Prosecution Post-Mortem—What I Still Want to Know

Methinks the trial of former child psychiatrist Dr. William Ayres is moving along far quicker than anyone anticipated. In what came to me as somewhat of a surprise, the prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Melissa McKowan rested her case-in-chief on Wednesday.

Now that the prosecution has rested (after a one-day recess due to the unavailability of a witness until that final day), defense attorney Doron Weinberg will now be “controlling the show” and the case will now become that of “dueling experts” and “character witnesses,” and I suspect that naturally some of those character witnesses will be colleagues of the good doctor, along with former patients, prepared to testify that “he didn’t do anything to me!”

(Of course this will carry no weight whatsoever if the former patient character witness is a female.)

There are a couple of knowledge gaps that, if filled in, may help a juror in believing the witnesses with more confidence. I understand that perhaps some of these concerns are things that cannot be brought into evidence, or addressed in rebuttal, but I’m going to throw these ideas out there, much like a good defense attorney, and see how many might stick.

Knowledge gap #1: Did Dr. Ayres see troubled girls? What did their physical exams consist of? What were their “icebreakers” on the table of models that so many of the trial’s witnesses have testified to? Survivors of Dr. Ayres’ therapy can’t recall anything “girly” on the table—just models and puzzles geared toward boys’ interests.

(Imagine the horror of Dr. Ayres playing with a Barbie doll to break the ice with a young girl. Ick. Just ick.)

Knowledge gap #2: Regarding Stephen’s testimony, I believe that two reports were erroneously filled out at the Petaluma group home, and by accident or inattention or lack of education on the part of the person filling out the reports, Stephen’s name was attached. He adamantly testified that the incidents described in the reports did not happen, and that no, he did not forget or make a false claim because the incidents did not happen to him! Period!

So who did the incidents happen to? How many other boys named “Stephen” or “Steven” or any other way of spelling that name were at the group home at the time? What was the position of the person who filled out the report? Was that person a witness to the incident? Why wasn’t Stephen’s counselor’s name on the reports?

Still sticking with Stephen (whom I believe could be a problem witness if someone on the jury bought into Weinberg’s “lack of moral turpitude” remarks during opening arguments), I have gone on record being grateful that McKowan was able for Stephen to introduce testimony about how much he might have given up by choosing to testify. He really had nothing to gain (other than his peace of mind)—he very well could have lost his place at the Jamestown fire camp if there had been a fire! He was in San Mateo County’s custody for some time before he testified. He will not be doing any less time for testifying.

Knowledge gap #3: Harping on the lack of wearing gloves—I’ve already written about how things used to be, when I was in nursing school in the early 1980s, that we were discouraged from wearing gloves for assisting patients after elimination because we didn’t wear gloves to take care of our own poo, so why is someone else’s poo so poisonous? With HIV and AIDS and increased knowledge regarding blood or bodily-fluid borne pathogens, medical personnel (which of course is not only nurses but also M.D.s) have updated their own standards of practice and adopted universal precautions, even if that goes against what he or she learned in school. A clinician would have to have been on an island without any communication to not know about universal precautions! So if Dr. Ayres had not worn gloves to examine boys' genitals in the 1960s and 1970s, that was standard practice back then. But by the end of the 1980s, universal precautions were the medical standard. There is no arguing with that.

So what’s the significance of the good doctor not wearing gloves? Other than protecting himself and the boys from possible bodily fluid-born infections, go back to what Dr. Lynn Ponton said. “A physical exam is not for the doctor’s benefit.” By touching the boys’ genitals, skin-to-skin, that sure tells me we are dealing with an intimate situation and exams that were done for the doctor’s benefit—in other words, his own sick fantasies and arousal.

What if this had been gloveless internal exams of female patients? There is no question that is not proper, has not been proper, even before universal precautions!

Knowledge gap #4: Sometime during closing arguments I hope McKowan is able to remind the jury of the nature of one of the in-statute witnesses’ “gay sex” when he was in third grade. How did Dr. Ayres’ exam influence the boy? Well, gay sex was a sort of reverse euphemism for “playing doctor.” The boy simply learned how to do a genital exam, something he had no business experiencing in the first place. There was really no better way to describe what the boy and two friends had done (not all at the same time!).

The young man is question is definitely heterosexual, and has never had a true “gay sex” relationship. It sucks that there was no proper description of what this survivor’s gay sex at age 9 really was—what the game consisted of before his exposure to Dr. Ayres, and how the game changed after a visit and his own “physical exam.”

Knowledge gap #5: One of the prior bad acts witnesses described Ayres holding what he presumed was a medical book with black and white photographs of naked boys. Perhaps the jury will wonder more about that book? The witness described the book as having captions and the boys were not posed. Which one of the not allowed as evidence books fits this description?

Knowledge gap #6: Self-inflicted errors: Perhaps it was a clever strategy to subpoena Victoria Balfour. Perhaps she should have been deposed a long time ago to see if she had anything of value for either side. But for Weinberg to bring her up during cross-examination of one of the “propensity to molest” witnesses might have a juror or two wondering. No doubt someone wrote down her name; Weinberg even spelled it for the court reporter. That’s going to be something someone might bring up during deliberations? If this person was so important to mention, why didn’t we hear from her or more about her? Is this a case of a defense attorney throwing crap on the walls and hoping some sticks? (That view gets my vote.)

Knowledge gap #7: We know the good doctor saw patients referred to him by the juvenile system. Why have none been called? Are they all out-of-statute? Are their records sealed? Or did Dr. Ayres only molest middle- or upper-middle class boys?

Because of the great cross-pollination we have going between T & T and the Watchdog site, a few of the defense witnesses have been revealed. We all know about controversial memory expert Dr. Elizabeth Loftus (not an M.D.-type of doctor, but a Ph.D.-type doctor). The prosecution is pretty much going to have to accept her as a “memory expert” because of her profitable history as an expert witness for the defense.

But a couple of the others might just be easier to not accept as expert witnesses. Dr. Marvin Firestone will be testifying that Dr. Ayres does not “fit the profile” of a pedophile. Geez, with what we’ve heard in court, if Dr. Ayres doesn’t fit the profile, who does?

Dr. Firestone is also a resident of San Mateo County who is probably not too terribly objective where Dr. Ayres is concerned. According to The Patient Advocate, in a post at the Watchdog site, here’s the low-down on Firestone: Dr. Firestone provides medical-legal consultation and neuropsychiatric evaluations for the Courts and the legal community and has served as expert witness on numerous cases involving head injuries and post-traumatic stress syndromes, conservatorship needs, testamentary capacity and mental competency in civil, probate and criminal matters.

Please read the previous sentence carefully. Did you read anything about being an expert on who fits the profile of a pedophile? Me neither. Challenge this expert witness’ credentials, Ms. McKowan!

Granted, if Dr. Firestone uses the information posted on About.com’s “Profile of a Pedophile,” Dr. Ayres isn’t a perfect fit—but what criminal ever is?

That article has, in bold text, the following subheads: Pedophiles Often Prefer Children Close to Puberty, Pedophiles Work Around Children, Manipulation of the Innocent. Hmmmmm. Describes Dr. Ayres pretty well …

The article concludes with the following paragraphs: Pedophiles work hard at stalking their targets and will patiently work to develop relationships with them. It is not uncommon for them to be developing a long list of potential victims at any one time. Many of them believe that what they are doing is not wrong and that having sex with a child is actually "healthy" for the child. Almost all pedophiles have a collection of pornography, which they protect at all costs. Many of them also collect "souvenirs" from their victims. They rarely discard either their porn or collections for any reason.

One factor that works against the pedophile is that eventually the children will grow up and recall the events that occurred. Often pedophiles are not brought to justice until such time occurs and victims are angered by being victimized and want to protect other children from the same consequences.

In an article titled “A Profile of the Child Molester,” the reader will learn there is no tidy, one-size-fits-all description of the “average” pedophile. But this article observes that most pedophiles are male, take jobs where they have easy access to children, and most often choose kids on the brink of puberty.

Another article offers several characteristics to look for. Pedophiles “appear to be trustworthy and respectable. Has good standing in the community.” They “are usually family men, have no criminal record, and deny that they abuse children, even after caught, convicted, incarcerated, and court-ordered into a sex offender program.”

It appears that Dr. Firestone will be fairly easy to dismantle, provided DDA McKowan has done her homework or has her own “what is a pedophile expert witness lying around for rebuttal.

Another expert witness, Dr. Gilbert Kliman, is expected to testify that what Ayres did was within the standard of practice for psychiatry. What is sad about this fellow’s involvement is the fact he’s worked with molestation victims who were the prey of priests (no pun intended). So it seems he may be just like any other defense witness—willing to put your sense of what’s right and what’s wrong to the side for the almighty dollar.

McKowan had better ask how much these experts are being paid. She wisely opened that door with Dr. Ponton, so keep up that strategy.

Look, I understand that the practice of medicine is incestuous. I know that it takes more than an act of God for any physician to say that one of his or her colleagues made an error, let alone that person committed a crime, a betrayal of trust between doctor and patient (one could argue that both the victim’s family and the pedophile’s family is betrayed, too.). Being a mandated reporter is not something these people take seriously.

Having an “expert witness” who has also worked with the accused takes even more credibility away from what he or she has to say. How many of those expert witnesses can live with themselves, saying what they are prepared to say, after reading depositions by any of Ayres’ survivors?

Perhaps the good doctor would have a better chance of convincing a jury that he’s not a pedophile by obtaining an expert witness who hasn’t ever been on the faculty of the same medical school, or who’s known him for a long time.

The biggest thing about this whole sad case is common sense. I have a feeling common sense doesn’t play much part in the law though. This case is all very simple: If your son had gone to a psychiatrist for the reasons the witnesses (all of them) went to the psychiatrist, would you be comfortable with what had been done to your son, most of the time without specific consent. It’s utterly understandable if one of the boys had voiced a concern about the normalcy of something he was experiencing as part of adolescence—let’s say, for example, wet dreams, pubic hair, or a lump in his testes. What does a penis and testes have to do with concerns over ADD/ADHD?

Think about it: how many times did the doctor betray his patients’ and their parents’ trust? First, most did not give consent for a physical exam in the first place. NO ONE gave consent for a genital exam; none of the parents were given a report regarding their son’s physical exam, let alone genital exam, and the boys themselves weren’t really told why they were getting the exam as it fit in their presumptive diagnosis. (Please? Self-esteem issues and you need to fondle a kid’s genitals? I didn’t even go to medical school and I can see that’s wrong!)

What questions do you have that you’d like to have come out in testimony. Don’t worry about admissibility; the courts will take care of that. What do you need to know to help you believe in Dr. Ayres’ guilt or innocence?

And in the off-case that Dr. Ayres would take the stand in his own defense, what would you like to ask him?

Readers, please remember to keep your comments on-topic. This is a case about child molestation—keep your comments confined to issues concerning Dr. Ayres and the survivors of his “therapy.”Friday July 3, 2009: No Court Today, But Will Ayres Take The Stand Next Week?
Last former patient testifies in trial of Dr. William Ayres
Defense begins in molestation trial

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

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

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

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

Dr. William Ayres (with a woman who declined to give her name) at a court appearance in 2007 (Associated Press photo)

Everyone has experienced it—you see or hear about a blatant crime and you think or say aloud, “Someone should do something about that!” The crime can be as simple as a reckless driver weaving in and out of traffic (“Where is the highway patrol when you need them? But if I pick up the cell phone while the car is moving, and I get caught, I’ll get a ticket!”), to an acquaintance bragging about how he’s not paid income taxes in 10 years (“I’m scrimping to pay my taxes and this fool is getting away with not paying! Not fair! But what can I do to not bring attention to myself?”)

Most of the time we shrug it off and assume, “Oh well, he/she will get caught eventually.”

But in 2005, journalist and human rights activist Victoria Balfour made the decision not to turn away and wait for someone else to initiate justice. A chance encounter with an unemployed photo researcher in 2002 was the beginning of Balfour’s involvement with a child molestation case on the other side of the United States—a case (unfortunately) 40 years in the making.

During an innocent conversation between the New York-based Balfour and her friend "Steve," who’d contacted Balfour through a mutual friend looking for advice on how to start a freelance writing career, Steve asked Balfour what kind of writing she had done in the past. A former feature writer for publications such as People and Ladies’ Home Journal, Balfour had recently begun to specialize in personal reflection essays, and mentioned a piece she’d done about her grandmother’s eating disorder that had been published in Vogue. In the article Balfour mentioned that she’d been molested as a child, and she told Steve how enraged her parents were that she’d mentioned that in the piece.

Steve blurted out that he’d been molested too—at the age of 12, by a child psychiatrist in San Mateo, California.

After a few conversations, Balfour was able to coax much of the horrific story out of the man. Steve was a patient of Dr. William Ayres for five years as a teen, though he’d managed to blank out much of that time period. He wasn’t able to wipe out the specific memory of the details of his abuse—and neither he nor Balfour then knew it was a pattern of abuse starting in 1966 with possibly hundreds of troubled teenage boys.

Steve stated as part of his therapy, Ayres asked him if he masturbated. The boy answered that he did, and Ayres then asked if he ever got “sore” from it. The good doctor then produced a bottle of lotion he claimed would help with the soreness, and proceeded to stimulate the boy to ejaculation, all the while assuring him that this was a normal part of therapy.

Balfour listened to Steve, and finally encouraged him to report the crime to San Mateo police, which he did in September 2002. This was not the first time the authorities had heard accusations against Ayres—the first known complaint against the child psychiatrist was filed in 1987. San Mateo police investigated that claim (the molestation occurred in 1985), deemed it unfounded, and it was never reported to prosecutors. Evidence from that complaint, including the police file and a check from Ayres for $1000 sent to the boy’s mother as an “accounting error” was reported missing in 2005.

A pair of complaints were received in 1994, with one victim filing his complaint with the state medical board and the second, an inmate in Folsom Prison, telling a nurse he’d been molested by Ayres during court-ordered sessions. The person filing the medical board complaint claimed he’d been abused in 1966, but board investigators have been unable to locate the man. The Folsom inmate has refused to cooperate with investigators.

San Mateo police were taking Steve’s complaint seriously, but the investigation came to an abrupt halt when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a California state law that had retroactively extended the statute of limitations for child molestation cases.

Steve then sought relief in civil court, and received a settlement of $395,000 from Ayres in 2005. Still trying to find a way to stay in control, Ayres tried to influence the selection of a trustee for the funds and wanted an annual report on how the money was spent—claiming he wanted the money used on treatment and not however the family wished to spend it. The court denied Ayres’ demands.

During the civil case, Balfour continued to act as an investigator, pursuing leads using tools learned as a journalist, including posting messages on various boards. By 2005 she’d located 15 possible victims of Ayres, and began to push the San Mateo County authorities to take action.

In the fall of 2005, one alleged victim contacted Balfour by e-mail and wrote: “I’m not strong enough to pursue anything. It makes me very depressed. The (San Mateo) police, courts, city officials will never tell the truth. It will make them look bad. No way will they do that for me.” Two weeks later he was dead, killed in a motorcycle crash.

Balfour went into overdrive, e-mailing San Mateo Police Captain Mike Callagy, asking that they find a way to locate new possible victims of Ayres, who was no longer receiving San Mateo County Juvenile Court referrals (but only since December 2003!). Balfour turned over her list of possible victims, along with contact information and dates of alleged molestation, which detailed a pattern of abuse inflicted upon vulnerable teenage boys.

A few days after she turned over the information, Captain Callagy e-mailed Balfour and wrote, “I know the amount of work that you put (into) this has been unbelievable. I am personally going to write the search warrant.”

In March 2006, police served a search warrant on Ayres’ home and a storage locker, seizing a total of 800 patient records. Ayres was arrested because of evidence of abuse on three boys within the statute of the law. Following his arrest, Ayres was charged with molesting four additional boys.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle , after charges against Ayres had been filed, more than a dozen former patients stepped forward with claims that they’d also been victims of abuse.

In an article in the SF Chronicle, Captain Callagy said of the pending court case: “What is most important is that these victims came forward. I don’t know if the victims would have come forward without her (Balfour’s) encouragement.”

The criminal case against Dr. William Ayres, now 77 years of age, was filed in April 2007. On August 7, 2007, San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Jonathan Karesh ruled that there is probable cause to believe that Ayres molested seven male patients between the ages of 8 and 13, between the years of 1988 and 1996.

Deputy District Attorney Melissa McKowan presented evidence of abuse on 22 former patients of Ayres via testimony of police officers who had questioned the men.

As of August 2007, more than three dozen men have publicly accused Ayres of molestation, but California law now required that those charges be brought before the accuser turns 29 years of age (if it occurred after January 1, 1988). If the crime happened before 1988, it has to be prosecuted within eight years.

Ayres’ defense attorney—a name we know well at T & T—Doron Weinberg questions the reliability and credibility of the witnesses, one of whom is serving time at San Quentin. Weinberg has successfully deployed the delay delay delay tactic in this case, and has recently petitioned the court—and received—yet another delay. The trial was to commence on May 11, but because Weinberg is “busy” with the sentencing of Phil Spector, the start date for Ayers’ trial was moved yet again to June 1, when a group of fine citizens of San Mateo County will show up for jury duty.

And yes, Victoria Balfour plans to spend her summer in Northern California, as a witness to the proceedings, and an advocate for those who did not think justice was possible.

More to come, including additional background on the case and closer look at the career of Dr. William Ayres. T & T will likely have a blogger in place for opening and closing arguments, and also plans to post regular reports on this case from San Mateo Superior Court in Redwood City.

Retired child psychiatrist facing molest charges was never far from controversy

Case against psychiatrist took years to assemble: Writer and advocate for alleged victims pushed molest probe

Retired child psychiatrist must stand trial: Judge rules there is probable cause in molest allegations