Posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community, on Aug 8, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Menlo Voter I'm not sure I answered you, I'll see if I can explain this case. In 2009 there was a criminal trial that was hung by one recent law Graduate student. 11 to 1 in favor of conviction. Then Mr. Ayres came up with the incompetent theory and had a jury trial that was 6 to 6 so he was supposed to have another trial to prove himself incompetent because until you prove yourself incompetent you are competent. That's where our DA did the unthinkable they offered that they agreed he was incompetent, I was there when that happened and I wondered why on earth would my DA agree to that, but they did and off to Napa he went. The Mental experts up there saw a faker as many did here, so the criminal trial was postponed because of our DA.
Posted by Lurker, a resident of another community, on Aug 8, 2012 at 3:41 pm
The prosecutor Melissa Mckowan repeatedly told the victims and their families in the summer of 2011 after the mistrial for competency that Ayres had dementia; he was getting worse; he wasn't faking it, and "no jury would ever find him to be competent. "She just shut the families off and wouldn't budge from her position.
Then the police refused to act on tips that Ayres' medical colleagues had spotted Ayres living it up in San Francisco, hanging out at restaurants with pals, expounding on his business ventures and politics.
So the desperate parents and victims scraped together money and hired a private investigator. The PI's team followed Ayres to a restaurant in SF on August 18, 2011 where not only did they observe Ayres acting competent but also joking that one could use Alzheimer's to one's benefit in the courtroom.
But when the attorney for the families contacted the prosecutor and asked her to hold off on declaring him incompetent, Mckowan shut him down and said flatly "Ayres is incompetent and will never be found competent."
Now it turns out even the CUSTODIAL staff at Napa could see Ayres was competent.
Why didn't Wagstaffe want to retry Ayres? Is it because his office hired Ayres, and some of those boys were molested? Is it because of the hundreds and hundreds of juveniles San Mateo County sent to Ayres, some of whom were raped by Ayres and threatened by him?
All I can say is: Judge Grandsaert on this case better be watching his back on this case. His conduct is under observation.
Posted by Lurker, a resident of another community, on Aug 9, 2012 at 6:57 am
In the front page story of the Palo Alto Daily Post yesterday by Jamie Morrow, DA Wagstaffe states that his office "was pushing for Napa all along."
But as the Ayres blog states, prosecutor Mckowan, beginning on June 18, 2011 told parents and victims and other family members that in addition to not retrying Ayres, "Ayres would NOT go to Napa, as he would not get better there. " She also stated a number of times to parents that she was agreeable to Ayres' attorney Jonathan Mcdougall's request that Ayres go to a secure rest home.
She stated to a family member of a victim as recently as the first week in August 2011 that Ayres would NOT go to Napa as "he would not get better there."
It was because of her repeated statements that Ayres would NOT go to Napa - along with the fact that the police ignored tips that people had seen Ayres acting competent in San Francisco- that the desperate parents scraped money together to pay for a private investigator.
The truly bizarre thing is that Wagstaffe in the two weeks leading up to an August 22, 2011 hearing where his office would announce whether retry Ayres was telling San Mateo Supervisor Dave Pine a story that was completely the opposite of Mckowan's.
While Mckowan was insisting they would not retry Ayres, Wagstaffe told San Mateo Supervisor Dave Pine in July 2011 that his office was "seriously considering retrying Ayres."
Wagstaffe repeated this statement to Dave Pine on August 18, 2011. He stated "There are only two options for Ayres: retrial or Napa."
But the VERY NEXT DAY, August 19, 2011, when an attorney for the victims' families called Mckowan and asked her to look at surveillance that showed Ayres was competent, Mckowan said "I am not retrying Ayres. He's not competent."
On August 20, 2011, when a mother of a victim got hold of Wagstaffe, all of a sudden Wagstaffe has changed his mind from just two days earlier and tells her that he is not retrying Ayres and that they will recommend Napa.
Then when the mother tells Wagstaffe that prosecutor Mckowan has been telling parents (and even one reporter) that Ayres is NOT Going to Napa, the mother reports that Wagstaffe was angered and stated he did not know Mckowan was going around telling people this, and what she had done was a "serious violation."
Does anyone know if this is the kind of thing other DA's office do - where a prosecutor tells families one thing and the DA tells the families another?
Did Wagstaffe truly NOT know what his prosecutor was telling people? If not, why not?
Mckowan's insistence that he would not even go to Napa caused great anguish to victims.
Posted by Lurker, a resident of another community, on Aug 9, 2012 at 8:38 am
Too bad the editors removed part of "No surprise"s comment about Wagstaffe. Just about anyone who has ever come into contact with him have been on the receiving end of the kind of misconduct described. I have heard similar stories from victims; attorneys and defendants about Mr. Wagstaffe.
Posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community, on Aug 9, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Court Watching observation, Something has changed here, this was just a bail hearing where normally very few people attend or are interested because it is solved fast. Yesterday I couldn't help but notice that there were 5 reporters, Chief Deputy Karen Guidotti was there and we had an extra judge there who I believe to be Hon. Judge Craig L. Parsons. After Hon Judge John L. Grandsaert heard both sides, he took a 10 minute recess to make his ruling. He was joined in chambers or it looked like he was joined in chambers by our other judge, they both came back after 10 minutes and he made the ruling of bail denied.
I remember during the criminal trial that nobody from the DA's office came into the court room to check and see how they were dong.
Posted by Lurker, a resident of another community, on Aug 9, 2012 at 5:36 pm
They are concerned because Mckowan has been under investigation by the California Bar for the last 14 months for misconduct on the Ayres case. Also, one other person involved in the case has also been under investigation for almost a year.
Posted by Molested, a resident of another community, on Aug 10, 2012 at 11:50 am
What is it about the current trend of permitting the church, the NFL and now the world of child psychiatry to popularize pedophilia and have all these expensive and lengthy cases drag on with such unabashed deception?
There is, along with mental breakdowns and slaughters, a trend which is just too protected and generating too much money for attorneys, grieving family members and dead or molested kids and adults.
It is getting biblical in proportions as well as motivated. There is something DEFINITELY wrong with America and the jucicial system which can be traced to the founding fathers and the constitution.