GUILTY CA - Dr. William Ayres for child molestation, San Mateo, 2007 #2
- Thread starter Cubby
- Start date
-
MT MT - Arden Pepion, 3, Blackfeet Reservation, 22 Apr 2021 *Reward* *Guilty*- Latest: ChatteringBirds
-
If anyone lives in the Bay area in California and would be interested in attending, there is a hearing tomorrow, Friday, September 24 at 8:45 am in the Ayres case. Ayres' lawyer is asking for a delay in the trial for Ayres' mental competency, scheduled for October 4. This will take place in Courtroom 2A in the Redwood City courthouse Redwood City, California. This is the same courthouse where the Scott Petersen murder trial took place.
The San Mateo DA's office never puts up much of a fight on these delays. The judge is always scolding the lawyer "No more delays" and then giving it to them anyway.
I am sure Ayres and his lawyer are sitting around and laughing at the County.
The San Mateo DA's office never puts up much of a fight on these delays. The judge is always scolding the lawyer "No more delays" and then giving it to them anyway.
I am sure Ayres and his lawyer are sitting around and laughing at the County.
Mercyneal--FWIW, over my last 20 years of child advocacy, the ONLY time I've ever gotten a response by an agency head or DA in a case (and I'm not referring to our rape trial) is when I slid in "sideways" through supportive advocacy of another entity--Crime Victims United or the County Commissioners or through a direct letter to a judge.
Once we appeared in court on a case and the judge shockingly led us back to his chamber (LA County) while the attorneys' mouths dropped open. I'd written a letter to a judge about a child and we'd driven 10 hours south to appear. That was a shocker and took blood, sweat and tears but we won the case--10 months later.
I've never had much luck with going up the chain in the usual manner. You've got to find the one person who has some clout, who has some passion, who somehow becomes invested. Then, I've learned to sit back and be "still" as the machinations worked. I've never quite figured out the science to the strategy but I've watched as wheels started turning.
I'm "just" an adoptive mom, a lowly child advocate. The "big guys" have to be led to think that they came up with this plan to do the right thing, all on their own. I don't care what their motivation is, just as long as things move in the right direction.
There's just got to be this one person in San Mateo County.
Once we appeared in court on a case and the judge shockingly led us back to his chamber (LA County) while the attorneys' mouths dropped open. I'd written a letter to a judge about a child and we'd driven 10 hours south to appear. That was a shocker and took blood, sweat and tears but we won the case--10 months later.
I've never had much luck with going up the chain in the usual manner. You've got to find the one person who has some clout, who has some passion, who somehow becomes invested. Then, I've learned to sit back and be "still" as the machinations worked. I've never quite figured out the science to the strategy but I've watched as wheels started turning.
I'm "just" an adoptive mom, a lowly child advocate. The "big guys" have to be led to think that they came up with this plan to do the right thing, all on their own. I don't care what their motivation is, just as long as things move in the right direction.
There's just got to be this one person in San Mateo County.
Missizzy: Thank you for your very helpful comment.
We have written here that the Ayres prosecutor, Melissa Mckowan, is being sued for lying and fraud on another child abuse case she worked on. The family who is suing has the support and backing of California Crime Victims United. They had a press conference on the steps of the Redwood City courthouse to protest the San Mateo DA's mishandling of the other child abuse case this past August.
The trouble with going to the San Mateo Board of Supervisors is that it's so inbred in that county .They all know Steve Wagstaffe, the prosecutor's boss, and most likely would cover for him.
Did you know that three years ago, the SHERIFF of San Mateo County, Greg Munks, was apprehended going into a house of prostitution with underage girl prostitutes in Las Vegas? This was on some county sponsored business junket. When he was rounded up by the police along with other potential Johns, Munks and his under sheriff said they didn't know it was a house of prostitution.
Hogwash.
And Steve Wagstaffe, the Chief Deputy DA of San Mateo, pledged his undying support of Sheriff Munks. He wrote an email after Munks was caught in the prostitution house - which was made public -- to Munks saying, "For those of us whose opinion REALLY counts, you have our support." That is to say, Wagstaffe doesn't care about the opinions of those in San Mateo County who wanted Sheriff Munks to resign.
Steve Wagstaffe, I am sure will cover for the Ayres prosecutor. He will do anything so he won't look bad. The funny thing is, the more he does this, the worse he looks.
We have written here that the Ayres prosecutor, Melissa Mckowan, is being sued for lying and fraud on another child abuse case she worked on. The family who is suing has the support and backing of California Crime Victims United. They had a press conference on the steps of the Redwood City courthouse to protest the San Mateo DA's mishandling of the other child abuse case this past August.
The trouble with going to the San Mateo Board of Supervisors is that it's so inbred in that county .They all know Steve Wagstaffe, the prosecutor's boss, and most likely would cover for him.
Did you know that three years ago, the SHERIFF of San Mateo County, Greg Munks, was apprehended going into a house of prostitution with underage girl prostitutes in Las Vegas? This was on some county sponsored business junket. When he was rounded up by the police along with other potential Johns, Munks and his under sheriff said they didn't know it was a house of prostitution.
Hogwash.
And Steve Wagstaffe, the Chief Deputy DA of San Mateo, pledged his undying support of Sheriff Munks. He wrote an email after Munks was caught in the prostitution house - which was made public -- to Munks saying, "For those of us whose opinion REALLY counts, you have our support." That is to say, Wagstaffe doesn't care about the opinions of those in San Mateo County who wanted Sheriff Munks to resign.
Steve Wagstaffe, I am sure will cover for the Ayres prosecutor. He will do anything so he won't look bad. The funny thing is, the more he does this, the worse he looks.
Mercyneal--I didn't say it was going to be easy to find that person or group. They might even find you. I fully understand the depth of the morass and the amount of advocacy which has gone into pushing for this trial. My guess is that this person is going to be someone kind of coming out of left field with a different agenda entirely...but one whose agenda propels the case forward for the victims.
I want to be clear that I have no idea who this person or group might be. I just know that I've had this same scenario play out for me again and again. There's a "creative" solution that has yet to reveal itself. It often feels as if we've banged on the right door and gone through the right channels and played by the rules for years with resolution nor end in sight. Suddenly a door, a little off to the side will open, and things will start happening.
I want to say again just how much I admire all your dedication and hard work on behalf of Ayres' victims. You are a true hero to me.
I want to be clear that I have no idea who this person or group might be. I just know that I've had this same scenario play out for me again and again. There's a "creative" solution that has yet to reveal itself. It often feels as if we've banged on the right door and gone through the right channels and played by the rules for years with resolution nor end in sight. Suddenly a door, a little off to the side will open, and things will start happening.
I want to say again just how much I admire all your dedication and hard work on behalf of Ayres' victims. You are a true hero to me.
There's an interesting series this week in USA Today on prosecutorial misconduct. I contacted one of the experts for the series, Professor Bennett Gershman, a professor at Pace Law School who is a leading expert on prosecutorial misconduct. Specifically I asked him what he was to make of the Ayres' prosecutor's failure to use and/or contact the Boston doctors who trained with Ayres and the stories she made up about why she didn't use them.
Professor Gershman's response was most interesting:
"If after analyzing the case the prosecutor decides not to use witnesses or other evidence that logically would help produce a conviction, then the prosecutor either may have doubted the truthfulness or reliability of the witnesses or evidence, or that it was cumulative, or -- and this is also a possiblity -- that the prosecutor made the decision in bad faith for personal or other improper reasons, rather than for legitimate law enforcement reasons. The latter hypothesis, if it could be proved, would subject the prosecutor to professional disciplinary sanctions. "
Professor Gershman's response was most interesting:
"If after analyzing the case the prosecutor decides not to use witnesses or other evidence that logically would help produce a conviction, then the prosecutor either may have doubted the truthfulness or reliability of the witnesses or evidence, or that it was cumulative, or -- and this is also a possiblity -- that the prosecutor made the decision in bad faith for personal or other improper reasons, rather than for legitimate law enforcement reasons. The latter hypothesis, if it could be proved, would subject the prosecutor to professional disciplinary sanctions. "
Go to the California Bar Association. Also, the Justice Department has an Office of Professional Responsibility that governs ethics by prosecutors. Not sure if they do oversight at the local level but will check.
Also, as the prosecutor has made up so many different stories now about the Boston doctors to so many people, it's clear that she doesn't have a legal reason as to why she didn' t use them.
It would have been one thing if the prosecutor had just said all along to people, " I am not interested in using the Boston doctors. " But then to say she contacted them when it's not clear she ever did, and then make up stories about them on top of that-- ie. the doctor who wasn't "physically able to travel" , and to say they couldn't confirm that they didn't do physicals, when the doctors have confirmed to several reporters that they didn't --well it sure looks like bad faith to us. The reasons she didn't use them may indeed have been for personal reasons -- ie. perhaps didn't want to use any expert reporter Victoria Balfour found. Or perhaps there's some deeper personal issue within herself that even she isn't privy to.
Also, as the prosecutor has made up so many different stories now about the Boston doctors to so many people, it's clear that she doesn't have a legal reason as to why she didn' t use them.
It would have been one thing if the prosecutor had just said all along to people, " I am not interested in using the Boston doctors. " But then to say she contacted them when it's not clear she ever did, and then make up stories about them on top of that-- ie. the doctor who wasn't "physically able to travel" , and to say they couldn't confirm that they didn't do physicals, when the doctors have confirmed to several reporters that they didn't --well it sure looks like bad faith to us. The reasons she didn't use them may indeed have been for personal reasons -- ie. perhaps didn't want to use any expert reporter Victoria Balfour found. Or perhaps there's some deeper personal issue within herself that even she isn't privy to.
Belinda
Doer of Things
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 5,668
- Reaction score
- 89
Would it be appropriate to forward the other letters I wrote to the Bar Association or do I need to start from scratch? I'm not sure what the proper format would be for such a letter. Too bad I remember virtually none of my paralegal classes.
Newsflash: Ayres' lawyer just got the trial date for Ayres' mental competency delayed. It was supposed to be October 4 and now it is January 10.
Reports are that the prosecutor had no objection to the change of date. What is with that County?
You look at the Ohio case of Dr. Mark and Dr. Scott Blankenburg - arrested in March 2009 on 75 counts of child molestation, possession of child
and bribery. One was convicted in OCTOBER 2009- just SEVEN months later. The other doctor made a plea deal in December.
San Mateo County is truly pathetic.
Reports are that the prosecutor had no objection to the change of date. What is with that County?
You look at the Ohio case of Dr. Mark and Dr. Scott Blankenburg - arrested in March 2009 on 75 counts of child molestation, possession of child
and bribery. One was convicted in OCTOBER 2009- just SEVEN months later. The other doctor made a plea deal in December. San Mateo County is truly pathetic.
Belinda
Doer of Things
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 5,668
- Reaction score
- 89
Why waste the money? It's not like San Mateo would prosecute him if they caught him doing anything.
That's actually a great idea. Private investigation is tremendously expensive but possibly a group of families could swing it.
I still wonder if Roger Levin (isn't that the right guy?) is "fixing" computers over at Fry's. Where does Ayres go for tune-ups?
It's very sad to me that a county the size of San Mateo, doesn't have a more vital investigative arm.
I still wonder if Roger Levin (isn't that the right guy?) is "fixing" computers over at Fry's. Where does Ayres go for tune-ups?
It's very sad to me that a county the size of San Mateo, doesn't have a more vital investigative arm.
Over at the William Ayres blog, they are very angry at this latest bogus delay.
Here's what one victim wrote:
Bernie Ward [Talk radio show host] (using the same lawyer ayres used in the first trial) was reported, charged, tried, convicted, and has already served some time for his crimes, and ALL AFTER ayres was arrested and BEFORE the biginning of ayres' first trial.
I guess ayres wasn't just whacking off in his OWN pants pockets. Wonder how many different ways he's "satisfied" all of the local politicians, doctors, and judges?
Here's what one victim wrote:
Bernie Ward [Talk radio show host] (using the same lawyer ayres used in the first trial) was reported, charged, tried, convicted, and has already served some time for his crimes, and ALL AFTER ayres was arrested and BEFORE the biginning of ayres' first trial.
I guess ayres wasn't just whacking off in his OWN pants pockets. Wonder how many different ways he's "satisfied" all of the local politicians, doctors, and judges?
Belinda: You asked about how to file a complaint with the California Bar. It's very easy.
You have to fill out this one page form and add a brief cover letter. You should also send the letters you sent to James Fox and Steve Wagstaffe about prosecutor Melissa Mckowan.
Complaint info here:
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=dhPvDU_guk4=&tabid=200
You have to fill out this one page form and add a brief cover letter. You should also send the letters you sent to James Fox and Steve Wagstaffe about prosecutor Melissa Mckowan.
Complaint info here:
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=dhPvDU_guk4=&tabid=200
ziggy
Active Member
Ugh. Just disgusted unfortunately I'm so busy working two jobs and going to school I don't have any mental power left for a fight. Have not had any response. I should ask Judge Hardcastle in class Tuesday what to do. He's a fantastic teacher and would shoot straight with me.
Ziggy: Thanks for your interest. Please read what Pace University Law professor Bennett Gershman - who is an expert in prosecutorial misconduct - wrote to me today about the prosecutor's failure to look at Ayres' training:
Professor Gershman's response was most interesting:
"If after analyzing the case the prosecutor decides not to use witnesses or other evidence that logically would help produce a conviction, then the prosecutor either may have doubted the truthfulness or reliability of the witnesses or evidence, or that it was cumulative, or -- and this is also a possiblity -- that the prosecutor made the decision in bad faith for personal or other improper reasons, rather than for legitimate law enforcement reasons. The latter hypothesis, if it could be proved, would subject the prosecutor to professional disciplinary sanctions. "
Ask Professor Hardcastle about that. Also tell him that Ayres was friends with all the judges in San Mateo County - in particular a juvenile judge who told the police not to investigate Ayres. Tell him that Glenn Rabinowitz, the executive editor of the San Mateo County Times told me that he thinks the County is dragging its feet on Ayres and is resisting because a conviction would open them up to all sorts of lawsuits.
But it's now been a year a year and two months since the first mistrial - a trial that should have been a slam dunk had the prosecutor actually done some investigating in the case. It's as if she didn't want to win it either.
Does anyone here know anything about the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility? I know they provide oversight of prosecutors but I don't know if that's just at the federal level.
Professor Gershman's response was most interesting:
"If after analyzing the case the prosecutor decides not to use witnesses or other evidence that logically would help produce a conviction, then the prosecutor either may have doubted the truthfulness or reliability of the witnesses or evidence, or that it was cumulative, or -- and this is also a possiblity -- that the prosecutor made the decision in bad faith for personal or other improper reasons, rather than for legitimate law enforcement reasons. The latter hypothesis, if it could be proved, would subject the prosecutor to professional disciplinary sanctions. "
Ask Professor Hardcastle about that. Also tell him that Ayres was friends with all the judges in San Mateo County - in particular a juvenile judge who told the police not to investigate Ayres. Tell him that Glenn Rabinowitz, the executive editor of the San Mateo County Times told me that he thinks the County is dragging its feet on Ayres and is resisting because a conviction would open them up to all sorts of lawsuits.
But it's now been a year a year and two months since the first mistrial - a trial that should have been a slam dunk had the prosecutor actually done some investigating in the case. It's as if she didn't want to win it either.
Does anyone here know anything about the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility? I know they provide oversight of prosecutors but I don't know if that's just at the federal level.
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 97
- Guests online
- 2,662
- Total visitors
- 2,759