Out of Statute, But Not Out of Mind

Now that the jury has heard from the six men (and some of their parents) whose mental health therapy with now-retired child psychiatrist William Ayres resulted in years of mental anguish, San Mateo County Deputy District Attorney Melissa McKowan will be tying things together with expert witnesses and with four out-of-statute victims.

Just because these four men will not get the satisfaction of having Dr. Ayres convicted for the genital exams they suffered (along with some pretty questionable “therapy”…) does not mean they have any less distress speaking of the unspeakable things they lived through. Monday’s testimony consisted of three of the good doctor’s former patients, and two parents.

Dr. Ayres is charges with 10 counts of lewd and lascivious behavior on a child under 14 years of age. Each charge could result in 3 to 8 years in state prison, and there is the possibility of a $10,000 fine for each guilty count.

Two of Monday’s bad acts witnesses are now in their mid- to late-30s; one is in his early 40s. One was referred to Dr. Ayres for “defiant behavior,” a second as additional therapy while undergoing “family therapy,” and the third for a (erroneously perceived) “suicidal ideation.”

Thus far none of the alleged victims are terribly bad hombres—they were boys with ADD or ADHD who were going through many of the growing pains both kids and parents suffer through at that age.

The testimony of Monday’s witnesses was a bit more chilling in that the men could recall some of the things they discussed with the doctor, and that the parents in two of the cases knew something was wrong, but their sons would not elaborate on what specifically had happened until many years later.

One former patient, in addition to having an unrequested “physical,” clearly recalls in his very first visit how Dr. Ayres initiated a conversation about sexual thoughts, eventually leading to a graphic conversation about the clitoris, where to find it, how to initiate foreplay with a girl, and how elastic the tissue in the vagina is and how far a penis can go into it.

Although he knew about the birds and the bees, at the time of this conversation, the boy was in 7^th grade, and not anywhere near being sexually active!

“I had no idea why I was getting that talk.”

Unlike most of the other alleged victims, this boy did not get his physical exam until a subsequent visit. He did not ask for a physical, his parents were not informed of the results of the physical. The doctor told him the physical was to check his “general health.”

Remember what we learned from Dr. Lynn Ponton: Parents must make specific consent, and the child must assent, to any physical examination. Both the parents and the child must be given the “results” of the exam, and the child’s modesty must be ensured.

This man remembers the doctor listening to his chest and abdomen with a stethoscope, and palpating his thorax and belly, working his way down to the boy’s groin. He asked the boy to rise from the table (not a proper MD’s exam table!) and remove his underwear. Ayres then proceeded to check the boy for a hernia by pushing around his perineum and underneath his testes, asking him to cough.

After the exam, Dr. Ayres and the boy had their regular session, though the former patient can’t recall the specific content.

He was never sure that anything he’d undergone was illegal but he didn’t feel it was “right” either.

Interestingly, this same patient returned to Dr. Ayres when he got caught imbibing in alcohol at the age or 15 or 16. He clearly recalls getting NO physical exam of any type.

Another former patient has grown up to become a marriage and family therapist, having earned a master’s degree in clinical psychology. When asked to point Dr. Ayres out for the record, he clearly pointed toward the defense table.

This former patient did not get his “physical” at the first visit; he recalls it was his second or third visit, and he was lead to believe by the doctor was that it was just “something he did.”

The young man undressed in front of Ayres, putting his clothes in a pile. The doctor, who was sitting at his desk, asked the boy to approach, and Ayres proceeded to touch the boy’s arms and chest, saying nothing. Suddenly the doctor said he had to check the boy’s penis to make sure the “hole was in the center.” The alleged victim describes how the doctor pulled on his foreskin and pulled his penis straight up. When describing the motions made, this witness make “jerking off” movements.

“I was scared, scared me half to death. I went back for my clothes.” As politely as possible, the boy concluded the appointment, despite the doctor’s efforts to engage him in conversation.

He ran the 2 ½ miles home and announced to his astonished parents who were readying to pick him up from his appointment, “I never want to see him (the doctor) again. He’s sick. He’s dirty.” His parents were confused by his reaction, and tried to reassure him that a physical was normal. The boy was unable to really describe what had happened to him.

He did end up going back (“Because my parents asked me to.”), but did not fully participate in his therapy. “If I said nothing, he’d figure there was nothing to do.”

On cross-examination, defense attorney Doron Weinberg did make a couple of excellent points. This witness did see an article in the paper concerning the civil suit brought by Steven A., which was sent to him by his dad. By this point, he was fully reconciled that what had happened to him during “therapy” was wrong, and went to Craigslist to see if there were other victims of Ayres. He learned there was a phone number to call for the San Mateo police, and he followed up with a phone call.

Weinberg asked if this former patient has talked to any of the other victims in this case, or if he’d learned the circumstances of any other cases by making contact with the person who’d placed the Craigslist ad, freelance author Victoria Belfour. He denied he’d had any contact with any other victims, that he did not know the details of any other alleged molestations, and that no one had told him what to say—he’d told the police the truth.

Then Weinberg asked if he knew about being a mandated reporter. This former patient of Ayres is today a mandated reporter. Weinberg asked why he did not report Dr. Ayres once he’d learned he was a mandated reporter, and the man replied that he was more focused on the curriculum to become a mental health professional than the need to report his own molestation.

“I feel bad I did not report.”

This victim’s father did testify and did not bend to Weinberg’s cross-examination. The father testified that his son said, “Dr. Ayres is a dirty man,” after his very first appointment. He also reported that after one session, Dr. Ayres’ stated that his son “wants what he wants, when he wants it.”

The final two witnesses of the day were a now 39-year old man and his mom. This young man ended up in therapy because of a misperceived “suicide note.” A teacher has intercepted a love letter he’d written to a girl, and he ended the note with the quote “I would die 4 U.” If that sounds familiar, this incident happened in December 1984, and that phrase was from a song by Prince.

He was in no way suicidal; he’d been at the school for about a month and a half and the teachers didn’t know him very well.

The school board recommended the boy get therapy and referred him to Dr. Ayres.

This was not the first time this boy had seen a psychiatrist; he’d seen one when he was 4 or 5 years old, when he and his sister were adopted by their parents after having been in foster care.

On his very first appointment with the good doctor, he was brought into the office and was asked to remove his shirt and get up on the counter or table (it’s been described as both by previous witnesses). Dr. Ayres touched the boy’s arms up and down, and the boy was told the doctor was checking for track marks (the boy was not a drug abuser—remember, he was there for a “suicide note.”). He was visibly uncomfortable describing this, and it got worse.

Dr. Ayres asked the boy to lie back while he pressed down on the boy’s belly, working his way toward his pubic area. The boy was uncomfortable and moved the doctor’s hand away. Ayres assured the boy that this part of the exam was normal, and then pulled the boy’s pants and underwear down, taking his penis out, inspecting it with his left hand, and then tucked it back into his pants.

The boy then got dressed and the session began. He was terribly uncomfortable—“I’ve always been a very modest person,” the soft-spoken man said. For the remainder of his “therapy” with the doctor, he stayed guarded during all sessions. “I didn’t think other people would think it (what had happened during the physical exam) was a big deal.”

On what he remembers as his last visit, in May 1985, Dr. Ayres asked the boy to stand up and pull his pants down. “He said there was something he needed to check.” While the boy was standing, Dr. Ayres sat in a chair next to him and showed him photos of naked boys in what he believed was a medical text—it had captions beneath the photos, and the boys were just standing, not posed. The doctor turned the pages of the book with one hand, and with the other, held the boy’s penis in the palm of his hand for “more than one minute but less than two.”

The boy’s penis began to get erect. He pulled his pants up, embarrassed. “I was mortified.” The doctor continued the session by asking the boy if he masturbated, and how often. The remainder of that session consisted of sexuality questions.

“I just wanted to leave.”

A little over two years later, he was able to tell his mother everything. Through her own testimony, his mom, who was undergoing therapy of her own, told her therapist, who told her he was a mandated reporter, and by law had to report what she’d told him. She did receive follow-up call from San Mateo police, as did her son.

They heard no more. Strangely, the mom received a $1000 check from Dr. Ayres’ office, funds she was not expecting. When she queried the doctor’s office, she was told the refund was due to an accounting error. There was no way she was going to accept the blood money, and she turned the check over to San Mateo police.

What the jury did not hear (yet?) is that the check was lost by the police!

In 2004, the boy’s mother sent him a copy of an article about the civil case against Dr. Ayres. Upon reading the article, “I had a full-on panic attack, and it took me an hour to calm down.” He then got the name of the civil attorney in that case and contacted him, offering to help that case in any way he could. He told that attorney everything.

Knowing his own case was out of statute, he filed a complaint against Dr. Ayres with the medical board in 2005. “People have to know about this.”

This former patient does have a civil claim pending against Dr. Ayres. “There’s nothing else I can do—it’s about justice.”

Every witness today was utterly credible, in my eyes.

Testimony will continue on Wednesday with the last of the “prior bad acts” witnesses.

Readers please note: We will not approve off-topic posts. That means this is not the place to discuss Michael Jackson’s child molestation case and ultimately his death, among other things. This article is about the “alleged” victims of Dr. William Ayres, their courage, and their testimony in this trial.

Ayres Trial, Week Five, Day One: Ayres says to a Parent: "Isn't it a Lovely Day?"

Former patient testifies Ayres talked to him about sex, performed genital exam

More claim molestation by therapist

Ayres talked about sex, performed genital exam, ex-patient testifies

California Penal Code Section 288

Markers & Goals, III

Back in November, 2008 T&T reached 400,000 page loads. Today, just a little over 7 months later, T&T has reached a new marker. 1 million page views and over 675 thousand unique visitors. We think that's pretty good for only being on the net for 2 years.

Besides myself, donchais, ritanita and CaliGirl9 all want to say to our loyal readers, Thank you so much for stopping by.

The Mandated Reporter

Friday’s witness in the Dr. William Ayres trial, Dr. Lynn Ponton, was my reason for having interest in attending these proceedings. She and I have something in common—we are both mandated reporters.

I had not heard of Dr. Ponton before this trial. Honestly, why would I? Child and adolescent psychiatry and child and adolescent abuse isn’t something I think about every day. And honestly, I was not fully positive of the defendant’s guilt (though as part of my nursing training, I learned to believe what a child tells you until what he or she says is known or proven by people with more expertise than I that the child is being deceitful). Just how far does a doctor (or nurse, in my case) have to go for something to cross the line and become abuse? Neglect is pretty easy to see—a hungry, dirty, perhaps socially isolated child. Physical abuse such as a child with bruises or broken bones is pretty easy to observe and diagnose with certainty as well. But sexual abuse is pretty hard to objectively see—and short of intercourse, exactly when does a physical exam given by a medical professional cross the line into lewd and lascivious behavior?

I thought back to my own career and wondered if I’d ever crossed that line. I used to do most of my work in two areas: maternal/child (specifically labor and delivery) and ER. Obviously when monitoring a pregnant woman and her baby in labor requires plenty of intimate touching. Had I ever crossed the line? Had anyone ever felt I’d gone too far during an internal exam for cervical dilatation? And worse yet—I’d been the monitoring nurse for adolescent girls in labor. Just because they are “old” enough to have intercourse and get pregnant doesn’t mean they are necessarily ready developmentally.

So really, in the back of my mind I could have been convinced that this was all a huge misunderstanding. Hasn’t happened yet.

What did I mean when I wrote Dr. Ponton and I are both mandated reporters? In California, people who work in certain occupations are required by law to report suspected child abuse. We don’t need to be able to prove it, but even the slightest suspicion means we must report it.

The law requiring reporting of child abuse, PC Section 11164-11174.3, specifically describes exactly what sexual abuse is in the subheading 11165.1. It also provides a list of mandated reporters in subheading 11165.7—item 21 lists licensed medical professionals who are required to report.

I have reported suspected child abuse in the L & D setting. I can think of one specific instance where I watched the woman (who had hepatitis) and her significant other drive up to the hospital’s emergency room, pull out her “kit” and give herself a shot of heroin before she came in to deliver her third addicted baby (that was in short order removed from her custody, just like the two previous and the two she’d have later). But I never encountered child sexual abuse—at least none that I ever recognized (and a pregnant girl wasn’t something I could report).

Dr. Ponton was only one in a very short list of mandated reporters in this case. Others had tried and been shrugged off because of the good doctor’s esteemed reputation. However, she was the one that the authorities finally listened to. She had evaluated Steven A. when he finally sought to right the wrong that had been done to him so many years before. Despite the fact Steven was an adult in his 40s at the time, Dr. Ponton was obliged to report the abuse—and she did.

As always, I refer the reader to the William Hamilton Ayres Watchdog site for additional description and insider information. I would like to add something about the morning’s proceedings, which were very well summarized by that site's corespondents.

Dr. Ponton, a tall and very attractive blonde woman who has a quick sincere smile and who looks years younger than her chronological age (she attended medical school in the 1970s) listed several conditions, part of a standard of care, that need to be met whenever a psychiatrist elects to perform a physical exam on a child.

1. Consent of the parents is utterly necessary

2. Assent of the child is necessary

3. The child’s modesty must be protected with drapes and while disrobing. Having a third person present for genital exams is a consideration.

4. The child’s genitals are never massaged or masturbated or examined to the point of ejaculation.

5. Results of the physical exam are noted in the chart and discussed with the parents and the patient.

6. The physical exam is never performed for the benefit of the physician.

7. The doctor must be aware that children have special needs, and that a child in a psychiatric setting is being seen because of a psychiatric health issue.

Perhaps having learned what happened in the Spector trial regarding dueling expert witnesses, San Mateo County Deputy District Attorney Melissa McKowan queried Dr. Ponton very early in her testimony regarding her fees ($650 an hour as a private expert witness; $300 an hour discounted to the county). I have no doubt she will ask about fees when defense attorney Doron Weinberg trots out his expert witnesses, one of whom is known to be Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, yes, the memory expert who testified in the Phil Spector trial.

At least once during Dr. Ponton’s testimony I saw Weinberg do “that thing” with his lips.

Right off the bat Weinberg objected to Dr. Ponton’s testimony of the “red flags” list. He claimed he’d not been given the medical records, police records or her report in a timely manner. He said he was not prepared and could not conduct a proper cross-examination because he did not know what materials Dr. Ponton had used to create the red flag list.

He’d already tried to delay Dr. Ponton’s testimony on Tuesday, saying that the prosecution hadn’t gotten her report to him in a timely manner (he was offered the report Sunday, June 21, but did not have a decent fax machine. The report was delivered early Monday afternoon, June 22).

Weinberg asked that Dr. Ponton’s testimony regarding the red flags be delayed until Monday, June 29, so he could better prepare.

McKowan was ready for this now well-known Weinberg tactic (delay delay delay) and stated he has had the police reports and the available medical charts in his possession from the beginning. Dr. Ponton is unavailable on Monday morning—she starts a new child and adolescent pediatric psychology rotation with new students on Monday. McKowan also noted she'd not yet received one of the defense's expert witness reports yet either—one she'd asked for a couple of times.

Dr. Ponton was asked if she could be available on Monday, and she reluctantly said she could try to shift some responsibilities, but she had to be back in San Francisco by 2 p.m.

Judge Beth Freeman asked Weinberg if he could look over the charts during lunch, and he obligingly said he’d try.

Weinberg was not allowed to delay Dr. Ponton’s testimony though there was the possibility she would have to return on Monday. As it turned out, her testimony finished early Friday afternoon.

The red flags list, which is summarized on the Watchdog blog, were created by Dr. Ponton by reading through the alleged victims’ medical charts (when available; read into evidence later in the day is the reason some charts might not be available: records from 1977 to 1982 were destroyed because of a corporate decision [Dr. Ayres was in a group practice at the time]) and police reports.

The red flag list was the source of plenty of objections from Weinberg (irritating a few jurors in the process—I observed a few heavy sighs and rolling eyes in the jury box whenever the defense attorney got nit picky [rightly so] over McKowan forgetting to preface a case history by saying “in a hypothetical case where …” I also overheard her [from across the room] say “This is ridiculous” when a sidebar was called because of one of Weinberg’s objections). The red flags are the areas where Ayres failed to maintain a proper standard of care when administering physical exams in a psychiatric setting.

An interesting remark made by Dr. Ponton regarding testing for learning disabilities and ADD/ADHA tend to be more in the realm of psychologists. Psychiatrists are of course aware of the tests, but a psychiatrist would be involved in prescribing medication, something, of course, a psychologist (who may have a Ph.D. but not a medical license which is needed to prescribe medication) cannot legally do.

There are contrasting schools of thought regarding the appropriateness of physical exams of children in a psychiatric setting. As revealed in a noted psychiatric textbook, there are a group of practitioners who believe that physical exams are nearly never done (One thing lay people must understand about the practice of medicine: one cannot say something is “never” or “always” done. Even though medicine is a science, it is not an exact science where absolutes can be assigned.), and another group (Greenhill and others) that believe physical exams are underutilized in the psychiatric setting.

But even in making that statement, there are ways to mislead a jury, and Weinberg did an excellent job of getting the jury to take notice of the “physicals are underutilized” school of thought. What he cleverly did was read a partial passage from a psychiatric textbook that made that statement.

What McKowan equally as cleverly did to shoot that statement down was to have Dr. Ponton read additional passages from the section—statements that further defines the specific situations in which a psychiatrist could perform a physical exam.

ADD, ADHD, self-esteem, and impulse issues aren’t on the list. And the few things that are on the list—including an evaluation of enuresis (bedwetting)—qualify the need for a physical exam, but assumes no physical exam has been done by the child’s pediatrician (and the doctor should never hold the cup, or the penis, or observe the child urinating). Very importantly, a great deal of warm-up and relationship building must be done by the psychiatrist who performs those physicals—which are seldom done at the first visit. Nearly never is there an acute need for a physical, and a practitioner would usually refer the child back to his or her pediatrician is there was need for a physical exam. A non-strangulated hernia is not a reason for a physical exam by a psychiatrist! In the rare case of a physical exam given in a psychiatric outpatient setting, the child must be fully engaged by the psychiatrist and the psychiatrist must fully meet the child’s need for modesty and comfort.

There is never a reason for a child to be fully naked and exposed, or have his pants down around his ankles. Consent for a genital exam must be very specific—the psychiatrist must specifically say “genital exam,” a very different exam than a “physical exam” which traditionally includes height, weight, vital signs, and auscultation of the lungs, heart and abdomen, and perhaps palpation and percussion of the upper body.

Chances are the child’s pediatrician has all of that information anyway, though it is at times necessary for the psychiatrist to take vital signs, usually heart rate, blood pressure and the child’s weight when monitoring a child taking certain medications, especially those for ADD and ADHD.

Late in Dr. Ponton’s testimony, she clarified and reinforced the psychiatrist’s role in caring for a pediatric patient—is the psychiatrist a consultant, which is usually the case—or is he or she the primary care physician (rarely, if there is no family pediatrician)? And if there is a pediatrician, check with that physician first to repeat anything—don’t overlap and do the same thing twice to a child regarding a physical exam.

I saw one female juror have an ah-ha moment after that remark was made. I’ve seen that look—I’ve done it plenty of times. Of course I also saw jurors yawning, examining their fingernails, staring off into space. There is a male juror who always listens and takes notes. A female juror asked for a new notebook.

None of the common-sense things were revealed in the existing medical records of the six former patients of Dr. Ayres who have testified thus far. Dr. Ponton admitted she was unable to read 100 percent of Dr. Ayres’ handwriting in the available medical records, but she was unable to find any reasons given for the need for a physical, and parents, even those who did consent to a physical exam, were not informed a genital exam had been done.

Dr. Ponton stated that children, especially males, do not tend to make false allegations of sexual abuse. In this case, of course, there are memory and cognition concerns, with the abuse having been 20 or 30 years previously. When Weinberg tried to get into a discussion about memory, he asked Dr. Ponton if she was an expert in the area of memory and she said no. He then made a statement about Dr. Elizabeth Loftus being the leading expert in memory—and Dr. Ponton said Loftus was not the leading expert on memory! Let the dueling experts begin!

Weinberg did make attempts to get under Dr. Ponton’s skin, but she is a child psychiatrist for a good reason—she is a level-headed cool customer! She did an excellent job of making her points, even though one of her answers was later called non-responsive and struck from the record. But it’s very hard to take remarks back once they’ve been made. Nor did she ever raise her voice, and she chose to not address Weinberg as "Doron" even after he said it was acceptable, because she'd been referring to McKowan by her first name (she stopped doing that shortly thereafter).

Once Dr. Ponton’s testimony was over, parts of a deposition transcript taken from Dr. Ayres during the Steven A.’s civil case were read into evidence with McKowan reading the role of questioner, and Deputy District Attorney Chuck Finney reading Ayres’ words.

Dr. Ayres claimed that there were children who asked him to perform physical exams, and that he did not initiate the process! He also claimed he asked children if the child would “like for him” to look at something—to examine his stomach if he had a stomach ache, to look at his groin if he had poison oak or another rash.

But he always recommended the child see the pediatrician for the exam, and did it only if it was an emergency (a hernia is not an emergency!) or the child consented. The penis would be more closely examined if the kid offered complaints of itching, or was worried something was wrong with his reproductive organs, and of course sometimes boys masturbate so much they cause sores.

(Male readers: Please leave a comment if you have ever masturbated yourself to having sores. I refuse to believe adolescent boys are that crazy!)

Dr. Ayres also claimed that he did not think he’d ever asked a child to pull his pants down, and that most parents were grateful the exam had been done!

I believe that defense attorney Weinberg is doing a fine job with the material he’s been given. One of the parents of an out-of-statute victim remarked to me that she felt Weinberg “enjoyed” defending child molesters. I would not go so far as to say he “enjoys” it—but it is his job to ensure the accused person’s rights are upheld, and Weinberg is no doubt a challenging adversary for any district attorney. All he can do in a case like this is make sure his client’s rights aren’t stepped on, and to try to plant seeds of doubt in at least one juror’s mind. The average juror does not have the knowledge base I have in this case—I wonder if there are any health care practitioners or social workers on the jury? I'm betting no. A defense attorney would not want me on a jury like this, so I have to assume anyone who night understand child abuse (even just a little bit like me!) was not chosen. However, no doubt some of the jurors are parents, and there is no way they can totally put their feelings aside in this case—what if that had been my child? What would I want the jury to do to help make things right?

Even though she was full of fire and very passionate and effective on Friday, I hope that Melissa McKowan will be studying the transcripts of Alan Jackson’s cross-examination of Dr. Loftus during the Spector trial when the time comes.

Questions I hope McKowan answers somehow and is able to introduce into evidence:

1. Is there a reason that no juvenile referral patients have testified? Are those medical records sealed or destroyed or unavailable? How many San Mateo county juveniles passed through Ayres’ doors? Were there kids from other counties?

2. I would like for her to get on the “no gloves” thing a bit more. Dr. Ponton mentioned that gloves are worn in the rare case of a genital exam to make the child feel more at ease, but I think that if the jury could be skeeved out about the lack of universal precautions—something every medical practitioner knew about from the late 1980s—they might better understand the inappropriateness of the exams themselves. The lack of gloves is a huge hint that the exams were for the benefit of the doctor.

On Monday’s schedule are the four corroborating out-of-statute witnesses. The prosecution might rest next week.

California Codes: PENAL CODE SECTION 11164-11174.3

Expert: No reason for exams performed by psychiatrist accused of child molestation

The Trial: Week Four, Day Four

A CONVERSATION WITH/Lynn Ponton; An Expert's Eye on Teenage Sex, Risk and Abuse

Brooke Bennett – What of Jacques and Gagnon?

~Brooke Bennett




One of T&T’s readers left a comment on the story, Remembering Brooke Bennett.

cherylt asked, “Is there even a trial date set for that POS? Since stepdad pled guilty do we know how much time he was given?”

The questions prompted me to think about how much time I've invested following this case and the tons of print information I have read following Brooke’s death.

I offer this recap from previous entries and articles I have archived – many of which are no longer available online.

Michael Jacques
No, there is no trial date set and I don’t believe we will see one soon for several reasons.

When it was determined that this would be charged as a federal case rather than a state case, several things came into play:

August 2008 –
U.S. District Judge William Sessions granted Desautels request and allowed famed husband and wife legal team, David Ruhnke and Jean deSales Barrett of Montvale, N.J. to assist with the defense. They have successfully defended many high profile clients facing a possible death penalty.

October 2008 -
Prosecutors placed the death penalty as an option on the table, but it is United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey who makes the final decision on whether or not Jacques faces the death penalty.

It becomes apparent that with the Presidential election looming, Michael Mukasey will not issue the final decision on the death penalty. The President elect will be appointing a new Attorney General.

November 2008 -
Jacques' attorneys filed a motion requesting the court push back the date in the death-penalty authorization process to April 2009.

February 2009 –
Eric H. Holder Jr. is sworn in as Attorney General. Holder is personally opposed to the death sentence.

Brooke’s case languishes on Holder’s desk awaiting a decision.

Jacques is obviously not salvageable as a member of society. His repeated acts of rape and violence have more than proven what a sick, sadistic predator he is.

Regardless of death penalty application approval or not, Brooke deserves justice!

Raymond Gagnon
April 2009 –
Pleaded guilty to transportation of child pornography in US District Court in San Antonio. He faces 5 to 20 years when he is sentenced on July 10.

He is however, still facing additional charges of possession of child pornography in Cullman, Alabama, where he lived before moving to Texas. The San Antonio plea agreement does not affect those pending charges.

So, justice for Brooke remains in limbo for the time being and that’s why we all need to keep her memory alive.

Journalists and the Courts: Can’t We Just All Get Along?

Prosecutor Melissa McKowan (SF Chronicle photo). She has a much nicer haircut and dye job now.

I took a day off from the Dr. William Ayres trial in Redwood City because my poor crippled body simply refused to take itself to the light rail and Caltrain this morning. Living in a body that’s had three back surgeries and nine knee surgeries means that some days it’s those body parts that tell me what to do rather than my brain telling them what to do.

If you are looking for an update on today’s trial, please check out the William Hamilton Ayres Watchdog site. There are multiple correspondents in attendance who will do a fine job of giving the reader an insider’s view of today’s proceedings. Also check out the links at the end of this article.

I want to write about the media sideshow that you may not know much about.

On the afternoon of June 4, freelance reporter Victoria Balfour was asked to leave the courtroom. Balfour had been in the courtroom during pretrial motions and jury selection, and that afternoon San Mateo County Deputy District Attorney Melissa McKowan pointed Balfour out to defense attorney Doron Weinberg. Before flying out to California from New York, Balfour had previously double-checked with Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe, making certain she was permitted to attend the trial and that she was not going to be a witness. She had received no subpoenas. Wagstaffe assured her she was in the clear.

Balfour was instrumental in keeping the investigation going, locating former patients of Ayres and prodding the San Mateo police and then the DA’s office to bring the case to trial. She was supposed to be providing coverage for a San Diego newspaper.

Instead, Balfour’s found herself looking for an attorney who would take her case on pro bono (being a freelancer, she does not have a nice legal department to call upon), and she’s sitting outside in the hallway, eager for tidbits of information.

Balfour is not the only media source to undergo a bit of grief. Local ABC affiliate KGO (Channel 7, ABC) sent one of its most seasoned reporters, Vic Lee (who has 40 years of experience in television journalism!), and a camera person to cover opening arguments. Lee was in the courtroom; his cameraperson was not. KGO had faxed a request to the San Mateo County Courthouse asking for permission to film opening arguments.

Just prior to opening arguments starting, Superior Court Judge Beth Freeman listened to an emergency motion filed by Balfour regarding her exclusion from the courtroom. Just prior to the meeting, defense attorney Doron Weinberg presented her pro bono attorney with a subpoena.

Deputy DA McKowan did not verbalize any objections to Balfour being in the courtroom, but one wonders why she pointed Balfour out to Weinberg in the first place.

Weinberg has never had a conversation with Balfour. He has no idea of what she may know or does not know or how that information could benefit his client in the first place.

Observers aren’t quite sure what sort of information Balfour may have that will help either the prosecution or the defense. She knows only what she has been told about the case. She did not know any of the men prior to this case; she, like the men, does not possess any firm physical evidence that they were molested (scars, diary entries, etc.). How can anything she may be queried about be anything but hearsay?

Thus far the San Mateo County District Attorney James P. Fox has not released a statement on this matter at all.

Immediately after Superior Court Judge Beth Freeman ruled that Balfour could listen to opening arguments only, Vic Lee raised his hand to be heard. He asked the judge about his cameraperson being allowed to take video of the opening arguments only. Judge Freeman could not recall such a request being made to the courthouse in timely manner and denied his request. Less than an hour later, the faxed request, which was indeed sent in a timely manner, was located, but the judge still did not allow KGO to take video in the courtroom itself.

Instead, the television station ended up with lots of photos of people standing around in the hallway. Heck, I even made it on television, standing around waiting!

San Mateo County Superior Court is where the Scott Peterson trial took place, so there is a bit of history of exclusion of television coverage. Judge Freeman stated that this case (Ayres) is no more important than any other, so no preferential treatment will be given by allowing cameras into the courtroom.

I believe KGO planned to follow through with additional legal action but I’m not positive. Vic Lee stayed all day on Tuesday, listening to opening arguments and the testimony of the first witness.

Balfour sat through the reasonably brief opening arguments, and as soon as the first witness was called, both Weinberg and McKowan watched as Balfour got up and walked out of the courtroom to wait in the hallway.

Excluding journalists from covering a trial is bad enough—and I believe the examples in this case can be very chilling to First Amendment rights.

Here is the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here is my fear: at what point does a journalist become a potential witness? Let’s say a journalist learns of a crime by listening to a police scanner. He or she shows up to the scene, after the crime or incident, and starts reporting (broadcast or print).

Is he or she now a witness? To what? And if this journalist shows up sometime later to cover a resulting court case, are they a potential witness? What does that person have to say—how can that person have any knowledge of the actual crime or event? Has that reporter now become part of that event, someone who possesses evidence?

I even tried to play the devil’s advocate and try to see things from McKowan or Weinberg’s point of view. Does Balfour know so much about the case that McKowan feels uncomfortable with someone else in the courtroom? Is Weinberg angry about having to defend Dr. Ayres? But Ayres is a paying client, why would Weinberg be so angry to the point to bar a journalist who helped to make the investigation happen? If anything, he should be thanking her for making it necessary for the good doctor to have to pay for his highly skilled services! (Mind you, I have the utmost respect for both attorneys. I can’t do what they do, but sometimes I don’t understand why they do some of the things they do!)

Still playing the devil’s advocate, when dealing with a trial such as this one, where the witnesses are highly traumatized and testifying with their identities limited to only their first names and surname initials (unless someone slips up!), is it the right thing to plaster their faces onto television screens? Is it right that a print journalist describes what the person looks like, writes about his background to the point that people in his community could guess it was him. Is there too much transparency?

In this case, I believe the public’s right to know is vital. I also believe that journalists should understand the sensitive nature of what they are writing about. The San Mateo County Times reporter is an excellent example of a tempered journalist. Elizabeth Pfeffer strikes a balance between informing the public of the goings-on and maintaining the anonymity and dignity of those who testify. Her coverage is worth reading.

Despite my lack of a paycheck or proper job in journalism (though I have received a journalism-based undergrad degree), I am trying to be as professional as I can in my coverage. Yes, T & T tends to be a pro-prosecution blog, but we certainly can and will criticize a DA or defense attorney for missteps. I have promised I will not write derogatory things about the good doctor’s family members in attendance. They are not on trial. I have promised I will minimize sensationalizing any of the testimony unless I have to. Suffice it to say, if you want to think the worst about this trial, I encourage you to do so, because it’s probably the truth.

This is what I really want to come out of this trial—I want parents to grow some cajones and be very suspicious and protective of their children. I want the to question everything their family doctor or school educators say about their kids—why does my son need to see a full-blown psychiatrist for a suspected learning disability? What kind of therapy will a psychiatrist do for my bed-wetting child? My child with self-esteem problems? My child with possible ADD or ADHD?

Trust no one where your children are concerned. Being too trusting of certain people can result in your ADD son or daughter becoming victimized by someone that you may be paying to help ensure your child’s future success.

Instead, what you end up purchasing is a child abuse victim. If you think dealing with ADD is hard, try dealing with a forever scarred child!

T & T will be back in the courtroom tomorrow.

More accusers describe physical exams performed by Ayres

DA builds molestation case against doctor

Remembering Brooke Bennett

~Brooke Bennett


One year ago today, the pretty, Vermont 12-year-old disappeared. We would come to find out she was drugged, raped, and strangled allegedly by her uncle.

Brooke was last seen alive on a surveillance video from a Cumberland Farms store in the company of her uncle, Michael Jacques.

As investigators desperately searched for Brooke, a bizarre and horrific story began to emerge and would forever change the small town of Randolph.

The players in the real life drama are tightly intertwined family members:

Cassandra Gagnon – Brooke’s mother, whose ex-husband is Richard Gagnon. Cassandra has recently changed her name to Adams, her maiden name.

Denise Jacques – Cassandra’s sister and wife of Michael Jacques. Denise has changed her name back to Woodward.

Richard Gagnon and Michael Jacques – Brooke’s ex-stepfather and uncle, respectively. Prosecutors claim there is a “nexus between investigations into the alleged obstruction of justice by Gagnon and the alleged kidnapping by Jacques.”

The State of Vermont turns the cases over to Federal prosecutors.

Gagnon is arrested on a charge of aggravated sexual assault on a minor and obstruction of justice for apparently assisting Jacques in fabricating information regarding the abduction of Brooke. Additionally he has been charged with the production and distribution of child pornography. He pleaded guilty to pornography charges in federal court in San Antonio on April 13, 2009.

February 26, 2009, the Vermont Legislature passed one of the toughest sex-offender bills in the country by a 29-0 vote in the Senate and 132-2 in the House.

In 1985, Jacques was charged with lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor after allegedly engaging in more than 100 sex acts with an underage family relative whom he eventually impregnated. The case was dismissed.

In 1992, he was charged and convicted of abducting and raping an 18-year-old West Rutland woman. Police reports indicated he tied a rope around her neck, threatened to kill her and forced her to perform sex acts on him for several hours.

Jacques is currently being held at a federal penitentiary in Ayer, MA.

While Brooke’s family and the Randolph area are growing impatient with the slow pace of Jacques’ prosecution, prosecutors are awaiting a decision from Attorney General Eric Holder on whether they can seek the death penalty for Jacques.

Please take a moment to think of Brooke today – she deserves to be remembered.

Burlington Free Press

Strike one! Ball! Strike two! Ball! Strike three—nope, base hit for McKowan!

California Department of Corrections Fire camp trustee

I confess to being concerned about the way things were going in the child molestation trial of Dr. William Ayres.

Not because I don’t believe the young men—I absolutely do. But that's my mom and registered nurse brain talking—not my knowledge of the law. And my knowledge of the law consists of three one-semester classes about law in certain lines of work: law as it applies to nursing, media law, and sports law, including labor law and torts and liability. No criminal law. So I’m no expert.

But it seemed to me that defense attorney Doron Weinberg was doing a better job of lighting and putting out small fires during his cross-examination and re-cross of the witnesses this far in the court proceedings, which consist of three former patients and their parents.

There are some common themes possessed by each young man who alleges molestation by the now-elderly doctor. Each young man was referred, or perceives he was referred, to Dr. Ayres for evaluation or treatment of ADD or ADHD as the first and foremost reason an appointment was made. Some of the parents of the out-of-statute boys also reveal their sons were referred for evaluation of learning difficulties in school, but one boy’s parents readily state their boy went because of self-esteem issues.

Imagine that—you send your son to a psychiatrist and what you get out of it is a lifelong victim of molestation and all that goes with that!

Each young man did not immediately perceive the “medical exam” as a bad touch. Each young man comes from a middle or upper-middle class home with well-informed parent who believed they were doing the right thing based on their own professional knowledge or because an educator or pediatrician believed the referral would benefit the boy. None of the parents were informed of the need for an intimate exam of their son’s genitals (though one was told the doctor would be performing a physical as part of his uptake evaluation). None of the parents were informed of the “results” of the physical exam.

Thus far none of the young men (remember, ages 8 to 13 or 14 at the time of the molestation) were referred because of any sexual dysfunction or malformation of his genitals.

San Mateo County prosecutor Melissa McKowan certainly has not made any glaring missteps, but while I was listening to her questioning and the resulting testimony, I found things I was wondering about—questions about the testimony, things I felt might be relevant—things a juror might wonder about.

I had a couple of questions that kept nagging at me: what exactly is “gay sex” at the age of 9? What happens specifically? In this case, much fuss was made about the timing of what was ultimately described as gay sex between one of the alleged victims and his then-best friend. Weinberg (rightly so) tried to put a confusing spin on the timing of this gay sex, as Ayres’ former patient had stated in a deposition that he had this “gay sex” during the third grade school year and into that summer. The boy stated that his experience with Ayres changed the way he had gay sex.

Having a younger brother of my own, I wondered what would he have been doing if he’d had “gay sex” when he was 9 years of age. Where would he have done it? Who would he have done it with?

“Please, Ms. McKowan,” I thought to myself. “Can you please get this defined? If we are talking about how a foreskin was retracted and how testes were fondled, we need to be open enough to define gay sex in a 9-year-old.”

Today the young man defined what gay sex was—playing doctor with your best friend. And he had two “partners”—boys he stated were his “best friends” at the time. He testified that he modified the way they played doctor based on the way Dr. Ayres had examined him.

The young man admitted he felt he had a sexual identity problem as a consequence of the alleged molestation and the gay sex. Today with additional therapy he knows he’s always been heterosexual and has a beautiful supportive girlfriend.

The prosecutor correctly asked each young man if the doctor wore gloves during the exam. An excellent question—but does the jury get the significance of this?

Do you understand the significance of this medical practice?

In the mid to late 1980s, HIV and AIDS became a huge concern to health care professionals. Previously to understanding HIV, the only time a doctor or nurse would wear gloves was when caring for an open, possibly infected wound or for performing gynecological or rectal exams. When I was in nursing school in the early 1980s, we were instructed to NOT wear gloves when helping a patient wipe him or herself after using the bathroom—wearing gloves would alienate the person and make them feel “dirty.”

After universal precautions were embraced as good medical practice, doctors and nurses wore gloves during most physical exams, especially those near mucous membranes, open wounds or other contact and the genital area.

The young men who have so far testified that they do not believe Ayres wore gloves. And these three young men, all within statute, were examined after universal precautions were adopted.

I sincerely hope that an expert witness will be explaining that soon, before the jury forgets about the gloves.

One former patient testified to urinating in a cup as part of his evaluation for chronic bedwetting. He claims Ayres not only held the cup but also held his penis. The medical record reveals that the doctor did record a volume of urine, but the young man recalls the doctor just dumping the urine into a sink. It was explained by the doctor that he needed to see if the boy had a single stream of urine, or a double or triple stream.

This is an accepted standard of care for the evaluation of enuresis. However, it’s entirely probable the boy already had that exam done by his own pediatrician. What can a psychiatrist do treatment-wise if he discovers the kid has a double stream—a possible surgical condition?

A psychiatrist can do nothing. This exam should have been done by a urologist. The specialty of urology was not mentioned at all. Again, perhaps because that testimony does not yet fit, but I hope there is an expert prepared to testify about a standard of care in urology and the treatment of enuresis.

Why do the boys’ stories seem to evolve over time? I believe that there is a logical explanation for this—think about it, if a person previously unknown to you out of the blue asked you about a sensitive issue, would you be prepared to be 100 percent open and forthright? I believe that as the men better trusted the investigator, they were more able to go through the event in their mind and better explain those memories they’ve put on the back burner.

The gaps in the parents’ memories are also easily explained. Do you remember every single doctor’s office visit you’ve had, especially if you believe you are there for a routine, no big deal thing. These parents utterly trusted the integrity of Dr. Ayres and had no reason to be on guard or expect anything out of the ordinary.

Again, this is my health care background talking. What this means legally I have yet to see. Will an expert witness tell the jury why the memories and timelines are faulty? One observer in the courtroom “deduced” one former patient was lying because there were so many gaps. I reminded her that at the time he didn’t really believe what was happening was bad or abnormal. Why remember every little detail?

I’d also had concerns about the way the courtroom itself was being run. In Santa Clara County, the jurors were not waiting to go into court in the hallway along with the general public or the potential witnesses, and the gallery remained seated until the jury left the courtroom. This courthouse is a bit old so it appears there are no jury lounges available. Because the jurors were freely mingling with the public on Tuesday morning, they knows Ayres uses a walker. Will this evoke sympathy? Today things tightened up a bit and the bailiff asked the galley remain seated until the jury left. (There are two women who take forever to leave—I know both have physical infirmities—but I hope the bailiff encourages them to move along a bit faster, to not linger in the courtroom rummaging in their purses!)

Another thing I’ve observed is McKowan and Weinberg do have apparent whispered off-the-record conversations. Weinberg is a wily old guy—could he ask for a mistrial because of the way the jury is “maintained” or because of those off-the-record conversations?

One of today’s witnesses was most compelling to me. Stephen S. is a 31-year old former patient of Ayres. His involvement in the trial came about in a most interesting manner: he was in the courthouse at the same time as Ayres was in custody after his arrest, waiting in an anteroom that holds inmates who will be testifying in court. Stephen freely admits he was sentenced to six years in prison for carjacking and strong armed robbery. There are a couple of interesting things about Stephen that had me thinking about some issues.

Stephen said he was an inmate trustee at a fire camp in Monterey County. This means he is a firefighter, and will respond to brush and forest fires throughout California. To be selected for a fire camp is a true honor for an inmate: they live in a minimum to unsecured camp, they learn a valuable trade (firefighting) and assignment to the camp is a reward for good behavior. There are inmates who work for years to gain this honor.

I was concerned that the jury would not understand the significance of this, especially as questioning went on.

Before the significance of fire camp was explained to the jury, on cross-examination Weinberg introduced some reports into evidence. The reports were in regards to incidents with other boys while at the group home in 1994.

As part of direct examination, McKowan revealed that Stephen ended up in a group home when he misbehaved enough to find himself involved in the juvenile system. While at this group home, Stephen told a counselor he’d been molested by Ayres (but got the doctor’s first name wrong, calling him “Richard”) A report was filled out, but there was no follow-up.

But there were two other reports on hand—reports about incidents of a sexual nature between Stephen and other boys. The reports were child abuse reports, and the incidents involved oral copulation.

Stephen does not recall any incidents of that nature. When shown copies of the reports, he still does not recall the incidents. Nor does he know who the person was who prepared the report. His counselor’s name is not on the report. His parents were never informed about the supposed incidents.

I wondered why McKowan let Weinberg introduce these reports—why didn’t she make a preemptive strike? But I think I understand why after her re-direct examination of Stephen.

Weinberg tried to get Stephen to admit he’d lied, either about the incidents happening or about filing the report. Stephen stuck to his guns, it didn’t happen nor was he aware of any reports, because there had been no incidents. McKowan simply reinforced Stephen’s position during re-direct. As she questioned Stephen, I came to an understanding of what I think happened.

To me, this appears to be reports filed in error with mistaken identity. So I wondered—what kind of people staff a group home? What is the education level of the employees supervising the trustees? How many people supervise the trustees? And is there a history of erroneous reports being filed at this home or by the person who prepared the report?

I’m fairly sure the answers to those questions could not have come through Stephen. Will they come through someone else?

During re-re-direct, through Stephen’s testimony, prosecutor McKowan informed the jury why the fire camp was so important. I believe the jury was able to understand that in Stephen there was a good hard-working person who wanted a good future and was already working hard to obtain it.

Stephen entered the California Correctional system in April 2007. He has been at the honor camp for 19 months.

Do the math. Stephen programmed quickly and earned the honor of learning firefighting and now has a vocation he can look forward to when he’s released from prison on April 2011.

At the lunch break, I was concerned Weinberg had done a better job questioning the witnesses and defending his client. But after the questioning of Stephen, and being able to address so many of my concerns, I believe ADA Melissa McKowan had a solid base hit today.

May she continue to anticipate the smallest of potential concerns and remember that there are not only parents on the jury who do understand some adolescent behaviors, but no doubt some people on the jury may not understand what goes through the adolescent mind.

The boys are not lying. Each has finally fully understood the enormity of what happened to them. The gaps in their memories are fully legitimate—and are the same gaps each of us may have when remembering happier times, like Christmas when we were five.

Today’s photo is of California Department of Corrections trustee firefighters, in honor of Stephen.

Week four, Day Two Testimony

Former patients take stand in Ayres trial

Nicholas Sheley Case and Associates Updates

Guest Entry by katfish!

After taking a month or so break from blogging, I'm still catching up on some of the cases I have been following. In this entry I will update you on some of what's been going on in the Nicholas Sheley case, Nick's wife Holly Sheley, his brother Joshua Sheley and Joshua's girlfriend Jenna Henson, as well as his cousin Eric Smith cases.

NICHOLAS T. SHELEY
Katfishponders has been reporting the case of Nicholas Sheley. He is a 29 year old Sterling, IL man accused of a two-state killing spree late June, 2008 that left eight dead. There isn’t enough room to go into all the specifics of this case so let me refer you to previous entries and sources for this case, just click here.

I’ll give a short time line of the killing spree. It’s alleged that Sheley killed Russell Reed, 93, at his home in rural Sterling, IL sometime on June 23 or 24 and 4 days later went to Galesburg where he killed Ronald Randall,65, of Galesburg, IL at a car wash on June 28 and stole his truck.

Sheley then returned to Whiteside County that night where it is alleged he killed four people in a Rock Falls, IL apartment. Sheley allegedly attacked and beat to death two men, (Kenneth Ulve Jr., 25 and Brock Branson, 29), a woman (Kilynna Blake, 20) and Blake's two year old son (Dayan Blake) in the apartment shared by the four.

Next it’s alleged that Sheley drove Randall's truck to Festus, MO, near St. Louis, where Tom and Jill Estes , both 54, of Sherwood AR and visiting the St. Louis area, were brutally beaten in their hotel parking lot late Sunday, June 29. Randall’s truck was found abandoned in St. Louis on June 30. Sheley was later apprehended in Granite City, IL on the evening of July 1.

The first case that Sheley will stand trial is for the death of Ronald Randall 65, Galesburg, IL. If convicted he will face the Death Penalty. He is currently being held on a $10 million bond for the Capital charges and $500,000 bond related to jailhouse assault charges incurred while being held at the Knox County Jail awaiting trial.

On May 29, 2009 during a case management hearing at the Knox County Courthouse, Sheley’s defense team presented six motions citing factors relative to the constitutionality of the Illinois death penalty. Some of the motions dealt with specific language in the state statute that the defense deemed too vague. Two of the motions dealt with the possibility that a future court may overturn the death penalty in Illinois. Ninth Circuit Judge James Stewart denied all the motions stating there is no state authority to declare the death penalty unconstitutional.

I will try to do a full in the courtroom report on this hearing later after getting the motions presented in the hearing….I have a ton of notes.

At his June 2 arraignment for charges stemming from an April 17 altercation with Knox County Jailers, Nicholas Sheley pleaded not guilty and requested a jury trial. Judge Stephen Mathers will preside over this matter. A July sixth pre-trial hearing is scheduled with a possible criminal trial date of July 27. If convicted Sheley could be sentenced up to 14 years on the assault charges.

Continue reading at katfish ponders...

Meting Out Justice In Jersey

It has been an interesting few weeks in the island of Jersey - specifically relating to Claude Donnelly and Michael Aubin.

It has been several long, investigative years into the widespread child abuse scandal in Jersey with Haut de la Garenne children’s home being the most recognized name at the center of the scandal.

Many – in and outside the island - are of the opinion given the judicial system in Jersey and the rumors and allegations swirling of many prominent figures about having been involved with or plainly covering-up the abuse for decades, justice for the alleged victims may never be achieved.

Last week, 69-year-old Claude Donnelly was found guilty of 15 counts of indecent assault, rape, and procuring an act of gross indecency. All of the charges relate to a woman who told the court Donnelly began abusing her when she was eight.

Donnelly admitted to indecently assaulting the woman twice when she was 13 or 14, but denies raping her on four occasions, indecently assaulting her nine times and causing her to commit an act of gross indecency on him.

As we so often hear from the defense the victim gets portrayed as the guilty party. Advocate Baker told the jury they would hear evidence from a woman who would describe events that had happened to her as a child. ‘It is that immature child and her thoughts and behavior you will need to consider,’ he said.

At an earlier trial Donnelly was found guilty of rape and indecent assault of another, then teenage girl. When interviewed by police he said he knew one day they would question him over it.

Donnelly’s crimes are not connected to the Haut de la Garenne investigation, but the larger child abuse investigation in Jersey.

Donnelly will be formally sentenced on August 21.

Two days ago 46-year-old Michael Aubin, who has been in custody since May of 2008 for abusing 2 young boys at Haut de la Garenne in the late1970s, was spared additional jail time and placed on two years probation.

Aubin himself claims to have been sexually abused at the children’s home by a staff member known as the “bogeyman.”

In issuing the sentence of probation, Commissioner Clyde-Smith said there was an element of "cruelty" in the circumstances of the case.

"The defendant was taken in to care at three years old. The state was in loco parentis," he said.

"He became what he became while in the care of the state and now the state comes after him to prosecute him for what he did when he was in its care when he was 14 - a disturbed and brutalised 14-year-old."

Which leads me to ask who is the “bogeyman”, why are we not hearing anything regarding an investigation into his identity and does this not call into question the police and government calling the Haut de la Garenne investigation an expensive investigation that proved nothing? Ya can’t have it both ways!

Since the abuse scandal investigation began - 40 suspects have been named by police - of that number, one suspect’s file was returned to police for further investigation, a few were dropped for what the Attorney General calls a lack of evidence and the rest are apparently in political/judicial limbo.

Call me cynical, but my gut feeling is the powers that be in Jersey have offered up Donnelly and Aubin as the sacrificial scapegoats in hopes this all just goes away – the Jersey way.

The perpetrators of abuse and those responsible for the cover-up that held and/or continue to hold high positions within the government and society may sleep easy for a time, but there are more than a few determined individuals that will not let this sleeping dog lie.

BBC
JEP - Knew Police Would Question Me
JEP
The Independent

Let the Healing Begin

The constellation Orion

The long-awaited child molestation trial of San Mateo County psychiatrist William Ayres finally began on a near-perfect summer day in Redwood City, California—a day that is ideal for healing to begin in earnest. In the gallery of Courtroom 2L were the parents of some of the out-of-statute boys (now men) who were referred to the child psychiatrist for minor psychological problems such as ADD, ADHD, bedwetting and self-esteem issues—problems that can manifest in pre-adolescence or adolescence.

If the alleged facts of this case are hard enough to listen to, imagine how the parents of the boys, who were between the ages of 8 and 13 or 14, feel about what their sons went through. Most sent their sons to the psychiatrist on the recommendation of a school counselor or pediatrician. Many of the families self-paid for that “therapy” that has lead to a lifetime of hurt for their sons, and their own grief that their decision to seek therapy has irreparably harmed their sons.

Of course no trial is without side dramas, even as the case begins.

The first motion was of much importance, and itself deserves a post of its own (which will happen over the weekend). To sum, journalist Victoria Balfour was allowed to listen to opening arguments but was ordered to leave the room after receiving a subpoena from Weinberg, who stated there was the “possibility of calling” Balfour as a witness on July 9. Balfour’s attorney argued she had a right to be there, on assignment from a newspaper in Southern California. In a blow to the reporter’s First Amendment rights, the judge excluded Balfour from hearing any testimony.

In a side action, a reporter from KGO-TV asked for permission to tape the opening statement, but the judge could not recall receiving the request in a timely manner. She denied permission for a camera person to take video of opening arguments. After a break, it was brought to her attention that the request had indeed been made, but that did not change her decision. KGO will be following up.

(Remember this is the same county that hosted the Scott Peterson trial. No cameras there either.)

Next was a motion by defense attorney Doron Weinberg (yes, that Doron Weinberg, late of the Spector trial) argued that a report submitted by the prosecution was not received in a timely manner. The report, about the standard of care in a psychiatric case, had been presented during previous court proceedings and the expert witness recently updated the report to include a couple additional articles. Weinberg claimed he didn't have enough time to go through the articles.

Prosecutor Melissa McKowan stated she called Weinberg on Sunday to inform him of the additional references with the report, and she offered to fax him the copies. The defense attorney declined, saying he didn’t have a very good fax machine at home. Consequently, McKowan handed the additional reports to Weinberg at her first opportunity, Monday afternoon at 1.

McKowan countered it had taken her one or two hours to read the reports herself.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the request, and the expert witness will testify as scheduled on Friday. This expert witness will testify about “seven red flags” of child molestation exhibited by the doctor’s former patients.

The final issue was replacing of one of the jurors. This juror claimed she’d spoken to her spiritual advisor and family and come to the conclusion that she would be unable to “judge” anyone. Besides, she noted, her husband had been laid off from his job this past Thursday and her own job pays for a limited amount of jury duty.

The judge questioned the woman, who looked to be of Pacific Islander descent. Judge Freeman was very much bothered by the fact the juror spoke to anyone about the case. The juror denied she’d offered specifics of the case, but the judge granted the woman’s request to leave the jury. Actually the woman was excused for speaking about the case before it was completed and speaking about it to her family and spiritual advisor.

The jury is made up of three white males, one Asian American female, two Latina females, and six white females (two may be of Middle Eastern descent). The five alternates include 1 African American female, one Asian American male, and three white females.

The defendant is not a well man. His health problems have been well-chronicled but to this writer’s eye, his coloring looks like a person with cancer—cachexic, pale with gray undertones. Since his arrest in 2005, he has gone from unaided ambulation to ambulation with a cane and now a walker.

McKowan delivered her opening arguments from the top of her head, with no notes, moving about in the courtroom, always facing the jury. She speaks in a loud and clear voice, and speaks quickly. This case will consist of the testimony of six in-statute victims, and three out-of-statute victims will provide corroborating testimony. There are ten counts of lewd acts against a child—and each count must stand on its own merit.

She previewed the testimony of each man. No surnames will be used (you will shortly read about how long that lasted.) Their stories are all similar in that there was no medical reason given for the exam, and most did not tell their parents or anyone they’d been molested.

The history of this case is well-documented and won’t be repeated here (though there may be a revised entry posted when I have more time to write). The bottom line is none of the men know each other, or even knew of each other. One of the young men, when contacted by the police, thought he was the only victim of Ayres, and was relieved to know he wasn’t the only one.

McKowan stated that the boys had been sent to Ayres solely for behavioral issues, NOT physical issues. However, the doctor told the boys that the physical exam was routine, and reminded them that he was an M.D. There were no privacy drapes provided for the boys, the exams were not done in what most of us think of as an exam room with a proper exam table.

Sometimes there were multiple physicals. Sometimes the boys reported a long touch. Others reported fondling, outright masturbation, and even ejaculation.

The doctor cautioned the boys to tell no one about the undressing or the physical exam.

There was no attention given to the boys’ modesty. There was no explanation offered to the boys or the parents as to why a physical exam was needed. There was no report of the physical exam made available to the parents.

To contrast, Weinberg used notes and a podium to deliver his opening arguments. He refuted each witness’ potential testimony, offering explanations as to why they were they were not believable or erroneous in their memories. He slipped up and called three of the men by their surnames, and as McKowan objected, Weinberg basically said “oops.” Mind you, he was reading notes, so he wrote those names down in his notes!

Weinberg characterized Dr. Ayres as physician of “extraordinary skill,” an “open and honest sex educator advocate,” an “independent thinker of courage,” who treated the whole person—including a physical exam, and believed that the physicals were needed.

There were two witnesses today: the mother of one of the young men, and Orion, a former patient of Ayres.

I found her to be a credible witness for this reason: she may not have had an impeccable memory to the smallest detail, but why would she? She and her husband believed Orion needed the psychiatric therapy for his ADD/ADHD and his learning difficulties. They utterly trusted the school administration and the school nurse when they recommended Orion see Dr. Ayres. They had no reason to be suspicious of the well-recommended doctor’s abilities.

Orion’s mother was not aware of the abuse until her son turned 21.

Neither Orion or his parents are seeking a civil judgment from the doctor.

Next, Orion testified. A handsome, well spoken young man, he was asked to identify the defendant and he was unable to sustain a gaze to describe what Ayres was wearing, and broke down crying as he described the doctor. Orion was sent to the doctor for (presumably) assessment for ADD or ADHD. However, Orion also Kleinfelter's syndrome (xxy), a chromosomal defect that affects 1 in 1000 men, though most men do not have any physical signs of the disorder. Orion is one such individual. His parents knew about his Kleinfelters only because of an amniocentesis. His only manifestation of the disorder is learning difficulties. When Orion presented to Dr. Ayres at the age of 9, he did not know he had Kleinfelter’s, nor was it one of the presenting complaints. The chief complaint was “not paying attention in class.”

Orion’s testimony was chilling. At his first visit, he recalls a conversation between the doctor, both parents and himself, though he doesn’t remember 100 percent of the conversation because it was “grown-up stuff.”

After the initial visit in the waiting room, Ayres told Orion’s parents that he needed some private time with their son, took Orion by the hand and took him into the inner office, which consisted of a table, a sofa, file cabinets and some toys and puppets. “I felt safe,” the young man reported.

“I sat on that couch,” said the young man. He says the doctor asked him to come to him in the dark corner away from the window. They played with models for a few minutes and the boy felt safe, the doctor asking with how things were with his parents. Soon the doctor told Orion he needed to check his heart rate, and took out a stethoscope. The stethoscope was placed under the boy’s clothing, and he helped by lifting his shirt. The doctor then said “why don’t you just take that off?” At that point the doctor touched the boy on the chest, and then said something about his pants. Orion had difficulty with the pants, and the doctor asked if he could help. The boy agreed, thinking this was in order. He pulled his pants and underwear to his ankles, and the doctor was sitting on a wheeled exam stool, facing the child.

“That’s when he touched me,” he said, crying as he described what happened.

Orion saw Dr. Ayres three times that he can recall, and all three times his clothing were removed and his genitals touched.

Cross-examination thus far has been working toward discrediting the young man, suggesting he is exaggerating what happened. The defense attorney speaks mumbly and throws numbers and dates around in such a manner that anyone would be confused.

Testimony tomorrow picks up with Orion. To honor this brave young man, the photo I’ve posted is of the constellation Orion.

I will write more about the miscarriage of justice done to Victoria Balfour and KGO-TV when I have more time to write. Suffice it to say I believe there are HUGE First Amendment rights being broken in both cases, and this case could and should be pursued because of the chilling effect it may have on professional journalists.

Also check out the William Ayres Watchdog blog.

Opening statements begin in Ayres trial

Local doctor's molestation trial begins

One accuser decides to drop out of Ayres trial

Phil Spector Moves Into Corcoran

UPDATED!

According to Harriet Ryan of the Los Angles Times, Phil Spector has been moved to permanent digs in Corcoran. He's in a medium security, special needs unit. There's no question this is a prisoner who has "special needs."

His wife Rachelle appears happy about the move. According to Linda Deutsch of the Associated Press, Rachelle claims her husband was mistreated at the North Kern County facility. Now that Spector is all settled in, I'm wondering if Rachelle will move to Corcoran (or a cozy little house in Fresno) to be close to her husband like she recently indicated in prior news reports.

I was quite bemused to learn this from Harriet's article:

"Spector will be permitted to have musical instruments in his cell, and inmates in his unit often sing and play music together, [prison spokesperson Stephen] Smith said."

I can envision it now, Spector creating a new prison-wall of sound with his fellow inmates. T&T readers, are you wondering as we are if Rachelle will have the chauffeur drive her up to sing on a few selections? Maybe the CD will be in stores for the many Phil Spector fans out there, just in time for the holidays. But I wouldn't get your hopes up too quickly. Phil may decide to wait a bit until he releases his next big production. There still is that pesky wrongful death suit looming on the horizon.

Update: June 24, 2009

Linda Deutsch from the Associated Press has written a newer article with more quotes from Rachelle Short (Spector) about her husband's requests. From the article:

"He wants a TV and an iPod or something like that for listening to music," Rachelle Spector said Tuesday. "And he would like to be able to receive e-mail."

Good luck with that email request Phil As far as Spector creating any new music in prison, Rachelle had this to say:

"He has not requested an instrument, and I doubt if he will," she said.

One never knows what the future may bring. It's still all very new and it will take a while for Spector to get acclimated to his private cell and surroundings. Spector could change his mind in the future about wanting an instrument. In time, he could show an interest in guiding his fellow inmates in their musical careers or orchestrating a live performance.

The Autopsy Report: Casey Anthony's Defense Team Speaks Out

Friday, Judge Stan Strickland held a hearing out of courtesy to the Anthony family and listened to an emotional speech by George Anthony about the grief the release of the autopsy would have for his family. He did not want Caylee's memory "tarnished."

TARNISHED??? There is nothing in the world that could ever tarnish this little angel's memory. What the autopsy could do is tarnish the alleged murderer's reputation!

If you haven't done so, view the raw footage of the hearing supplied by WFTV. Note that after making his ruling to release the reports, Jose Baez got to his feet to request a 48 hour stay so the defense team could consider filing a motion of their own. Denied!

The reports were issued immediately and available to the public within the hour.

Autopsy and related reports, also courtesy of WFTV:

Examination
Skeleton Dispersal
Skeletal Remains
Examination of Bones

The Orlando Sentinel provided the following documents:

FBI Report Forensic Report

Forensic Report on Car Contents

We heard a little bit from Jose Baez concerning his reaction to the release. While not baiting intrepid reporter, Kathi Belich, and speaking Spanish to some reporters, he seemed unconcerned about the results but was a bit concerned about tainting the jury pool. Figure it out for yourself.

Video: Baez reaction

Today, we had some reactions from the defense experts. The Today Show featured a mini-debate between Werner Spitz and Cyril Wecht. Dr. Spitz, the defense forensic pathologist, stated that there was, "nothing that I know to put the lid on this, that tells you that there was a murder here. Everything, as far as I know, is in question." Concerning the duct tape itself, which he has yet to examine, he stated, "When I saw the body, there was no duct tape, there was no evidence of duct tape, there was no evidence of residual glue or adhesive on the bone, there was no evidence to support that conclusion."

I have to wonder if Casey's attorney, Jose Baez has set up his secure server so that his experts can an least view the photographs from the crime scene and autopsy? In the January 8 hearing, there was extensive discussion of the issue. Read the article

The Today Show also had Cyril Wecht review the autopsy report and he came to a totally different conclusion. According to Wecht, "This would be the most likely way you would expect an infant, a young child, to be murdered, namely suffocation. It's easily accomplished, obviously, and would leave no tell-tale marks."

Sprocket suggested that the State's Attorneys review Dr. Spitz's testimony from the Phil Spector trial that just concluded. I would also suggest that they also call Alan Jackson to get the skinny on Dr. Spitz. For those of you who did not follow the Spector trial and have no knowledge of Dr. Spitz, I suggest you read one of Sprocket's entries which reported his performance on direct examination and cross-examination with Mr. Jackson. Read the article

The other defense expert to chime in an opinion was Dr. Lawrence Kobilinski (formerly seen on Nancy Grace). Orlando Sentinel blogger halboedeker posted an article based on a Click Orlando broadcast today. Part of the article included the back-and-forth between Tony Pipitone and Kobilinski:

Jan Garavaglia, the Orange County medical examiner, determined that Caylee's death was a homicide.

Kobilinsky dismissed the finding. "It is not clear how the child died, and if we don't know how the child died, we really can't determine whether or not it was a homicide," Kobilinsky said.
Kobilinsky said there was no evidence of drugs in the child's remains.

But Pipitone noted that only hair and bone could be tested -- and so exposure to drugs couldn't be ruled out.

Kobilinsky noted Caylee's hyoid bone wasn't found and that would have been examined to see if there was strangulation. But Pipitone added that the hyoid bone in a child could be so soft that it might not break in strangulation.

And what of duct tape applied to Caylee's face before decomposition? "That indicates a homicide, not a suicide, not an accidental, not a natural death," Pipitone said.

Kobilinsky disagreed. "That is not necessarily the case," he said. "If, for example, the child died as the result of accidental trauma and then, subsequently, for whatever reason, somebody took the child and did whatever was done involving plastic bags and duct tape."

Yet Pipitone concluded: "Of course, that would be for a jury to decide."

So, my friends, we are getting an interesting view of the defense tactics that will come up in trial. I'm looking forward to your comments!

Casey Anthony: Hearing Tomorrow, Judge Seals Video

UPDATE!

It was just announced in the Orlando Sentinel that Casey Anthony will not attend the hearing tomorrow.

Judge Stan Strickland ruled yesterday that the jail video of Casey Anthony will be sealed. In his ruling, Strickland said, "While the Court is loathe to shield any public record, an argument can certainly be made that the contents of the video are highly inflammatory."

While this is a victory for the defense, I hope Jose Baez realizes that this decision came as a double-edged sword. When Strickland writes that "... it is not unreasonable to assume that many persons in the potential jury pool might view this video and develop a "hardened" attitude in reference to the defendant's guilt," he is clearly stating that when he viewed the video, it seemed to make Casey appear guilty.

In part 3, the judge also states that, "It is at least a possibility that the video in question will never be shown to the jury that decides this matter. While that can be said of other items disclosed as well, no other item comes to mind that would carry a similar inflammatory impact."

While I would love to see the video, I've read enough depositions and interviews of jail employees to have a pretty good idea as to what is in it. Obviously, Strickland saw some pretty incriminating behavior in the video. The wording he used is extremely strong and is very damning to the defense.

I must also add that I am relieved there was no additional hearing on the issue. I don't know how much more I could have taken of Todd Macaluso thundering on and on about how poor Casey had suffered from "cruel" treatment at the hands of the jail employees.

Perhaps Baez can now drop his efforts at deposing the jail employees and start deposing witnesses in the criminal trial.

It has also been announced that Judge Strickland will hold a hearing tomorrow on Brad Conway's motion to seal the autopsy report. While citing no legal precedent, Conway, on behalf of George and Cindy Anthony tells the judge:

The information contained within the report will cause great anguish to the Anthony family, still struggling with the loss of their only granddaughter. (4)

Releasing the autopsy report to the media at this point in time causes endless comment and speculation in the media and public forums, such as the internet. The publication of these results has already been the topic of countless television programs despite the fact that the actual autopsy report has not been released. (6)

I'll again state that I'm no legal expert, but those seem to be pretty thin arguments for keeping what are normally public records under seal. It will be interesting, however, to hear how Mr. Conway argues this to the Court. Since Jose Baez is not party to the motion, I also wonder if he and Casey will be in attendance at the hearing.

See you all at the hearing tomorrow!

Article
Video (WFTV's Bill Sheaffer's commentary on Judge Strickland's ruling.)

UPDATE: : June 19, 2009
In a hearing this morning Judge Strickland ruled that the autopsy report will be released to the public. It's already up on several media web sites. Sprocket.

Ayres' Trial Watch: Another Defense Speedbump—Denied!

Cover of "Coming of Age"—a book found in Ayres' files

A minor speedbump was averted in the Redwood City courtroom today when a motion by Dorn Weinberg to have evidence excluded was denied.

Weinberg wanted the testimony of one victim disallowed because (so says Wineberg) that what happened to the youngster was not groping—the victim is prepared to testify that the good doctor stood behind him and used the "back of his hand" to grope him.

Definition of grope: Pronunciation: \ˈgrōp\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): groped; grop·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English grāpian; akin to Old English grīpan to seize
Date: before 12th century
intransitive verb
1 : to feel about blindly or uncertainly in search (grope for the light switch)
2 : to look for something blindly or uncertainly (grope for the right words)
3 : to feel one's way
transitive verb
1 : feel up
2 : to find (as one's way) by groping.

As I wrote on the William Ayres Watch blog comments, I don’t see anywhere that groping means palm toward the object/item being groped. Nor can I in all of my years of practice as an RN recall a physician giving a physical exam with the back of his hand … 


Later in the day, the prosecution moved to have three illustrated books that were found in Ayres’ storage locker introduced into evidence. The books are thought to be antique medical or pseudo-medical books. One book is called “The Sex Book” and has a picture of naked children on the cover. Certainly the defense will go nuts over this one!

Jury selection resumes tomorrow. Opening arguments are scheduled to begin Tuesday, June 23. There is no new news regarding the banishment of reporter Victoria Balfour, who was instrumental in getting victims to come forward in this case, from the courtroom.

Please check out the William Ayres Watch blog, and its most recent entry.

Week 3, Day 1 - Weinberg Attempts to Split Hairs on "Groping"

Caylee, it's all about Caylee Anthony

According to George Anthony, the last time he saw his granddaughter Caylee was June 16, 2008. If we believe this, then the anniversary of the date that Caylee was last seen alive by someone other than her mother, Casey Anthony, is coming up this week. Casey is in jail awaiting trial for first degree murder.

The public didn't become aware of Caylee's "disappearance" until one month later. On July 16, 2008, news broke that Cindy Anthony had made 911 calls the previous day informing the authorities that her granddaughter had been missing for 31 days, ostensibly "kidnapped" by Zanny the Nanny. Casey Anthony led detectives on a wild goose chase that ended up in a conference room at Universal Studios where she admitted that she had told a pack of lies with the exception that the nanny had kidnapped her child. She was arrested for child neglect forthwith. In a phone call home that night, Casey insisted she was arrested on a whim and complained to a friend that nobody was thinking of her. They were only worried about Caylee.

Since then, this case has been a roller coaster of events. Many tips were called in to police and followed up to no avail. Texas Equusearch searched and nearly went broke. George and Cindy went on television to "keep Caylee's face out there" and ended up spending more air time defending their jailed daughter. Detectives and FBI agents questioned many people. Jose Baez filed motion after motion only to have the vast majority of them denied by Judge Strickland. He also began to assemble a veritable "dream team" while onlookers wondered where the money to defend Casey was coming from. The death penalty was withdrawn. A trial was scheduled for January, 2009.

The mystery of Caylee's disappearance finally ended on December 11, 2008 when her skeletal remains were found down the street and around the corner from the Anthony home.

On February 10, there were two memorials for Caylee. One simple one was held by those unwelcome at the "official" public memorial at the site where Caylee's remains had been found. The other, hosted by the Anthony family took place in a large venue and was fairly well attended. I watched it and felt bad that it was more for Casey than Caylee. While George and Cindy Anthony did pay homage to their granddaughter, they spent considerable time asking those in attendance and those viewing to have compassion for Casey. George even suggested we write her letters. Uncle Lee never mentioned the tot's name once, substituting the homogeneous CMA and left listeners wondering about what had been said and to whom his comments were directed.

Now, the dream team assembled by Baez has grown to include Todd Macaluso of California and the Angel of Death Row, Andrea Lyon. There had been more motions filed and the Anthonys have popped up in the media again with little talk of Caylee and much talk about the innocence of her mother.

There is so little mention of Caylee anymore. There is no one at the motions hearings sitting behind the prosecution in support of the toddler whose death came before she had had the chance to relish her life. Her memorial has been dismantled by some unknown entity. Any respectable cross at the site has been removed or destroyed. We do know who has done that.

Now, it is up to us, strangers who never met Caylee, to stand behind her at the trial. It is up to us, who hoped and prayed she would be found alive, to keep at least her memory alive. There will be a memorial service for Caylee at Blanchard Park; it will not be hosted by the family of the slain toddler. It will be those who came to love her during the past year.

I have been following the latest motions to be filed. I have read all of the discovery. Somehow, my heart hasn't been into writing about them lately. I suppose it's because I keep thinking of Caylee. She's the one who was wronged. She is the one who needs justice.

It's time to focus on Caylee. There will by plenty of time to focus on the trial once the anniversary of her loss has passed.

Melissa Huckaby Finally Pleads

On Tuesday, prosecutors filed a motion requesting the Judge to enter a plea for Huckaby if she refused to. In a short hearing yesterday, Huckaby finally entered a not guilty plea to all charges relating to the rape and death of Sandra Cantu as well as additional drug charges involving another young girl and an adult male.

Huckaby's preliminary hearing begins Sept. 24 and is expected to last at least six days over the course of three weeks, according to Judge Linda Lofthus. The hearing will be held on Thursdays and Fridays for three consecutive weeks.

It was observed that Huckaby smiled several times during the hearing and made small talk.

Meanwhile the custody battle for Huckaby’s daughter continues with her grandparents seeking custody of Madison as well as her biological father, Johnny Huckaby.

The family court case will be heard in Orange County on July 6.

CNN
KCRA
Tracy Press

Phil Spector, Unwigged

The Smoking Gun got the goods on Spector's latest prison photo. Thank you to all the T&T readers who alerted us to the release of his prison mug shot.



Seeing as how Spector's young wife, Rachelle Short told Beth Karas during the first trial that the mass of wild curls on his head was "his real hair," I'm wondering if this is the first time she's seen him without his "weave."

Cesar Laurean and Melissa Huckaby in the News

Laurean
In a brief court appearance on Monday, Cesar Laurean entered a plea of not guilty in the death of 20-year-old Maria Lauterbach.

Lauterbach’s charred remains were found by sheriff's deputies under a fire pit in Laurean's backyard in January 2008. She was eight months pregnant.

In 2007, Lauterbach told military officials that she had been raped by Laurean, but later recanted that story. DNA tests have recently ruled out Laurean as the father of Lauterbach’s unborn child.

A judge has set March 15, 2010 for the trial to begin. Laurean’s defense attorney, Dick McNeal says he has eight pending murder cases and wouldn’t be ready for trial before next year.

McNeal said this is a serious case with a lot of issues and it will take some time to review.

District Attorney Dewey Hudson was not happy after Monday's hearing, saying the trial date is too far away, adding the case should be handled expeditiously.

Laurean is being held in isolation in Onslow County, North Carolina.

WRAL
News14

Huckaby
Deputy District Attorney Thomas Testa filed a motion on Tuesday asking the presiding judge to enter a plea of not guilty and to set a preliminary hearing date for 28-year-old Melissa Huckaby.

Huckaby is due to appear in court for the fourth time at 1:20 pm this Friday and Public Defender Sam Behar has yet to enter a plea for Huckaby. The motion filed Tuesday gives the court the ability to file a plea on her behalf.

Huckaby was arrested on April 10 for allegedly raping and killing 8-year-old Sandra Cantu. Later, additional charges were added that she “furnished a harmful substance” to a 36-year-old man named Daniel Plowman and a 7-year-old girl.

Prosecutors are apparently growing impatient and want to get the case moving referencing statute that “All criminal actions in which … a minor … is the victim … shall be given precedence over all other criminal actions in the order of trial.”

Motion To Set Preliminary Hearing Date
Mercury News
Tracy Press

Day of Reckoning Arrives for Child Psychiatrist

Dr. William Ayres 

A long and winding road toward justice is finally reaching its end. After years of delays, the San Mateo County courthouse in Redwood City will finally begin to hear the voices of 11 former patients who allege they were molested by Dr. William Ayres while undergoing school or court-ordered or parental referred psychotherapy while adolescents (in some cases, as young as elementary school-aged).

A total of 41 former patients of Ayres have gone public with their allegations of abuse at the hands of the physician (or have been identified by the San Mateo County’s DA office), although he is currently charged with molesting seven former patients between 1991 and 1996.

Normal “housekeeping” activities were on the docket this week, including pretrial motions and the assignment of a judge to hear the case. Superior Court Judge Beth Freeman (Department 3, courtroom 2L) has been selected to hear this trial, and jury selection will officially begin on Monday, June 8—a jury of 12 with four alternates. Jury selection may last up to two weeks, and testimony is expected to last 8 to 12 weeks.

Other housekeeping activities included defense attorney Doron Weinberg, prosecutor Melissa McKowan, and the court establishing a definition of the word “masturbation.” As part of an exchange in dialogue between the attorneys and the court, McKowan characterized an incident between Ayres and one of the boys as the physician unzipping the boy’s pants and started “fishing around.” Ayres, whose affect has thus far been as flat and blunted as Phil Spector’s was observed to be during his trials, visibly flinched and turned his face to the wall. Since his arrest, Ayres now uses a walker to get around, and thus far the device has remained in plain view within the defendant’s reach. He is also morbidly obese.

Weinberg also continues his confrontational ways by arranging to have freelance author Victoria Balfour, the civilian whistleblower who was a driving force in getting this case brought to trial, removed from the courtroom, stating she is a potential witness. (Even though Balfour’s knowledge of the case would be considered hearsay, as she didn’t observe the abuse and has never had any contact with the seven victims within statute. Because Balfour is a published author, with works appearing in the New York Times, the Washington Post, People and Vogue, among others, one might argue there are some First Amendments rights being stepped on here by the defense attorney.)

Ayres, now retired at age 77, was arrested in 2007 after an on-and-off investigation that began in 1987. That initial complaint was investigated but no charges were brought against the psychiatrist. Additional alleged victims came foreword in 1994 and 1996.

Ayres claims that physical examinations were a normal thing for him to do, including more than cursory examinations of the boys’ genitalia. Most child psychiatrists today do not perform physical exams on a routine basis. And the young men who allege abuse state that what they experienced was much more than a cursory look or touch—some claim they were masturbated to the point of ejaculation.

The case started moving toward justice again in 2002, when another former patient went public at the urging of his friend, freelance writer Victoria Balfour. That case was in the process of being investigated when the United States Supreme Court made a ruling changing the statute of limitations in sexual abuse cases. Childhood molestation charges can be brought by victims who are younger than 29 or whose alleged abuse occurred after January 1, 1988. The criminal proceedings of that case were dropped and ultimately a civil judgment was brought and awarded against Ayres.

The case took on new life in 2005 thanks Balfour’s own detective work, locating and encouraging former patients of Ayres to speak up about their own abuse, knowing her friend’s abuse (and the complaint brought in 1987) could not possibly have been the only two cases of molestation. Police in San Mateo began to investigate in earnest, executing a search warrant for Ayres’ patients’ records, identifying possible victims of abuse.

Ayres had been treating county-referred patients as recently as 2004.

As a result of pouring over the medical records, identifying possible victims and victims coming forward as part of the investigation, Ayres was arrested in April 2007, and was allowed to post $750,000 bail. He has not been practicing medicine in any form since that time and has allowed his medical license to lapse. While out on bail he has been treated for prostate cancer.

Ayres had been a practicing psychiatrist in San Mateo County since the 1960s where he was one of the few San Mateo County psychiatrists with a subspecialty in child and adolescent psychiatry. He hosted a controversial PBS documentary in 1968 titled “Time of Your Life,” a sex education series geared toward elementary-aged children.

This trial will be the first time most of the alleged victims will be testifying in open court. During a preliminary hearing in 2007, police officers testified in lieu of the former patients, revealing information the men has shared during the investigation, describing their ages and their experiences during their appointments with Ayres. One San Mateo officer testified that one of the young men said Ayres told him no one would believe his stories of abuse—that no one would believe the good doctor had done such a thing, and no one would believe a troubled teenager.

The delay in hearing this trial is not due to any extra time being needed by the San Mateo County District Attorney’s office. This trial has been continued because of Ayres’ health issues, issues within the court, and defense attorney Weinberg’s involvement with the recently concluded Phil Spector case.

The first start date, on March 10, 2008, was postponed in order for Ayres to undergo treatment for prostate cancer. The second start date, June 23, 2008, was cancelled with a state appeals court hearing regarding the admissibility of the patient files as evidence (Weinberg argued using the files as evidence violated the state's psychotherapist-patient privilege, lacked probable cause and permitted constitutionally prohibited searches). The files were ultimately declared admissible. 

The third delay was due to the unexpected withdrawal of Superior Court Judge John Runde from the case, who wisely removed himself from the case because of his antipathy toward Weinberg. While no specific incident has been officially offered as an explanation, the judge does have the right to recuse from a case if he or she feels that there is something that could bias his or her decision-making process. It is possible that Weinberg’s actions during a December 2007 hearing aggravated the judge past the point of no return.

A fourth start date was scheduled for January 2009, but due to scheduling conflicts due to Weinberg’s involvement in the Spector trial, a fifth start date was scheduled for May, which was again delayed because of sentencing in the Spector trial.

There are allegations of abuse going back to the late 1960s, but these of course are well past the statute of limitations and inadmissible. For some of Ayres’ former patients, their only opportunity to speak in front of the court will be at Ayres’ sentencing.

The team at T&T wishes strength to the former patients of this psychiatrist who have been brave enough to follow through and do what is right, for themselves and for the other boys (now young men) who may not yet be strong enough to come forward. You are not the criminal here.

We also hope the First Amendment rights of reporter Victoria Balfour are restored posthaste. 

William Hamilton Ayres Watchdog Site

Citizen Whistleblower Does the Right Thing —From 3,000 Miles Away

Following the William Hamilton Ayres Trial - Revelations in Justice for Patients

Doctor's molestation trial begins

Trial for San Mateo County psychiatrist accused of molestation begins Monday

Child psychiatrist to stand trial in June

Doctor delays molestation hearing

Warrant upheld in doc’s molestation case

Judge in Ayres case recuses himself

'Stain doesn't wash off,' psychiatrist's accuser says

Phil Spector Relocated to DOCR & Rachelle Short's 15 Minutes

UPDATE: June 6th, 2009
Rachelle Short on YouTube speaking to the Associated Press. One has to wonder how dim the bulbs are in Rachelle and Spector's brains after hearing Rachelle talk about the guilty verdict: "... We did not expect this at all. This came as a total shock and total surprise."

June has brought the Los Angeles area some much needed rain and a bit of gloom as well as Rachelle Short (Mrs. Phil Spector) in front of the camera. The good news is, TMZ was the first to break the story that Phil Spector has been moved out of the LA County Jail system and handed over to the State's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Phil's first stop on his way to serving a life sentence is North Kern County State Prison, right outside Delano, which is 30 miles north of Bakersfield, California. That's a boring, 90 minute drive up Interstate 5 to the 99. He will be there for some time under evaluation until a more permanent location is chosen. Our own CaliGirl9 (who knows way more about the California DOCR than I do) weighed in earlier on where he might go, and I've re posted her thoughts, here:

I'd like to throw a new wrinkle into the "where will he go?" question. Back in the days of Court TV, we had a thread going about just this thing. To summarize: he'd first be taken to the county jail, and then likely within 30 days, be transferred to a SoCal intake center (Chino is one). After an evaluation as to which facility would be best, Harv would then be transferred to another facility. I'm still going with my guesses of Vacaville (California Medical Facility), Pleasant Valley (where he might catch valley Fever, a common occurrence) or Soledad, in that order. Corcoran is too tough a place for him, even with the protective housing unit. So it's unlikely he'll be producing music with Charlie Manson. Unless Harv is being treated for drug abuse, in which case he'd end up in Corcoran's drug treatment facility. But I still think CMF's the place. Edmund Kemper is there.

First off, I want to thank all the loyal T&T readers who sent me emails or left comments alerting us to the latest news reports about Spector and the Trial Bride.

Ever since her husband was sentenced to 19 years to life on May 29th of this year and the gag order imposed on her by Judge Larry Paul Fidler during the first trial lifted, Rachelle has been talking to any reporter or gossip show willing to listen. I missed it, but I hear she first showed up on the TV show, Inside Edition. According to Michelle Blaine, in this interview she claimed Spector's empire was worth around 50-million. If Donna Clarkson's attorney's were not aware of the show before, I bet they have a copy of the taped show now. In subsequent reports and interviews, she claimed that Spector is suffering financially and that he would have to take out loans to fund an appeal. (I wonder what "bank" would fund that cause?)

UPI also put out a report online, but it's not clear if this is just a rehash of the Inside Edition interview. It's interesting that UPI reports Rachelle said, "I handle and run all of his businesses. I'm like his protector." One wonders if Spector really has lost his mind if he put a former Jerry's Deli waitress in charge of his supposedly 50-million-dollar empire.

The next interview to show up on the net was one with Miriam Hernandez, of Local ABC Channel 7. I have to add that Miriam Hernandez is a beautiful woman. Tall, slender and each time I saw her down at the Criminal Court building, she was the epitome of a polished professional woman, impeccably dressed. In a section of this video, you can see Rachelle playing that famous white piano. Fortunately for the viewing public, the sound is muted in that area of the tape.

The latest interview with the most interesting information was with Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times. I have to hand it to Harriet; she's the real McCoy and an excellent reporter. I have no idea how she sat through that interview and kept a straight face the entire time.

During his first trial, Spector spent about six months working with famed film producer Vikram Jayanti to produce a documentary on his work. Until recently, the video of the taping could not be seen by anyone in the US. I haven't seen it yet, but I don't think the information in it will be much different that the article that came out in the UK's Daily Mail back in September, 2007.

I personally don't think Rachelle's time in the sun will last very long but who knows, she just may do something tabloid newsworthy in the future. In the mean time, she joins a long list of women who are married to men behind bars, standing behind them through the lonely days (and nights) ahead. It's the perfect arrangement when you think about it. She has all the financial perks (if there are any left) and she no longer has to keep an (alleged) diary of Spector's antics as insurance against future harm.

Thank you T&T reader for the latest from the Associated Press. The reporter who interviewed her is not identified. There is also this interview with Abbey Hood of the Beverly Courier. Here's also a YouTube video about North Kern State Prison.

Haut de la Garenne Abuse Victims Abused Again By Jersey Attorney General

Saddened, but not at all surprised, two of the cases in the historic abuse scandal have been dropped by William Bailhache, stating he had not found sufficient grounds to prosecute either case.

Nine victims gave evidence about the Haut de la Garenne case but Bailhache questioned the credibility of some of it.

He also said the complaints did not support each other enough.

Charges against the Jane and Alan McGuire, who were house parents at a St. Clements home were dropped by the island's Attorney General in 1998 and Bailhache said he had not found sufficient evidence for overturning his predecessor's decision.

This is just wrong on so many levels.

The press had Bailhache’s statement during the afternoon, but it was embargoed until midnight.

Senator Syvret was informed of the cases being dropped and began calling the victims to see how they were and offering his support.

The survivors didn’t know.

They – the most important people involved in this situation - hadn’t been told of the decision.

Jersey oligarchy media had been informed of the story, and are waiting for this afternoon’s embargoed press release – before the survivors were informed that the two maniacs and thugs who abused them will not face justice.

This is abuse – all over again.

The survivors – having been informed by me, contacted the police – who reluctantly admitted that, yes, the McGuires would not face justice, and that their plan had been to call the survivors and inform them this evening.

Yet the cops – under the “New Management” of David Warcup & co – were far more interested in how the survivors found out about the spin-doctoring of the decision.

I am so thoroughly disgusted with the government of Jersey and being a Christian, cannot write what I am thinking their punishment should be.

My heart and prayers go out to the victims, Senator Syvret, Lenny Harper and all the others who tried for justice and closure in this horrific, disgraceful story.

Statement by the Attorney General (Probably not a good idea to read if you have high blood pressure.)
BBC
Senator Stuart Syvret Blog

Phil Spector Civil Case Motions

I finally took a drive to Pasadena and obtained copies of the motions granted and denied on May 26th, in the civil case.

There are about 10 pages to the Clarkson motion that was granted and 18 or so pages to the Spector stay motion that was denied. Since I'm helping Mr. Sprocket with the big work truck today, ~yesterday, he had to rebuild the fuse box from scratch and today the strut and a wood floor will be installed~ I'm only typing out the most interesting parts of the motions.

Plaintiff Motion:

PAGE 1

John C. Taylor, State Bar No. 78389
TAYLOR & RING, LLP
10900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
Los Angeles, California 90024
(telephone #'s & fax # excised)

Roderick J. Lindblom, State Bar No. 153768
LAW OFFICES OF RODERICK J. LINDBLOM
9935 S. Santa Monica Boulevard
Beverly Hills, California 90212
(telephone #'s & fax # excised)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DONNA CLARKSON, individually, and as Successor in Interest to LANA CLARKSON

Plaintiffs,

vs

PHIL SPECTOR, aka PHILLIP SPECTOR, aka HARVEY PHILLIP SPECTOR, and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO. GC034858
[Assigned to the Honorable Jan A. Puim, Dept. P]

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PERMIT PRETRIAL DISCOVERY OF FINANCIAL ASSETS

Date: May 19, 2009
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept.: P

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 19, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon as the matter may be heard in Department P of the above entitled court, located at 300. Walnut Street, Pasadena, California, plaintiff will seek leave to allow discovery of defendant Phil Spector's assets and financial condition pursuant to Civil Code sections 3294(d) and 3295(c).

PAGE 2

The motion is made and based upon the grounds this material is relevant to the subject matter of the action or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, that there is a substantial probability that plaintiff will prevail on her punitive damage claim, and that a prima facia case for an award of punitive damages has been established because the evidence shows that decedent Lana Clarkson died as a result of a homicide for which defendant SPECTOR was convicted of a felony.

PLAINTIFF ALSO REQUESTS JUDICIAL NOTICE pursuant to Evidence Code section 452 of the minute order of April 13, 2009, entered in the criminal case entitiled People v. Phillip Spector, LASC no. BA255233 which establishes that defendant SPECTOR has been convicted of a felony for the death of Lana Clarkson.

The motion is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and on such oral and documentary evidence as may be introduced at the time of the hearing of this motion.

Dated: April 23, 2009

TAYLOR & RING, LLP
By:
(signature)
John C. Taylor
Attorneys for Plaintiff

PAGE 3

INTRODUCTION

This is a wrongful death case arising out of the murder of Lana Clarkson on February 3, 2003. At approximately 2:30 a.m. on February 3, 2003, decedent Lana Clarkson left her job at the House of Blues on Sunset Blvd, in Los Angeles and accompanied defendant SPECTOR to his Alhambra home. Approximately two and one half hours later defendant SPECTOR placed a gun in the mouth of Ms. Clarkson and shot and killed her. At the time SPECTOR killed Ms. Clarkson, she was seated in a chair in a foyer of defendant's home, fully clothed, with her purse over her shoulder.

Defendant confessed to his crime within minutes, telling his chauffeur, who was waiting outside the residence to drive Ms. Clarkson back to her car, "I think I killed somebody."

On April 13, 2009, after a five month jury trial, defendant SPECTOR was convicted of second degree murder (PC 187(A)) with a further finding that SPECTOR committed the murder with a firearm (PC 12022.5(A)(1)). See Minute Order attached as Exhibit A. SPECTOR was remanded to jail where he awaits sentencing on May 29, 2009. SPECTOR is facing an 18 year to life sentence for this crime.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

DISCOVERY OF DEFENDANT'S ASSETS SHOULD BE ALLOWED BECAUSE THE IS A SUBSTANTIAL PROBABILITY THAT PLAINTIFF WILL PREVAIL ON THE ISSUE OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Defendant SPECTOR is potentially liable for punitive damages because he has been convicted of a felony. Civil Code section 3294(d) [punitive damages may be recovered ... based upon a death which resulted from a homicide for which the defendant has been convicted of a felony..."]

"Upon motion by the plaintiff supported by appropriate affidavits and after a hearing, if the court deems a hearing to be necessary, the court may at any time enter an order permitting the discovery otherwise prohibited by this subdividion if the court finds, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that the plaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294." Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105.

PAGE 4

Given the facts of the case and the felony conviction, there is a substantial probability that plaintiff will prevail in her claim for punitive damages.

Discovery into SPECTOR's asssets should not be delayed.

In light of the ruling in Adams, supra, it has been recognized that "it will be necessary to conduct extensive discovery of the defendant's finances, assets and holdings." Douglas v. Ostemier (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 729, 747. The Adams court expressly encouraged the use of pretrial discovery, "The plaintiff may also obtain pretrial discovery of [financial] information. 'Like the Colt revolver made all men in the west the same size, discovery procedures reduce the advantage the giant corporations [or any defendant] otherwise have over the individual plaintiff in litigation, and if the goal is a large verdict, such discovery procedures should not be used sparingly.' (Citation.) We see no reason why it is even slightly unfair to require a plaintiff to use the procedures available." 54 Cal.3d at 122.

Discovery into defendant SPECTOR'S assets may require such extensive efforts and should not be delayed until after the commencement of trial. George v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 52, 119 [noting that a recess of several months would be necessary to avoid unnecessarily prolonging the trial]. Indeed, in light of the mandate of C.C. 3295(d) that "[e]vidence of profit and financial condition shall be presented to the same trier of fact that found for the plaintiff" discovery must be allowed now to avoid any potential recess so that plaintiff will be ready to present evidence during the punitive damage phase of trial.

The motion should be granted because:

(1) financial information material is relevant to the subject matter of the action or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence;

(2) there is a substantial probability that plaintiff will prevail on perpunitive damage claim; and

PAGE 5

(3) a prima facie case for an award of punitive damages has been established because of defendant's felony conviction.

Dated: April 23, 2009

TAYLOR & RING, LLP
By:
(signature)
John C. Taylor
Attorneys for Plaintiff

__________________

Defendant Motion:

CALENDO, PUCKETT, SHEEDY, & DICORRADO
701 North Brand Boulevard - Suite 300
Glendale, California 92103
(telephone #'s & fax # excised)

C.M. Sheedy, Equ. - Bar No. 113611
Attorneys for Defendant
PHIL SPECTOR
0214-0072CMS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DONNA CLARKSON, individually, and as Successor in Interest to LANA CLARKSON

Plaintiffs,

vs

PHIL SPECTOR, aka PHILLIP SPECTOR, aka HARVEY PHILLIP SPECTOR, and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO. GC034858, Assigned to Dept. P, Judge Jan Pluim

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY INCLUDING INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR IDENTIFICATION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND THE TAKING OF DEFENDANT'S DEPOSITION, OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO EXTEND THE TIME OT RESPOND TO REQUESTS FOR WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND TO PREVENT THE TAKING OF DEFENDANT'S DEPOSITION FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST 120 DAYS; DECLARATIONS OF C.M. SHEEDY AND DORON WEINBERG; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Date:
Time:
Dept:

Complaint Filed: 2/2/05
Trial Date: None Set

TO ALL PARTIES AND/OR THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on ______________, 2009, at _______ a.m., in Department "P" of this Court, located at 300 East Walnut

PAGE 2

Street, Pasadena, California, Defendant Phil Spector (Hereinafter referred to as "Mr. Spector") will move this Court for an order staying discovery specifically, any Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Identification and Production of Documents and Request for Admissions propounded by any party and the taking of Mr. Spector's deposition in this action until all issues related to the criminal proceedings arising out of this incident have been resolved. Alternatively, Mr. Spector moves for a protective order extending the time to respond to requests for written discovery and to prevent the taking of Mr. Spector's deposition for a period of at least 120 days.

This motion is made on the grounds that Mr. Spector's sentencing hearing is scheduled for May 29, 2009. It is anticipated Mr. Spector will be rquesting a new trial at the time of his sentencing hearing or perfecting an appellate right. This will likely necessitate the continuance of the sentencing hearing. In light of the gravity of the criminal proceedings, it would be prejudicial to proceed with discovery in the civil matter until all related criminal issues have been resolved.

THIS MOTION WILL BE BASED upon this Notice, upon the Declarations of C.M. SHEEDY and DORON WEINBERG, attached hereto and filed and served herewith; upon the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities; and upon such matter of which this Court may take judicial notice, as may be set forth hereinafter.

PAGE 3

DATED: May 4, 2009

CALENDO, PUCKETT, SHEEDY & DiCORRADO By:
(signature)
C.M. Sheedy
Attorneys for Defendant
PHIL SPECTOR

PAGE 4, line 1; lines 15 - 27

DECLARATION OF C.M. SHEEDY

4. On or about April 13, 2009, a jury returned a verdict of "guilty" for second degree murder. Mr. Spector was taken into custody. He is scheduled to return to court on May 29th, 2009 for sentencing. Defense counsel is not privy to the confidential criminal proceedings, or strategies by Mr. Spector's crimnal attorneys, but it is anticipated Mr. Spector will likely be requesting a new trial at the time of his sentencing hearing or perfecting an appellate right. This will likely necessitate the continuance of the sentencing hearing. Mr. Spector will have 60 days from the sentencing hearing to file a Notice of Appeal, but the actual dates set by the criminal court vary, especially in high profile and lengthy matters such as the one concerning Mr. Spector.

PAGE 5, lines 4-28

6. On or about April 27, 2009, in a good faith effort to meet and confer on the issues and prevent the necessity of a motion, I wrote to Plaintiff's attorneys and requested they stipulate to stay discovery, namely the service of Form Interrogatories, Inspection Demands, Request for Admissions and the taking of Mr. Spector's deposition for 120 days. Plaintiff's counsel advised he would not agree to a further stay of the discovery process.

7. Mr. Spector intends to invoke his privileges not to testify against himself until all issues regarding the criminal action has been resolved. He cannot engage in discovery in this present action without being compelled to waive his privileges against self-incrimination under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

8. Mr. Spector will be severely and irreparably prejudiced if required to proceed with discovery in this civil action where his deposition testimony and/or responses to written discovery can potentially be used against him in the criminal action.

9. On behalf of Mr. Spector, I respectfully request that the Court grant an order staying discovery specifically, any Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Identification and Production of Documents and Request for Admissions propounded by any party and the taking of Mr. Spector's deposition in this action until the completion of all issues related to the criminal proceedings have been resolved.

PAGE 7 (Exhibit)

DECLARATION OF DORON WEINBERG

I, DORON WEINBERG, declare:

1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am representing PHIL SPECTOR with regard to the criminal case which arises from the February 3, 2003 incident.

2. Due to the gravity of the charges pending gainst Mr. Spector, he will not be permitted to testify at deposition or respond to any form of written discovery which related to the February 3, 2003 incident. This is due to the potential impact it could have on Mr. Spector's pending crimnal case. If Plaintiff's counsel attempts to inquire at deposition or propound any written discovery in that regard, Mr. Spector will be asserting his right against self-incrimination, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution. This right will be asserted until the appeal process in the criminal case has been completed.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I executed this declaration on May 3, 2009 at San Francisco, California.

(signature)
DORON WIENBERG
Declarant

-----end of transcription of motions

It will be interesting to finally see what Spector's financial position really is at this point. It's my understanding that Taylor & Ring have an excellent reputation in ferreting out hidden assets.

UK Sunday Express Online Says Phil Spector "Twittering" from Jail

Spector Twittering?
The UK Sunday Express posted an article yesterday claiming Phil Spector had an iPod and a laptop computer while incarcerated and was leaving comments on a "Twitter" account.

At 12:30 pm today, I spoke to the Watch Commander at the Twin Towers facility and asked him to verify the claim that Spector had an iPod and computer in his possession. His response was, "Absolutely not."

While the Twitter comments "may be" statements Phil Spector has shared with someone who has visited him or spoke to him on the phone at the jail, they are not being posted by him directly.

It's my understanding that Spector will be transferred into State custody at the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation within the next two weeks.

Clarkson vs. Spector, Civil Case
On May 26th, the court granted a motion by Donna Clarkson's civil attorneys, John Taylor and Rod Lindblom to conduct a financial discovery of Spector's assets. The same day, a motion to stay the civil case was denied. I hope to have copies of those motions up later on the blog. It is my understanding that Doron Weinberg has filed a memorandum that Spector will plead the 5th in the civil matter pending an appeal in his criminal case.