California
1149 South Hill St
Los Angeles, California 90015-2299
The complaint form is available online and only takes a couple of minutes to fill out. You will also need to send a brief cover letter. But you can include the letters that you already sent to Wagstaffe and Fox.
Complaint form:
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=dhPvDU_guk4=&tabid=200
If you do send a complaint, don't harangue. Just include the facts and be specific. Read the posts on the San Mateo Daily Journal Forum, including " The DA's Curious Blind Spot: The Training of Dr. William Ayres" The DA's Curious Blind Spot: The Training of Dr. William Ayres - San Mateo Daily Journal - Forum the threads about the Boston Doctors vs. the San Mateo DA's office: A Growing Controversy over at the Ayres blog: www.williamayreswatch.blogspot.com
Address:
Office of Chief Trial Counsel/Intake
The State Bar of California
1149 South Hill St
Los Angeles, California 90015-2299
In a front page story in the Boston Globe on March 3, 2010 about the Boston police investigation into Ayres. Mckowan is still implying that it was normal for a child psychiatrist to be giving physicals to boys in therapy. From story, "California Sex Abuse Trial Spurs Hub Queries" http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...california_sex_abuse_trial_spurs_hub_queries/
Exerpt:
"Much of the conduct in this case was well-disguised as medical treatment,’’ said Melissa McKowan, the assistant district attorney who prosecuted Ayres last year and is scheduled to retry him next month.
Huh? How can the exams be "well disguised" when the place were Ayres trained forbade child psychiatrists to give physical exams to boys in therapy? Did Mckowan think Ayres was some sort of pediatrician? How could she have fallen for this when Ayres' own Judge Baker colleagues have said that the only child psychiatrists who say they were trained to do physical exams on kids in therapy , and perform them -- are the PEDOPHILE child psychiatrists? That line is as old as the hills, according to Ayres' former colleagues.
Besides that, as Dr.Howard Pearson who was on the staff of Yale Pediatrics for forty years said to the William Ayres blog, Ayres had very little training in examining children. Pearson said,
"I am puzzled why a physician providing psychiatric consultations should perform any physical exams - that should probably have been a,"red flag." There is really no medical reason for a psychiatrist to physically examine a patient. They have essentially no expertise."
Yet somehow Mckowan fell for Ayres' line that he had received a lot of pediatric training... too bad she didn't know that he didn't, or that he didn't even study child psychiatry at Yale.
What part of the equation doesn't the prosecutor and the San Mateo DA's office get: No one at Judge Baker in their nearly 100 year history did physical exams on children in therapy. Why didn't the prosecutor think to check this out? All it would have taken was a single phone call.
All I can think of is that the prosecutor might have subconsciously wanted to throw this case. She may say otherwise, but there certainly are some major self defeating blind spots at play here. None of it makes any sense. It's so frustrating and infuriating to realize that the prosecutor became just another victim of Ayres.
He'd been duping everyone in San Mateo County for decades that it was completely normal for child psychiatrists to be giving any kind of physical exams to children. Everyone else around the country knows this is bogus. Is San Mateo sleepwalking AND blind? By falling in line with the bogus argument that child psychiatrists do physical exams - well disguised or no-- the prosecutor became just another victim of Ayres.
Exerpt:
"Much of the conduct in this case was well-disguised as medical treatment,’’ said Melissa McKowan, the assistant district attorney who prosecuted Ayres last year and is scheduled to retry him next month.
Huh? How can the exams be "well disguised" when the place were Ayres trained forbade child psychiatrists to give physical exams to boys in therapy? Did Mckowan think Ayres was some sort of pediatrician? How could she have fallen for this when Ayres' own Judge Baker colleagues have said that the only child psychiatrists who say they were trained to do physical exams on kids in therapy , and perform them -- are the PEDOPHILE child psychiatrists? That line is as old as the hills, according to Ayres' former colleagues.
Besides that, as Dr.Howard Pearson who was on the staff of Yale Pediatrics for forty years said to the William Ayres blog, Ayres had very little training in examining children. Pearson said,
"I am puzzled why a physician providing psychiatric consultations should perform any physical exams - that should probably have been a,"red flag." There is really no medical reason for a psychiatrist to physically examine a patient. They have essentially no expertise."
Yet somehow Mckowan fell for Ayres' line that he had received a lot of pediatric training... too bad she didn't know that he didn't, or that he didn't even study child psychiatry at Yale.
What part of the equation doesn't the prosecutor and the San Mateo DA's office get: No one at Judge Baker in their nearly 100 year history did physical exams on children in therapy. Why didn't the prosecutor think to check this out? All it would have taken was a single phone call.
All I can think of is that the prosecutor might have subconsciously wanted to throw this case. She may say otherwise, but there certainly are some major self defeating blind spots at play here. None of it makes any sense. It's so frustrating and infuriating to realize that the prosecutor became just another victim of Ayres.
He'd been duping everyone in San Mateo County for decades that it was completely normal for child psychiatrists to be giving any kind of physical exams to children. Everyone else around the country knows this is bogus. Is San Mateo sleepwalking AND blind? By falling in line with the bogus argument that child psychiatrists do physical exams - well disguised or no-- the prosecutor became just another victim of Ayres.
In her comment on the Ayres blog on January 29, 2010, the prosecutor said:
Judge Baker told ME, unlike whoever keeps talking about what their records will show, said there are no records from that time period.
Huh? Then why did Stephen Schaffer tell the Boston Globe reporter in March that there WERE records of Ayres available?
Quote from Globe story: "At the Judge Baker Children's Center, chief operating officer Stephen Schaffer said that the organization does not have personnel records for Ayres because he was an employee of Children's Hospital when he was working at the center. He said the same thing about another resident child psychiatrst, Donald L. Rife, who practiced at the Center immediately following Ayres, from 1964 to 1966. Rife has had medical licenese revoked in Massachusetts and Vermont, and has been reprimanded in Florida, because of sex abuse allegations.
Schaffer said that the Center has the clinical records of children who were treated by the two child psychiatrists, but that privacy considerations prevent him from examining them without a specific patient request to do so.
Judge Baker told ME, unlike whoever keeps talking about what their records will show, said there are no records from that time period.
Huh? Then why did Stephen Schaffer tell the Boston Globe reporter in March that there WERE records of Ayres available?
Quote from Globe story: "At the Judge Baker Children's Center, chief operating officer Stephen Schaffer said that the organization does not have personnel records for Ayres because he was an employee of Children's Hospital when he was working at the center. He said the same thing about another resident child psychiatrst, Donald L. Rife, who practiced at the Center immediately following Ayres, from 1964 to 1966. Rife has had medical licenese revoked in Massachusetts and Vermont, and has been reprimanded in Florida, because of sex abuse allegations.
Schaffer said that the Center has the clinical records of children who were treated by the two child psychiatrists, but that privacy considerations prevent him from examining them without a specific patient request to do so.
New post up on William Ayres blog:
"Ayres' Boston Records: The San Mateo DA Says They Don't Exist, But Children's Hospital and the Boston Globe Say They Do!"http://williamayreswatch.blogspot.com/2010/09/ayres-boston-records-san-mateo-da-says.html
"Ayres' Boston Records: The San Mateo DA Says They Don't Exist, But Children's Hospital and the Boston Globe Say They Do!"http://williamayreswatch.blogspot.com/2010/09/ayres-boston-records-san-mateo-da-says.html
Profile of Mckowan's boss San Mateo chief deputy district attorney Steve Wagstaffe in a front page story in the San Mateo County Times, December 28, 2009: Prosecutor Fights For Victims.
Excerpt:
Attorney Jonathan Macdougall, who worked in the office for several years and is now part of the county's Private Defender Program, said he has heard that some people describe Wagstaffe as a micromanager, but he didn't have that experience.
Wagstaffe, however, doesn't disagree with the description. What some people consider micromanaging could also be thought of as quality control, he said.
"It's not something I'm embarrassed about," he said. "We haven't had a scandal. Whe haven't had DAs doing things they aren't supposed to."
Excerpt:
Attorney Jonathan Macdougall, who worked in the office for several years and is now part of the county's Private Defender Program, said he has heard that some people describe Wagstaffe as a micromanager, but he didn't have that experience.
Wagstaffe, however, doesn't disagree with the description. What some people consider micromanaging could also be thought of as quality control, he said.
"It's not something I'm embarrassed about," he said. "We haven't had a scandal. Whe haven't had DAs doing things they aren't supposed to."
Well, has anyone heard back from Mr. Wagstaffe or Fox?
Way back on August 14, a citizen in San Mateo County alerted Mr. Wagstaffe to the Ayres thread on Websleuths. He wrote back on August 16:
Good morning XXXXX
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
Wonder why he's not getting back to anyone this time? Because the complaints are louder and more detailed?
Does anyone think they ignoring the complaints in the hopes that it will blow over? Or are they doing an internal investigation? Or does his office think they are above being accountable to the People?
Way back on August 14, a citizen in San Mateo County alerted Mr. Wagstaffe to the Ayres thread on Websleuths. He wrote back on August 16:
Good morning XXXXX
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
Wonder why he's not getting back to anyone this time? Because the complaints are louder and more detailed?
Does anyone think they ignoring the complaints in the hopes that it will blow over? Or are they doing an internal investigation? Or does his office think they are above being accountable to the People?
Belinda
Doer of Things
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 5,668
- Reaction score
- 89
I haven't heard a word. I can only think they realize that false assurances aren't going to cut it this time. Hopefully, they are seriously looking at what to do about the problem and are going to take some action. I will give it a couple more days and then send follow-up emails asking for a response.
Well, the prosecutor's boss, Steve Wagstaffe, has found the time to put himself up on Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000581996806
Anyone heard from him? Belinda? Ziggy? Ohiogirl? Anyone?
Anyone heard from him? Belinda? Ziggy? Ohiogirl? Anyone?
John Cote at the Chronicle has shown the most interest out of all the reporters. I just nudged him again, via email. Please send him a line or two via email, to nudge him, if you have time.
[email protected]
[email protected]
Here's a new latest report on a truly bizarre statement from the prosecutor. A mother of an Ayres victim is now reporting that last year, during the Ayres trial, the prosecutor Melissa Mckowan told the mother that she didn't like reporter Victoria Balfour - the reporter who was the whistleblower in the case- because, she said, Balfour was in cahoots with Ayres' lawyer and before the trial had contacted him and "volunteered" to testify for the defense in exchange for room and board.
Why the prosecutor would be talking this way to any mother of a victim is just beyond belief. And why she would concoct such a crazy story is just cuckoo. Why would she say something like that? Is it to inflate herself? Make enemies? Whatever, wasting mental energy on something so false and bizarre is scary, given that she was in the middle of the trial. Shouldn't her venom have been reserved for the doctor who molested on the boys instead of making up such crazy stories about a reporter who brought the case to the attention of the DA's office?
Steve Wagstaffe did tell the mother of a victim during the trial that Mckowan often goes off on the wrong tangents and that sometimes they have to rein her in. There you go.....
Why the prosecutor would be talking this way to any mother of a victim is just beyond belief. And why she would concoct such a crazy story is just cuckoo. Why would she say something like that? Is it to inflate herself? Make enemies? Whatever, wasting mental energy on something so false and bizarre is scary, given that she was in the middle of the trial. Shouldn't her venom have been reserved for the doctor who molested on the boys instead of making up such crazy stories about a reporter who brought the case to the attention of the DA's office?
Steve Wagstaffe did tell the mother of a victim during the trial that Mckowan often goes off on the wrong tangents and that sometimes they have to rein her in. There you go.....
For all those who are appalled by the prosecutor's behavior in the Ayres case, I recommend that you read the book "And Justice For Some"by former Massachusetts prosecutor Wendy Murphy, who has been a legal analyst for the Today Show, Fox, CNN and MSNBC.
Murphy talks about a rape victim named Debra Hagen, who fought back against prosecutorial laziness and incompetence and persevered.
After recounting Hagen's fight against inaction by the prosecutors in her case, Murphy writes, "You personally can help ensure that prosecutors don't shirk their responsibilities the way John Conte[prosecutor in Hagen's case] did in Debra's case. One way is to form citizens' groups and organize protests to openly shame inept district attorneys."
Murphy talks about a rape victim named Debra Hagen, who fought back against prosecutorial laziness and incompetence and persevered.
After recounting Hagen's fight against inaction by the prosecutors in her case, Murphy writes, "You personally can help ensure that prosecutors don't shirk their responsibilities the way John Conte[prosecutor in Hagen's case] did in Debra's case. One way is to form citizens' groups and organize protests to openly shame inept district attorneys."
Belinda
Doer of Things
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 5,668
- Reaction score
- 89
BBM - He apparently is not pulling on the reins hard enough. Jeesh. What does it take to get through to these idiots?
I just received an email from Dr. Jacqueline Amati Mehler, one of the doctors who trained with Ayres in Boston. Although the prosecutor Melissa Mckowan said in her blog comment that she and/or the police contacted Amati Melher, in her email to me, Amati Mehler wrote that she was "99% sure they did not."
Yes, Belinda, it's true. The reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle spoke to Steve Wagstaffe this week, who confirmed that they are doing an internal investigation into what and was not done by Mckowan and the police in the Ayres investigation in terms of the Boston doctors who trained with Ayres. That's all we know for now.
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 123
- Guests online
- 2,416
- Total visitors
- 2,539