Accused molester's bail reduced

I think they need to look first at the police investigation in 2002. I hear that Diaz told police not to investigate victim Steve Abrams' case.

Now we have an investigator working for Dr. Ayres' lawyer showing up at the homes of Ayres victims and trying to pump them for information. As if the victims haven't been through enough. Ayres knows what he did. The truth will come out.

Gee Sam, ever heard of a DEFENSE? Of course they will investigate. Don't you think the victims know this? How Pollyanna can you get? If the victims are strong to their accusations they will serve no help to Ayres. This is the system at work.

Otherwise, anyone can say anything against anyone without being able to question them. We all would be thrown in jail by our ex-spouses, disgruntled employees, of by the DA looking to find political advantgae.

Silvana -
It is my understanding that they are hunting down victims who were molested years ago and are not within statute and whose names the cops and DA did not turn over to Ayres' team. I have heard that the cops warned the victims who are within statute that they might be approached by an investigator but did not warn the victims who are out of statute that this would happen. I know this because I know some of the victims.

Even so, any accuser must be questionned or cross examined at some point. In that these are all adults what's the problem? This is all part of the process.

Remember the Duke University thing? Where these guys were falsely accused. They were begging for the DA to clear them, interview them. Seems to me, if I have some evidence against someone I would tell all connected with the case my story.

There is no problem with that. None at all.

Cinque wrote:

Don't you have to prove this first? What if someone makes up a story, and says twenty years ago you molested them. How can you defend yourself?
I hate these cases where many years go by before something is reported. I think a ststute is needed because anyone can claim anything happened twenty-thirty years ago. You simply cannot prove yourself innocent even if you beat the rap.

Greg Hogue, his mother, her therapist,CPS, all reported Dr. William Ayres alleged molestion behavior in 1987.

This is not a case where the victims did not report the alleged crimes.

This is a case of (SOME IN) San Mateo County Law Enforcement Industry
Endorsing/Supporting child molestation in San Mateo County

This case demonstrates how long this behavior has been supported by all the leaders of San Mateo County.

Current case:
The Carlos Ordonez case set for trial in November...SMC Probation Department Employee Sex with 2 female wards at Hillcrest.... It continues today.

The defense assertion that the dozens of boys who say Ayres molested them are somehow mistaken in thier recollections is just absurd. This idea that Ayres's private little boy strip shows and touch parties are all just a big "misunderstanding" won't hold up. Of course, the trial has not happened yet (and if Ayres has his way, it won't happen for as long as he can delay it) but a look at the evidence doesn't leave a lot of room for doubt that his interest in pubescent boys was perverted and sexual, however much he tried to disguise what he was doing as "medical". Psychiatrists, even though they are medical doctors, have no real business doing nude exams on patients, and the fact that he "examined" boys and only boys further proves that the "exams" were a result of his twisted homosexuality, and had nothing to do with objective "gauging" of sexual development (last time I heard, girls go through sexual developement too!)

All Ayres can do now is delay the inevitable. If he had any honor or self-insight, he'd apologize to all the people who's lives he ruined and commit hari-kari

Steve White boatbrain wrote:

I want to be absolutely sure on this, Judge Thomas Smith in the past referred boys directly to Dr. Ayres, and now he is not recusing himself from this case? That smells bad, doesn't it? I am not saying he did anything wrong, but he should not be on this case.
In fact, it sounds like the Attorney General should be handling this altogehter with all these connections between people.
To the people who said the guy's bail should be very high, the Constitution forbides excessive bail, and to charge a very high bail is essentially assuming you are guilty before your trial.
And, my opinion is, a short statute of limitations is right for these molestation cases, because there is too much chance of abuse otherwise by the prosecution. I know they should not get away, but my personal opinion is, the prosecutors are nearly always more dangerous than the criminals.

This guy molested his own sister when she was like 7??, admitted it in open court and worries about how this judge appears!, and think molestors statute of limitations should be short, can you say D BAG?