One of Jerry Sandusky's adult sons faces multiple charges of sexual offenses involving children, more than five years after the former Penn State assistant coach was himself first arrested.Bail was set at $200,00. Read the entire article HERE.
Court records filed Monday say 41-year-old Jeffrey S. Sandusky was charged with 14 counts, including criminal solicitation and corruption of minors.
And everyone thought the Phil Spector trial took forever to bring in front of a jury and resolve! The failed prosecution of accused child molester Dr. William Ayres makes Spector’s trial look like a speedy one! Ayres was originally arrested in 2007 and has been out on bail ever since.
I personally covered much of this trial the summer of 2009, which ended up in a hung jury on all nine counts. One count was hung 11 to 1—and that reliable hold-out juror was a recent law school graduate who believed nothing had been proven. I have no idea how she came to that conclusion, but then again, I have no idea how Spector I ended up hung or Casey Anthony ended up acquitted.
After noted defense attorney Doron Weinberg did the very best he could with a stinker of a case by managing to convince just one juror of reasonable doubt, the San Mateo County (San Francisco Bay Area, California) District Attorney’s office elected to retry Ayres, and the wheels were put in motion for a retrial. Ayres’ new attorney Jonathan McDougall proved quite masterful at the art of delay and delay tactics (and why not—Ayres remains at large on bail, living the good life, attending the opera in San Francisco, wandering the streets with his wife). McDougall’s most brilliant idea was to question Ayres’ competency to stand re-trial in the first place, and earlier this year, he managed to take his case of “poor infirm Dr. Ayres cannot assist in his own defense” in front of a jury to determine his competency. That trial ended in a hung jury as well, with the majority of jurors leaning toward Ayres’.
Meanwhile, a third survivor of Ayres’ psychotherapy with genital exam died by his own hand this past weekend. Earlier this year one survivor, Mark Doe, died from internal bleeding (complications of alcoholism) after being punched by his roommate. For Mark Doe, there had been numerous attempts at therapy as an adult. In therapy, Mark Doe stated that Ayres plied the then-13-year old with alcohol and drugs and told him, "If you let me do this to you, I will make sure you don't go to juvenile hall."
As always, I encourage readers to stop by Deep Sounding’s blog for the latest on this case. I have been asked to inform T & T readers about a strategy meeting to be held in Redwood City this coming Saturday, August 13, 2011, at 5 p.m. If you or someone you love is a victim of Dr. William Ayres "psychiatric services" at any time during his career (which started in Boston and continued in San Mateo County), you are encouraged to contact organizers of the meeting. This meeting is not a support group meeting—it is a strategy meeting for victims of Ayres to voice how they feel the case should proceed. Your anonymity will be fully protected at the meeting, and your voice will be heard. Please contact deepsounding@gmail.com or trapellar@gmail.com for information regarding the specific location.
The San Mateo County District Attorney’s office has not announced or made a decision regarding the continued prosecution of this case, even though the same six men who testified the summer of 2009 are all ready to take on round two of justice. Unfortunately the issue of competence must be resolved before the criminal trial can be re-heard.
There are rumors that Ayres has been seen out and about town, driving himself hither and yon, enjoying his life free from his crippling dementia. If any local residents have any Ayres sightings while he is out-and-about in the community, seemingly unimpaired, snap a photo and please contact deepsounding@gmail.com or trapellar@gmail.com.
Ayres thread on Websleuths
I did not attend, but Deep Sounding, the owner of the William Ayres Watch blog, and a survivor of Ayres’ fine doctoring (note sarcasm), did. He has written a very detailed account of the proceedings and offered a candid analysis. Please read his excellent entry and offer him your opinion at his blog. It is one of his most passionate entries since a mistrial was declared on July 27, 2009.
The retrial is scheduled for April 12, 2010 unless McDougall figures out a way to keep the delay, delay, delay tactic that Weinberg so successfully employed, managing to have the date of Ayres 1.0 re-scheduled four times.
Last month it was revealed that Boston police are looking for victims of Ayres who may have been treated at the Judge Baker Guidance Center between 1959 to 1963. Unlike California, Massachusetts has no statute of limitations on child molestation allegations and has successfully prosecuted cases of molestation by priests that occurred in the 1950s.
I do plan on attending as much of Ayres 2.0 as my personal economics and physical abilities permit.
November 17th Criminal Trial Motions Hearing
Defense wants jury IDs in molestation mistrial
T & T’s coverage of Ayres case
Dr. William Ayres in a San Mateo County courtroom prior to his molestation trial in June, 2009. By the time of the actual molestation trial, he'd graduated to using a walker to toodle around the courthouse hallways.Today in San Mateo County Superior Court, the child molestation re-trial of child psychiatrist William Ayres was officially deemed a “go,” with Deputy District Attorney Melissa McKowan eager to set a date.
Not so fast. Our old friend Doron Weinberg asked for a two-week continuance, so it appears he’s signed on for Ayres 2.0. Potential dates have been discussed in chambers, so one of those yet unknown to us dates will be it.
Another hearing will be held on September 11 in Judge Beth Freeman’s courtroom. I suspect I will be reunited with Caltrain in January …
San Mateo County Superior Court in Redwood City, California
Salvador Dali's "The Persistence of Memory," 1931.
It’s difficult to sit through what I sat through today.
I am not going to say that my mind was changed today by anything either attorney said; I still believe these exams performed by child psychiatrist Dr. William Ayres were unwarranted (from MY experience as a nurse) and that these exams constituted “bad touch” (lewd and lascivious behavior), even though the boys did not understand the difference until adulthood. Think about this: what if these men did not understand what had happened to them was wrong? Could they have been perpetuating what happened to them?
Before the jury was even brought in, defense attorney Doron Weinberg made a motion to withdraw the statute of limitations proof. I am going to be brutally honest here and say I’m not sure what this meant. Initially I thought it had to do with jury instructions, removing a potentially confusing clause. I welcome an attorney clarifying this.
And jury instructions, while really quite simple, are made complex by attorney speak.
Right off the bat we learned there are 9 counts, not 10. Initially there had been 20, but one witness backed out at the very last minute. On day 1 we were told that child psychiatrist Dr. William Ayres faced 10 counts; today we learned it’s nine counts if lewd and lascivious behavior on a child younger than 14 years of age. We also learned there is the possibility of lesser charges—that of simple battery. The jury may convict of neither, or 288 (a) or simple battery—not both.
There are three counts associated with the molestation of Orion B, two counts on Scott T, and one count on the remaining four in-statute victims.
Each charge stands on its own, and just because the facts say guilty with one charge on one victim does not mean the other charges were proved. Each count is it’s own and to be considered on its own merits.
As I’m understanding the difference between the CA PC 288(a) and the lesser charges is intent, period. For the 288(a) charge to stick, the juror must first think an inappropriate touch did happen, and then that touch was done with the intent to provide sexual gratification to either the boy or the doctor. Well, we know the boys know they weren’t gratified, they were mortified, but being mere children in the presence of an adult who is a doctor and an ally to their parents, what are the boys going to do?
Some interesting highlights to the jury instructions (which will be completed tomorrow after the prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Melissa McKowan, finishes her closing arguments):
1. The inappropriate touching does not have to occur with the victim being naked.
2. The jury is not to speculate as to why Stephen S testified in chains (he’s serving six years at a California Department of Corrections fire camp).
3. The doctor is not on trial for poor medical practice. Standard of care is not what is on trial—it’s all about the molestation of the boys.
4. It is not necessary to prove the doctor himself was aroused/erect (something impossible to prove or disprove).
5. Why would the ten men who testified do so, knowing it would be difficult and in public? What did they have to gain? (Only one has a civil suit in the works, and he's been deposed in the prior settled civil suit.)
Of course there are explanations of what is direct and circumstantial evidence—and everything in this case is based on someone’s memory, except for the testimony of the expert witnesses.
McKowan was dressed for success today—an attractive black pantsuit with studded accents, her hair pulled back for business. She is a chart-thinker, which I think helps keep the jury’s attention and lets them visualize a thought process.
“If this is an accepted practice (doing genital exams on boys being seen for ADD/ADHD, enuresis, or self-esteem/aggression issues), where are witnesses who can testify to this?” said McKowan.
She also wondered aloud, “if Dr. Ayres taught his students at USF that they were supposed to do genital exams on psychiatric patients, where are those practitioners to support that practice?”
A 288 charge involves a simple touch anywhere on the child, including touch on the shoulder or fondling of hair—and the defendant’s mental state at the time must be because he or she is seeking sexual gratification.
A 288 (a) charge involves substantial sexual conduct—it raises the degree of touching. There must be an intent to arouse, appeal to the child or adult’s sexual desires. Full penetration/ejaculation/orgasm is not required of either the victim or perp.
Please check out Deep Sounding’s blog for additional specifics. Some points that stood out to me were DDA McKowan’s rhetorical questions: If these exams were necessary to the treatment plan to boys in psychiatric care, why weren’t girls given the same exams? If these exams were medically necessary, why were the results not discussed with the parents or the boys? Why is it only paid witnesses who say that genital exams are okay?
There are more reasons to not do a genital exam on a child in a psychiatric setting than there are to do those exams. Every boy in this case had his own pediatrician who did his physical exams and met the boy and his family’s medical care needs. Dr. Ayres was not the primary care doctor for any of the boys. There were no precautions taken to endure the boy’s mental health during the exams—the exams were not performed on a proper exam table in a proper exam room (they were performed on a regular table where the doctor and the boys would do puzzles and build models). There were no measures to preserve the boys’ modesty. In the case of the two boys whose medical records did exist, there was no tie-in as to how the genital exam would impact the treatment plan.
To me that statement says much. Even in a nursing capacity, you would not do an exam on a patient’s genital area if they complained of chest pain, or even abdominal pain. Looking at a person’s genitals, let alone touching them, is an extraordinary and invasive thing to do. One can argue that the boys’ own pediatricians had ruled out any physical explanations to the boys’ problems and behaviors (especially the boy with enuresis). Two of the men who were molested have Kleinfelter’s syndrome (one was diagnosed in utero; the other after his treatment with Ayres). Neither were offering any complaints of complications of their genetic disorder—they were too young for hormone treatment when they treated with Ayres.
McKowan also very cleverly used expert witness Dr. Elizabeth Loftus’ testimony to her benefit. An excellent tactic—some of the statements certainly support what the witnesses said.
This is not to say Weinberg was 100 ineffective. There is no way he’d ever want someone like me on a jury, because he is very learned about the medical/memory issues in this case. He can be very convincing … I have no doubt that he is an excellent barrister, and when he's given something to work with, he's an effective defense attorney. I would not hesitate to recommend him to anyone I knew who required his services. I do respect the man.
He does not project the relaxed persona that McKowan does. He speaks from a podium and relies heavily on notes. He also “slipped” up twice in saying one victim’s full name, until reminded by the judge. I just feel this is something he does on purpose—obviously the full name is written in his notes.
Weinberg is an excellent storyteller—he told a story about a false memory of his own which did earn laughs throughout the courtroom’s galley and in the jury box. There is no doubt everyone has perceived an event happening one way and someone else who also observed the event recalls something totally different.
This is what happened in this case, according to the defense attorney. The more the story was told, the more that was added. Only the very first interviews are reliable—those are the strongest “core” memories.
Weinberg was especially damning toward the testimony of Orion B—is it reasonable to believe that at the very first visit with the doctor, with the parents in the next room, that the boy was undressed and underwent a genital exam in which the boy says he was aroused?
Weinberg basically attacked the memories of the boys, and the way their stories evolved. He also tried to cast doubt on the “moral turpitude” of two of the victims who have gone on to have legal troubles—one has been in and out of jail, the second in prison and testified while in the State’s custody.
Neither of those men have committed any crimes that are sexual in nature. Each was candid about their crimes; each is trying to put his life back on track. That's not unusual, and all of us in the courtroom wish them success.
While I was listening to Weinberg’s closing arguments, I thought back to my one time at jury duty many years ago. I was all of 19 years of age. It was a simple case; three drunk Latino men assaulted some cops who had responded to a 911 call. We listened to two days of testimony, and in my opinion it was pretty darn cut and dried. The three men had prior drunk in public convictions, they’d also assaulted other people in other incidents, and there were plenty of non-cop witnesses verifying the assault.
A simple half-day of deliberations took us a full day to explain to the women why we were there, what the crime was, and what a guilty vote meant. You could see the lights go off in their heads when they finally understood. There were no threats, no one called them stupid (thought we sure thought it!); we simply put the judge’s instructions into simple English, and the women then were able to vote guilty.
I worry with the jury instructions that there may be jurors who think they have to decide, as a group, if the four propensity to molest, out-of-statute witnesses, are on trial and that they waste time debating them.
I worry that some of the people on the jury think that they cannot send an ill old man who uses a walker to prison. He looks harmless enough today, maybe he’s in his own private hell and that’s enough.
I worry that they do not understand bad touch, and that just because those boys, in an intimidating position back then, did not immediately register that what had happened to them was wrong.
But I have faith that tomorrow morning, DDA McKowan will get those questioning jurors back on track, and that there are jurors who are intelligent and educated and are able to wade through mountains of testimony and because of their educations and experiences, are able to say “I believe those men were molested.”
There is no way Dr. Ayres is found not guilty of anything …
(As an aside, Happy Birthday to San Mateo County Times reporter Elizabeth Pfeffer tomorrow, July 14!)
Attorneys begin closing arguments in Ayres trial
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 7th 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.”
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.
He was never sure that anything he’d undergone was illegal but he didn’t feel it was “right” either.
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.
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.
What the jury did not hear (yet?) is that the check was lost by the police!
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
Posts
All Comments
