GUILTY CA - Dr. William Ayres for child molestation, San Mateo, 2007 #2
- Thread starter Cubby
- Start date
-
CA CA - San Francisco, WhtMale 25-55, UP5896, 5'9," June'83- Latest: ChatteringBirds
-
GUILTY Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #220- Latest: Justice101
Good going Ohio Girl. Oh, he will get it all right. He is a super control freak who reads everything that is sent to him.
Here is his email: [email protected]
He reads every last email too. If he does respond, which I doubt he will, he will give you some phoney baloney song and dance about how he is "mystified" at the criticism at his office.
Lawyers have told us that one of Wagstaffe's major character flaws is that he can never EVER admit that he made a mistake. This gets him into trouble and causes him to cover up and lie even more.
Here is his email: [email protected]
He reads every last email too. If he does respond, which I doubt he will, he will give you some phoney baloney song and dance about how he is "mystified" at the criticism at his office.
Lawyers have told us that one of Wagstaffe's major character flaws is that he can never EVER admit that he made a mistake. This gets him into trouble and causes him to cover up and lie even more.
Despite Wagstaffe's sneaky efforts to hide the Ayres hearing on Monday from the public and the press, two parents of an Ayres victim did attend the hearing. They were the only ones there.
Prosecutor Mckowan wouldn't even look at them.
The parents reported to the Ayres blog that Judge John Grandsaert threatened someone with contempt if the paperwork to get Ayres into Napa wasn't done. They are not reporters and weren't sure who was being threatened - possibly Napa, possibly Ayres' lawyer.
However, Mckowan told a reporter from the Mercury News today that it was THE COURT who hadn't had the necessary paper work in order.
If that were true, how could Judge Grandsaert order his own court in contempt?
Is this yet one more lie in a series of lies told by Mckowan on this case?
The Ayres blog reported on the hearing three days before the press reported on it:
http://williamayreswatch.blogspot.com/2011/10/even-more-delays.html
Prosecutor Mckowan wouldn't even look at them.
The parents reported to the Ayres blog that Judge John Grandsaert threatened someone with contempt if the paperwork to get Ayres into Napa wasn't done. They are not reporters and weren't sure who was being threatened - possibly Napa, possibly Ayres' lawyer.
However, Mckowan told a reporter from the Mercury News today that it was THE COURT who hadn't had the necessary paper work in order.
If that were true, how could Judge Grandsaert order his own court in contempt?
Is this yet one more lie in a series of lies told by Mckowan on this case?
The Ayres blog reported on the hearing three days before the press reported on it:
http://williamayreswatch.blogspot.com/2011/10/even-more-delays.html
The owner of the William Ayres blog critiques the info in the Mercury News story about the delay and finds it wanting. Here's an excerpt:
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.
Read more here: http://williamayreswatch.blogspot.com/2011/10/analysis-of-ayres-news-story.html
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.
Read more here: http://williamayreswatch.blogspot.com/2011/10/analysis-of-ayres-news-story.html
More critique from the Ayres blog of prosecutor Mckowan's problematic statements about what happened at Monday's Ayres hearing ... you know, the secret one that DA Wagstaffe hid from victims and their families:
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.
Read more at www.williamayreswatch.blogspot.com
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.
Read more at www.williamayreswatch.blogspot.com
New story in Examiner today:
Overcrowding Keeps Ayres out of mental hospital
A lack of beds has once again delayed alleged child molester William Ayres’ admission into Napa State Hospital, leaving him free on bail for at least three more weeks, San Mateo County’s District Attorney said Monday.
Ayres, 79, the prominent child psychologist accused of molesting patients during physical exams, was supposed to enter the hospital by Thursday.
Last week, prosecutor Melissa McKowen told the San Mateo County Times that the delay was due to missing paperwork. But on Monday, District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said the real reason for the delay is hospital overcrowding. “They didn’t have a bed space up there,” Wagstaffe said.
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/cri...ital-overcrowding#disqus_thread#ixzz1aUAJAja1
Note that as usual the prosecutor tells one story to reporters and her boss, DA Wagstaffe tells another. She says the delay is due to missing paper work but Wagstaffe said it's due to overcrowding. Mckowan has shown over and over that she doesn't care about the truth and will say whatever pops into her head at the moment.
Why do they keep this patholgical liar on at the DA's office?
Wagstaffe told the Examiner reporter that his Chief Deputy DA Karen Guidotti" forgot" to tell him that Ayres wasn't going to Napa on October 6, or about the emergency hearing they had on Ayres on October 3.
Wagstaffe - a self described micro-manager who has bragged to reporters about staying on top of every little thing in his office- not knowing the latest in the biggest case to come out of his office in years?
What is he hiding and why? Why the constant lies from him?
Overcrowding Keeps Ayres out of mental hospital
A lack of beds has once again delayed alleged child molester William Ayres’ admission into Napa State Hospital, leaving him free on bail for at least three more weeks, San Mateo County’s District Attorney said Monday.
Ayres, 79, the prominent child psychologist accused of molesting patients during physical exams, was supposed to enter the hospital by Thursday.
Last week, prosecutor Melissa McKowen told the San Mateo County Times that the delay was due to missing paperwork. But on Monday, District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said the real reason for the delay is hospital overcrowding. “They didn’t have a bed space up there,” Wagstaffe said.
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/cri...ital-overcrowding#disqus_thread#ixzz1aUAJAja1
Note that as usual the prosecutor tells one story to reporters and her boss, DA Wagstaffe tells another. She says the delay is due to missing paper work but Wagstaffe said it's due to overcrowding. Mckowan has shown over and over that she doesn't care about the truth and will say whatever pops into her head at the moment.
Why do they keep this patholgical liar on at the DA's office?
Wagstaffe told the Examiner reporter that his Chief Deputy DA Karen Guidotti" forgot" to tell him that Ayres wasn't going to Napa on October 6, or about the emergency hearing they had on Ayres on October 3.
Wagstaffe - a self described micro-manager who has bragged to reporters about staying on top of every little thing in his office- not knowing the latest in the biggest case to come out of his office in years?
What is he hiding and why? Why the constant lies from him?
New Post on Ayres blog:
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.
Read more here: http://williamayreswatch.blogspot.com/2011/10/da-backtracks-on-ayres-lockup-delay.html
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.
Read more here: http://williamayreswatch.blogspot.com/2011/10/da-backtracks-on-ayres-lockup-delay.html
ohiogirl
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 4,973
- Reaction score
- 53
The contempt charge sounds a little more plausible if the judge was upset that there was no bed for him. I don't know how everyone came away from that hearing thinking there was a paperwork problem, when it seems to be that there was no space for him. I would think that would have come up in the hearing.
This is ridiculous. This man just continues to get out of accountability. :furious:
Questions the reporters should be asking:
Wagstaffe told Aldax, the Examiner reporter, that Judge John Grandsaert has denied requests by prosecutors to remand Ayres into custody until the hospital is ready for him.
Exactly when were these "requests" made? Were they made at a hearing? If not, why not?
When did Grandsaert deny these requests? Why weren't these "requests" by the prosecutor ever made public?
- Why did Mckowan say that the delay was due to "missing paper work" by the court while Wagstaffe said it's a shortage of beds?
Isn't Wagstaffe concerned that his prosecutor is feeding such blatant misinformation to a reporter about the status of this high profile case? Or is Wagstaffe lying about the shortage of beds?
- Why would Mckowan say it was the court's fault when Grandsaert threatened to put Napa under contempt?
- Has anyone tried to ask Grandsaert about his threat of contempt against Napa?
Wagstaffe told Aldax, the Examiner reporter, that Judge John Grandsaert has denied requests by prosecutors to remand Ayres into custody until the hospital is ready for him.
Exactly when were these "requests" made? Were they made at a hearing? If not, why not?
When did Grandsaert deny these requests? Why weren't these "requests" by the prosecutor ever made public?
- Why did Mckowan say that the delay was due to "missing paper work" by the court while Wagstaffe said it's a shortage of beds?
Isn't Wagstaffe concerned that his prosecutor is feeding such blatant misinformation to a reporter about the status of this high profile case? Or is Wagstaffe lying about the shortage of beds?
- Why would Mckowan say it was the court's fault when Grandsaert threatened to put Napa under contempt?
- Has anyone tried to ask Grandsaert about his threat of contempt against Napa?
The California Bar is investigating Ayres prosecutor Melissa Mckowan for making up a series of lies about her non-actions in the Ayres case. Also about her slanderous accusations about victims' families and prosecution witnesses.
California Bar is also investigating Chief Deputy DA Karen Guidotti for covering for Mckowan's lies and for telling innocent citizens who were slandered by Mckowan that it would "accomplish nothing" to criticize Mckowan.
California Bar is also investigating DA Steve Wagstaffe for covering for Mckowan and for failing to take action against her.
There's more, but that's all we can say for now.
Like many other fools, Wagstaffe has failed to realize that it's the coverup that's gotten him into trouble.
The question is: who is going to be the first person in the DA's office who comes forward to squeal on the rest?
California Bar is also investigating Chief Deputy DA Karen Guidotti for covering for Mckowan's lies and for telling innocent citizens who were slandered by Mckowan that it would "accomplish nothing" to criticize Mckowan.
California Bar is also investigating DA Steve Wagstaffe for covering for Mckowan and for failing to take action against her.
There's more, but that's all we can say for now.
Like many other fools, Wagstaffe has failed to realize that it's the coverup that's gotten him into trouble.
The question is: who is going to be the first person in the DA's office who comes forward to squeal on the rest?
ohiogirl
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 4,973
- Reaction score
- 53
Whoever can cover their a@@es the quickest I would imagine.
It will just have to be obvious that the leaders are going down, and they will come out of the woodwork, imo.
I wonder if all of them think that Ayres is worth their livelihoods?
It will just have to be obvious that the leaders are going down, and they will come out of the woodwork, imo.
I wonder if all of them think that Ayres is worth their livelihoods?
This morning, a retired 90 year old psychiatrist who practiced in Menlo Park, California (in San Mateo County, where Ayres worked) told me casually that he and other shrinks had been "hearing stories about Ayres and boys for decades. "
We keep hearing this over and over and over. About four months ago, an Ayres victim was at a cocktail party. He was introduced to another psychiatrist who said he'd had a patient who told him that Ayres had molested him. This was long before Ayres was arrested. The shrink - who did not know that he was speaking to a victim- said he didn't bother to report Ayres because he "thought" the victim was out of statute.
That the doctors did not feel like acting on behalf of victims is not just a disgrace- it's a violation of the law.
We keep hearing this over and over and over. About four months ago, an Ayres victim was at a cocktail party. He was introduced to another psychiatrist who said he'd had a patient who told him that Ayres had molested him. This was long before Ayres was arrested. The shrink - who did not know that he was speaking to a victim- said he didn't bother to report Ayres because he "thought" the victim was out of statute.
That the doctors did not feel like acting on behalf of victims is not just a disgrace- it's a violation of the law.
ohiogirl
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 4,973
- Reaction score
- 53
nope.
ohiogirl
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 4,973
- Reaction score
- 53
I am speechless at all of the professionals that let this guy get away with this for so long. Makes me sick. Aren't they mandated reporters? Shows you how seriously they take that.
They are quite arrogant and taken with themselves. I hope someone is keeping a list.
They are quite arrogant and taken with themselves. I hope someone is keeping a list.
Ohiogirl:
Yup, "someone" is keeping a list. Heh.
Meanwhile, what are the odds of this? Another child predator named William Ayres is under criminal investigation. This one was a priest in Philly:
http://articles.philly.com/2011-10-...ar-boy-sexually-abusive-priests-donna-farrell
Yup, "someone" is keeping a list. Heh.
Meanwhile, what are the odds of this? Another child predator named William Ayres is under criminal investigation. This one was a priest in Philly:
http://articles.philly.com/2011-10-...ar-boy-sexually-abusive-priests-donna-farrell
Ayres is supposed to go to Napa on October 26, but very few think that will happen and that he will pull some stunt. As the San Mateo DA's office is not even letting the press know about their secret little Ayres hearings, the folks at www.williamayreswatch.blogspot.com have posted the following:
Hey, help us out:
ayres is still squirming around trying to get away with every little last thing. The county holds hearings relating to his current status, but doesn't tell anyone, including the press.
EVERY DAY, we need to CALL the court clerk to see if there are new hearings scheduled.
You can help: Call the court, ask for the criminal division, and ask the clerk when the next hearing date, time and topic is.
Court: call 650-599-1170 and reference case number: SC064366
Ask for Redwood City courthouse, unlimited felony division.
Leave a message on this blog, or email [email protected],
or leave a message on our voice line:
650-762-9737 (650-76-AYRES)
Hey, help us out:
ayres is still squirming around trying to get away with every little last thing. The county holds hearings relating to his current status, but doesn't tell anyone, including the press.
EVERY DAY, we need to CALL the court clerk to see if there are new hearings scheduled.
You can help: Call the court, ask for the criminal division, and ask the clerk when the next hearing date, time and topic is.
Court: call 650-599-1170 and reference case number: SC064366
Ask for Redwood City courthouse, unlimited felony division.
Leave a message on this blog, or email [email protected],
or leave a message on our voice line:
650-762-9737 (650-76-AYRES)
I just had another discussion with the 90 year old retired Menlo Park, CA psychiatrist regarding Ayres.
He told me today that he had "heard stories about Ayres unnecessarily undressing boys for the last FIFTY YEARS. " He said that other psychiatrists talked about how "weird and suspect it was." He said he didn't know and had never heard of any child psychiatrist being trained and permitted to give physicals to children in therapy. "That's just nuts! Crazy! " he said.
Which begs the question, why didn't prosecutor Mckowan challenge this in the first criminal trial? She should have established right off the bat that Ayres was never trained to give children physicals at Judge Baker and that he would have been fired had he ever been caught doing so... ( And by the way - what about that social worker therapist at the psychiatric conference in Massachusetts in 2008 who told another therapist that Ayres was let go at Judge Baker because he was molesting boys?)
Also, during the criminal trial, Ayres talks about how pediatricians these days don't do a good job of examining kids - "they're too quick." he said.
The prosecutor then should have said, "Really? And what makes you the expert on pediatric exams? Are you a board certified pediatrician ? No? How many years did you study pediatrics? One? Are you aware that most child psychiatrists in this country take one year of pediatrics, but yet they don't do physical exams on children because a) child psychiatrists don't do physical exams on children and b) they're not board certified pediatricians."
For Mckowan also to tell the Boston Globe that Ayres' immedate groping and massaging of the boy's genitalia were well disguised as physical exams is a joke.
She should be fired and disbarred.
He told me today that he had "heard stories about Ayres unnecessarily undressing boys for the last FIFTY YEARS. " He said that other psychiatrists talked about how "weird and suspect it was." He said he didn't know and had never heard of any child psychiatrist being trained and permitted to give physicals to children in therapy. "That's just nuts! Crazy! " he said.
Which begs the question, why didn't prosecutor Mckowan challenge this in the first criminal trial? She should have established right off the bat that Ayres was never trained to give children physicals at Judge Baker and that he would have been fired had he ever been caught doing so... ( And by the way - what about that social worker therapist at the psychiatric conference in Massachusetts in 2008 who told another therapist that Ayres was let go at Judge Baker because he was molesting boys?)
Also, during the criminal trial, Ayres talks about how pediatricians these days don't do a good job of examining kids - "they're too quick." he said.
The prosecutor then should have said, "Really? And what makes you the expert on pediatric exams? Are you a board certified pediatrician ? No? How many years did you study pediatrics? One? Are you aware that most child psychiatrists in this country take one year of pediatrics, but yet they don't do physical exams on children because a) child psychiatrists don't do physical exams on children and b) they're not board certified pediatricians."
For Mckowan also to tell the Boston Globe that Ayres' immedate groping and massaging of the boy's genitalia were well disguised as physical exams is a joke.
She should be fired and disbarred.
This news story today says that Ayres is going to Napa tomorrow, but so far it has not been confirmed.
This article is toting the DA's line that Ayres has dementia. Utter hogwash.
http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_19191510
This article is toting the DA's line that Ayres has dementia. Utter hogwash.
http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_19191510
Prosecutor Mckowan says "Ayres won." What a bizarre statement from a prosecutor-particularly as she refused to take the calls from the familie's lawyer when he called to say that Ayres was mentally competent to stand trial.
Aren't we glad that the FBI is investigating Wagstaffe and his ties to the Ayres case (along with tons of other corruption), and that the California Bar is investigating Wagstaffe Guidotti and Mckowan for their corrupt roles in the Ayres case!
Stay tuned!
Aren't we glad that the FBI is investigating Wagstaffe and his ties to the Ayres case (along with tons of other corruption), and that the California Bar is investigating Wagstaffe Guidotti and Mckowan for their corrupt roles in the Ayres case!
Stay tuned!
Similar threads
Staff online
-
FraizeAdministrator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 130
- Guests online
- 1,202
- Total visitors
- 1,332