A paper rebuking Stickels assessment of the McMartin tunnels

[lightningBugout]

Reading this whole thread over, I don't have much to add. My fundamental impression of McMartin remains about the same. I will point out that, IMHO, to whatever degree there are two sides at work here, it is the debunkers who've been wielding some big words and emotional appeals and generalizations .

All of which goes against my own intent for this thread - to focus on the details as best is possible rather than to create a platform for people to share large-scale opinions about capital M "McMartin."

No offense.

Personally I am still interested in the archaeology of the site. And nothing I've read here has changed my basic impression that something similar to the tunnels described by the kids was found.

[lightningBugout]

in the case of McMartin there wasnt a single shred of physical evidence anywhere, it was all media hype.

Perc, you don't know what you are talking about. When it was first reported that tunnels had been found by the Stickel dig, the LA Times published a short dry story buried deep in the paper then immediately ceased all coverage of the story.

[Percival]

in the case of McMartin there wasnt a single shred of physical evidence anywhere, it was all media hype.

Perc, you don't know what you are talking about. When it was first reported that tunnels had been found by the Stickel dig, the LA Times published a short dry story buried deep in the paper then immediately ceased all coverage of the story.

Thats not entirely true my El Porto loving friend. It was a national news story for months, and thats what I mean. I know that the actual 'tunnel' story which was like I explained before likely a trash dump that had been reopened for plumbing work and that archway chisled away so the plumber could get in there and work, wasnt much of a news story at the time but McMartin in general, which is what I was reffering to, was a media frenzy for months, nation wide.

[lightningBugout]

Like Mulebone indicated, they found nothing, nada, zero, no evidence at all. Am I to believe the entire MB police dept was in on this?

Actually that's not true. A team of several prominent scientists found evidence supporting the *possible* existence of tunnels conforming to the description made by the kids. With all due respect to the armchair sleuths who've tried to debunk that claim and/or support the paper in the OP, Stickel's paper is carefully worded to say that he is investigating whether or not the kids claims can be dismissed due to the physical form of the site. He never claims that tunnels have or have not been found.

So, your leap to rhetorical flourish ala believing the entire MB police dept as in on this comes off as rather nasty. And tiring. Reminiscent of something like, so am I to believe the entire NYC police dept. was in on *the 9/11 master conspiracy*. Had you said something like that, all these posters would've jumped on you. I'm rather confused why they let it slide here.

More importantly, the stigma of "evidence" in child abuse cases is well known. I can tell you from personal experience, as most survivors can, physical evidence is often non-existent. Yet I will side time and time again *against* the person who claims that physical evidence is necessary, as it implies the testimony of victims is not evidence in its own right.

So, let's all back up and remember - copious numbers of children accused staff and others at the McMartin pre-school of sexual abuse. Many of these claims were made *before* any professional questioning took place.

I hate to adopt a strategy of disbelieving children but the tactics used to interrogate them were disgusting and inept and the fact that the case didnt blow up until that letter was sent out to all the parents just makes me wonder if it was real or just the result of the satanic panic hysteria that was sweeping the nation at the time.

Slow down. There were hundreds of hours of questioning done. We have seen a tiny percentage thereof. By virtue of the fact the selected questioning was used in the defense' favor, we *know* this represents the testimony that appears to be most egregious. Before you call it "disgusting and inept" let's take a moment to remember - it was done in good faith. The people doing this questioning believed that abuse had taken place (due to kids having claimed so) and were simply doing their best to get the kids to talk. As as result of what you have called "inept" there are now standards in place. So I find it curious when Mulebone claims that this is what all CPS questioning looks like. It makes him sound rather biased and rather influenced by the larger cultural stereotype of CPS as being engaged in a witchhunt that undermines the family, as well as fathers in general.
[/quote]

I think there was some plumbing work done and to avoid breaking up the classroom concrete foundation to get to the leaky toilet plumbing, an outside route was dug under the outside west wall and in order to get under the foundations OUTSIDE WALL FOOTER which is deeper than the rest of the slab, an archway had to be chisled away by the plumber so he could get in there and work, I have done exactly that in my own construction business. I think that passage to that pipe was left unfilled and covered with something (rabbit cages?) so that a plumber could get back in there should the problem arise again and it is likely children saw the hole and perhaps one of the teachers told them tall tales of secret tunnels and passageways to entertain them on a rainy day. Makes perfect sense to me. I also think the site was a rural homeowners garbage dump at one time like the above article indicates and I am puzzled as to why Stickler did not even consider this as a possible explanation.

No offense, buddy but that made me Laugh Out Loud. "Tall tales?" Not to mention, do you realize the Freudian slip you made? Stickel becomes "stickler." IE a stickler for details. IE the details that you've just circuitously explained by constructing a fantasy of your own.

I am not denying this shit takes place, I am sure it does but I see no evidence with which to come to the conclusion that it happened at McMartin, at least the way some will have us believe it did. I suppose some abuse may have taken place there, I think that is likely at any preschool or anywhere a large number of children are together in one place, there is likely to be a bad apple somewhere nearby.

A "bad apple?" Bad apple's do like to fuck kids, don't they? Perc, do you not see what is going on here? You are using scads and scads of *common sense* that is purely based on your personal comfort, as evidenced by the scenario you've invented to explain the tunnels (one which is rather Mayberry).

Whether or not kids were molested in a satanic ritual at McMartin (I personally assume the satanic stuff to be a very typical mundane form of screening for future disbelief) it quite clearly does not fit within your worldview and so you are unlikely to believe it, given the way you are approaching this altogether.

I am sure large scale, well organized networks of pedophiles exist but I have never witnessed such with my own eyes and I hope I never do.

Then why not acknowledge that some of us who are more prone to believe McMartin probably did involve some form of organized multiple perpetrator child abuse believe so because we *have* seen that sort of thing with our own eyes?

Alot of times when I argue against something I will admit, like Mulder, that I WANT TO BELIEVE. But this is different, I dont want to believe it, I dont want to argue in favor of it happening and I pray to whatever God may be out there, for the sake of those children, that it did not happen. If it did, may those who perpetrated it rott in hell.

Then kindly do what all of us should do all the time - acknowledge that your very strongly stated desire for evil not to exist might cloud your ability to perceive it.

On edit, one thing that does stand out to me is the big deal that was made about Buckey not wearing underwear because he and his friends decided to ride free. I can understand that, I often do it myself, however, it also mentions that he wore shorts that were shorter than his legs, and I know that was the style in the early 80s and they didnt wear these long down to the knees oversized bermuda shorts that we do now, not wearing anything under them is no real big deal, but had I not worn underwear when I was growing up in the 80s, wearing cutoff jeans and OP shorts that ran up the crack of my ass, which was the style at the time, I would have been hanging out all over and I do find that a little odd that Ray Buckey would be running around like that in a preschool, however, we do have to remember this is a major beach town and that is often how those kids dressed at the time. But that little tidbit always made me wonder about Ray.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Not at all. I clearly missed something.

[lightningBugout]

For the record I'm not wearing any underwear right now. Do with this what you will.

[Percival]

Like Mulebone indicated, they found nothing, nada, zero, no evidence at all. Am I to believe the entire MB police dept was in on this?

Actually that's not true. A team of several prominent scientists found evidence supporting the *possible* existence of tunnels conforming to the description made by the kids. With all due respect to the armchair sleuths who've tried to debunk that claim and/or support the paper in the OP, Stickel's paper is carefully worded to say that he is investigating whether or not the kids claims can be dismissed due to the physical form of the site. He never claims that tunnels have or have not been found.

So, your leap to rhetorical flourish ala believing the entire MB police dept as in on this comes off as rather nasty. And tiring. Reminiscent of something like, so am I to believe the entire NYC police dept. was in on *the 9/11 master conspiracy*. Had you said something like that, all these posters would've jumped on you. I'm rather confused why they let it slide here.

More importantly, the stigma of "evidence" in child abuse cases is well known. I can tell you from personal experience, as most survivors can, physical evidence is often non-existent. Yet I will side time and time again *against* the person who claims that physical evidence is necessary, as it implies the testimony of victims is not evidence in its own right.

So, let's all back up and remember - copious numbers of children accused staff and others at the McMartin pre-school of sexual abuse. Many of these claims were made *before* any professional questioning took place.

I hate to adopt a strategy of disbelieving children but the tactics used to interrogate them were disgusting and inept and the fact that the case didnt blow up until that letter was sent out to all the parents just makes me wonder if it was real or just the result of the satanic panic hysteria that was sweeping the nation at the time.

Slow down. There were hundreds of hours of questioning done. We have seen a tiny percentage thereof. By virtue of the fact the selected questioning was used in the defense' favor, we *know* this represents the testimony that appears to be most egregious. Before you call it "disgusting and inept" let's take a moment to remember - it was done in good faith. The people doing this questioning believed that abuse had taken place (due to kids having claimed so) and were simply doing their best to get the kids to talk. As as result of what you have called "inept" there are now standards in place. So I find it curious when Mulebone claims that this is what all CPS questioning looks like. It makes him sound rather biased and rather influenced by the larger cultural stereotype of CPS as being engaged in a witchhunt that undermines the family, as well as fathers in general.

I think there was some plumbing work done and to avoid breaking up the classroom concrete foundation to get to the leaky toilet plumbing, an outside route was dug under the outside west wall and in order to get under the foundations OUTSIDE WALL FOOTER which is deeper than the rest of the slab, an archway had to be chisled away by the plumber so he could get in there and work, I have done exactly that in my own construction business. I think that passage to that pipe was left unfilled and covered with something (rabbit cages?) so that a plumber could get back in there should the problem arise again and it is likely children saw the hole and perhaps one of the teachers told them tall tales of secret tunnels and passageways to entertain them on a rainy day. Makes perfect sense to me. I also think the site was a rural homeowners garbage dump at one time like the above article indicates and I am puzzled as to why Stickler did not even consider this as a possible explanation.

No offense, buddy but that made me Laugh Out Loud. "Tall tales?" Not to mention, do you realize the Freudian slip you made? Stickel becomes "stickler." IE a stickler for details. IE the details that you've just circuitously explained by constructing a fantasy of your own.

I am not denying this shit takes place, I am sure it does but I see no evidence with which to come to the conclusion that it happened at McMartin, at least the way some will have us believe it did. I suppose some abuse may have taken place there, I think that is likely at any preschool or anywhere a large number of children are together in one place, there is likely to be a bad apple somewhere nearby.

A "bad apple?" Bad apple's do like to fuck kids, don't they? Perc, do you not see what is going on here? You are using scads and scads of *common sense* that is purely based on your personal comfort, as evidenced by the scenario you've invented to explain the tunnels (one which is rather Mayberry).

Whether or not kids were molested in a satanic ritual at McMartin (I personally assume the satanic stuff to be a very typical mundane form of screening for future disbelief) it quite clearly does not fit within your worldview and so you are unlikely to believe it, given the way you are approaching this altogether.

I am sure large scale, well organized networks of pedophiles exist but I have never witnessed such with my own eyes and I hope I never do.

Then why not acknowledge that some of us who are more prone to believe McMartin probably did involve some form of organized multiple perpetrator child abuse believe so because we *have* seen that sort of thing with our own eyes?

Alot of times when I argue against something I will admit, like Mulder, that I WANT TO BELIEVE. But this is different, I dont want to believe it, I dont want to argue in favor of it happening and I pray to whatever God may be out there, for the sake of those children, that it did not happen. If it did, may those who perpetrated it rott in hell.

Then kindly do what all of us should do all the time - acknowledge that your very strongly stated desire for evil not to exist might cloud your ability to perceive it.

On edit, one thing that does stand out to me is the big deal that was made about Buckey not wearing underwear because he and his friends decided to ride free. I can understand that, I often do it myself, however, it also mentions that he wore shorts that were shorter than his legs, and I know that was the style in the early 80s and they didnt wear these long down to the knees oversized bermuda shorts that we do now, not wearing anything under them is no real big deal, but had I not worn underwear when I was growing up in the 80s, wearing cutoff jeans and OP shorts that ran up the crack of my ass, which was the style at the time, I would have been hanging out all over and I do find that a little odd that Ray Buckey would be running around like that in a preschool, however, we do have to remember this is a major beach town and that is often how those kids dressed at the time. But that little tidbit always made me wonder about Ray.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Not at all. I clearly missed something.[/quote]




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






I am talking about this statement by Mulebone which is factual according to my own research which is pretty extensive, but I am no expert either:

Here's another little McMartin factoid for ya, ya egotistical self-centered little dipshit:

Police involved with McMartin searched

21 residences

7 businesses

37 cars

3 motorcycles

1 farm

82 locations were photographed &

1 church was investigated.

1000s of kiddie porn pictures were searched for McMartin kiddies
& lab tests were performed on

20 blankets from the school along with

the children's clothing along with

sheets

rags

mops

notebooks

soil

sponges

quilts

underwear and the

altar of a suspected church.

Y'know what they found?

0.

Just like you & your tunnel, that may be a garbage pit that may be...well...any motherfucking thing at all, have found:

a

big

fat

lump

of

0.

As for the underwear comment, I DO KNOW WHAT I am talking about because it was a MAJOR part of the prosecutions case and somewhere I have some major documentation about that but for now the quickest I can pull up is this COURT TRANSCRIPT of the direct and cross examination of CHARLES BUCKEY the father AND PEGGY BUCKEY the mother:


Charles:

Re-Direct Examination by Defense Attorney Dean Gits:
"How long before he taught at the school was it that you knew he didn't wear underwear?"

"About the time he got out of high school, so probably two or three years. "

Re-Cross Examination by Prosecutor Roger Gunson:

"Before Raymond Buckey started working at the preschool, did Mrs. Buckey talk to you about whether it would be appropriate for Raymond Buckey to work at the preschool?"

"Yes."

"And in that conversation did you talk about Mr. [Raymond] Buckey's viewing these Playboy and Penthouse magazines?"

"That was never discussed."

"Did you talk with Mrs. Buckey about Raymond Buckey looking at this more explicit material and also working at the preschool?"

"No."

"Did you discuss with Mrs. Peggy Buckey the appropriateness of Mr. Raymond Buckey working at the preschool without wearing underpants?"

"It was discussed."

"And did that conversation take place before Raymond Buckey was arrested?"

"Yes."

"And did you decide that it was okay for Mr. Raymond Buckey to not wear underwear?"

"Considering the times, I did not approve but I did not disapprove."

"And did you discuss your not approving to Mrs. Peggy Buckey?"

"Yes. "

"Did Mrs. Peggy Buckey tell you about Raymond Buckey exposing himself at the preschool?"

"She never told me that."

"Did Mrs. Peggy Buckey tell you about Raymond Buckey exposing himself at the soccer team practice?"

"When you say 'exposing himself' I think you have the wrong connotation. The answer to that would be 'no.' "

"Is there some understanding that you had with Raymond Buckey that his genitals were viewed by girls on the soccer team?"

"Never."

"Did you hear any other complaints by other persons that Mr. Raymond Buckey's genitals were observed?"

"No."

"Was there a complaint about someone seeing Mr. Raymond Buckey's genitals in a private setting?"

"I never heard it, no."

"Does that refresh your memory?"

"No, it does not! I don't know when that was published, and I don't know who published it."

"Did anyone complain to you about anything related to that?"

"No. "

"Did you have a feeling that he should not be at the school without underwear?"

"No, I did not have that feeling."

"Did you disapprove of him being at the school without underwear?"

"No."

"I have no further questions."

Re-Direct Examination by Defense Attorney Daniel Davis:

"Mr. Buckey, did you ever talk to Raymond Buckey about why it is that he wasn't wearing underwear?"

"Yes. "

"And after you talked to Ray about why he wasn't wearing underwear, did you instruct him that he probably should wear underwear?"

"No, I did not."

"How was it that you came to determine that your son wasn't wearing underwear?"

"I think it became a topic of conversation that he and many of his friends did not, and he sided with his friends."

Re-Cross Examination by Roger Gunson:

"Mr. Buckey, did you have any concern about Raymond Buckey being in the preschool not wearing underwear?"

"No."

"Did you have a concern that the children may see his genitals?"

"No."

"Did you have a concern that children were sitting on Raymond Buckey's lap while he did not have underwear on?"

"Not my concern."

"Did you tell Mrs. Buckey that you disapproved of Mr. Buckey's not wearing underwear while children were sitting on his lap?"

"I never made that comment."

"Did you have a concern that preschoolers at McMartin Preschool would see Mr. Raymond Buckey's genitals because his shorts were shorter than his legs?"

"Never entered my mind."

"Did you have a concern that children would be moving in front of Raymond Buckey and they would see his genitals?"

"It never entered my mind."

"In conversation did you explore the possible effect upon the children if they were to see the genitals of Mr. Raymond Buckey?"

"No. "

"Did Raymond Buckey tell you the reasons why he didn't wear underwear?"

"Yes. "

"And was one of those reasons comfort?"

"The word was 'constricting,' so comfort would be the answer, yes."

"So Raymond Buckey told you that he wanted to be able to wear loose-fitting clothing?"

"Yes."

"Did you at any time go into the bedroom and see him lying without his clothing on?"

"Never. "

"Did you ever see him lying on the bed with pornographic pictures surrounding him?"

"No."

"And when Raymond Buckey started teaching at the preschool you had no concern about him wearing loose-fitting clothing at the preschool?"

"Objection. Asked and answered."

"Sustained. "

"I have no further questions. "

Peggy:

Direct Examination by Defense Attorney Dean Gits:
"Did you ever molest any of those children?"
"Never. "
"Did you ever touch them on any part of their bodies for the purpose of sexual gratification either of yourself or of anybody else?"
"No."
"Were you ever naked in front of any of these children?"
"Was I ever what?"
"Were you ever naked in front of these children?"
"No."
"Did you ever make any of these children get naked?"
"No."
"Did you ever make any of these children get partially naked?"
"No."
"Did you ever transport any of these children off the school grounds for the purpose of molesting them?"
"Never. "
"Did you ever transport any of these children off the school grounds for the purpose of permitting other adults to touch them?"
"No."
"Did you ever transport any of these children off the school grounds for the purpose of engaging in satanic acts at a church?"
"Never. "
"Did you ever threaten these children in any manner?"
"No."
"Did you ever see any person molest these children while you were at the preschool?"
"Never. "
"Did you see any other person any place in the world molest these children?"
"No."
"Did you ever see these children naked with any other teacher at the preschool?"
"No."
"With any other adult at the preschool?"
"No."
"Did you ever see anything at the preschool that ever once gave you the slightest suspicion that any of those children were being molested in any manner whatsoever?"
"Never. "
"Are you aware of the other complaining witnesses in this case?"
"Yes."
"Did you ever see any person molest those children?"
"Never. "
"Did you ever see those children naked with any other adult?"
"Never. "
"Did you ever see anything at the school that gave you the slightest suspicion that those children were being molested or mistreated in any manner?"
"Never."
"Did you ever conspire or agree with anyone to molest any children at the preschool?"
"No,"
"Did you ever conspire or agree to permit others to molest any of those children?"
"No."
"Any other children at the preschool?"
"No....."

"Mrs. Buckey, why was it that you hired your son, Raymond, as an aide at the preschool?"
"He was my son, and he was interested in working with children. And I felt he had the potential of being a good teacher."
"Was there a particular teacher that was assigned to be present with Raymond in the afternoon hours?"
"Yes, it would have been Betty [Raidor]...."
"When did you first become aware that you were a suspect?"
"I never did find out until I was arrested."
"When were you arrested?"
"March 22, 1984."
"Do you recognize the person in that photograph?" [Gits shows a photo of a woman.]
"Yes."
"Who is that?"
"Me. Peggy Buckey."
"Do you know when that photograph was taken?"
"Yes."
"When?"
"When I was arrested. In jail."
"Do you know who it was that took that photograph?"
"Yes. One of the deputies."
"And where was that photograph taken?"
"Sybil Brand."
"And what is Sybil Brand?"
"Well, it's a jail."

Cross-examination by Lael Rubin:

"You told the court that, as director of the preschool, you were interested in having your son work at the preschool because he had some interest in working with children and that he had the potential to be a good teacher, correct?"
"Yes."
"What was it at the time that caused you to believe that he had an interest in working with children?"
"He had a very gentle, loving way with children, which you need when you work with children."
"Your honor, I move to strike the answer as nonresponsive."
"Overruled. The answer will stand."
"What was it that was communicated to you by your son that explained his having an interest in working with children, and I guess my question is, did he tell you that he had an interest in working with children?"
"Yes. He did some volunteer work in San Diego."
"Objection, the answer is nonresponsive. Move that it be stricken."
"Sustained. "
"Did your son specifically tell you that he had an interest in working with children?"
"He enjoyed working with children."
"And how was it that the subject came up, that your son told you he was interested in working with children?"
"As I just mentioned, he did volunteer work in San Diego and. . ."
"Your honor that is not responsive. Move to strike."
"Sustained. "
"How is it that the subject came up, that your son wanted to work with children?"
"He was at the school one morning and. . . we were out to lunch, and he just told me how he enjoyed working with children, and he would like to come and work at our school."
"And were you surprised when your son. . . offered to work at the McMartin Preschool?"
"Yes."
"And why were you surprised?"
"Because he had never been interested before."
"Did you ask him how it came to be that he was interested in working with children?"
"Yes."
"And what did he say?"
"That he had volunteered in San Diego. . . and he got a certificate. . ."
"Objection. Move to strike. . ."
"Mrs. Buckey, did your son tell you that part of his duties were cleaning up?"
"Yes. He worked out in the yard, supervising the children."
"And was the award specifically for this?"
"I don't remember."
"And what is it he said?"
"He said he would like to come home and work at the school."
"Did you ask him about his qualifications?"
"No."
"Is there a reason you didn't ask him about his qualifications to work with children?"
"Yes."
"And what was that?"
"If you employ someone and you feel they have the potential to be a good teacher, they take certain courses, and that is what I told him he would have to do."
"And from the time your son became employed at the preschool, was he taking courses?"
"Yes. "
"Do you know where it was he was taking courses?"
"EI Camino College. . . some of my parents were in the same classes."
"Now, you told us there are requirements essential for working with children. . . how would you define that?"
"First, you have to care for children. You have to love children. Ray was very gentle. He had a wonderful rapport with children."
"Now, you told us that you never saw anything that gave you the slightest suspicion that children were being molested at the preschool. Were you aware that your son didn't wear underwear? Isn't that right?"
"And you were aware that his penis was seen, correct?"
"No."
"And you had the belief that it was okay for Raymond Buckey to be in the preschool and not wear underwear?"
"I do not remember that."
"You heard your husband testify that you said that women don't wear bras, so it's no big deal. Do you remember that?"
"Yes."
"And what did you say?"
"I see nothing wrong with not wearing underwear."
"Why not?"
"Many of the young men who came to our house did not wear underwear. Kids at the beach did not wear underwear. Lots of them. "
"And did you. . . see their genitals?"
"I never saw anybody's genitals. "
"Your honor I move to have the answer stricken."
"Overruled."
"Now, Mrs. Buckey. . . did you recognize that there may be a difference between not wearing underwear at the beach and not wearing underwear at the preschool?"
"Never gave it a thought."
"Now, did you make statements in the past that some women don't wear bras so it's no big deal?"
"I don't remember that."
"Now, with a child sitting on his lap and his not wearing underwear, might that make it easier for a child to touch his genitals?"
"No...."
"Now one of the differences might be that having a child sitting on your son's lap and his not wearing underwear might make it easier for him to get aroused, correct?"
"No."
"Are you aware that ----- grabbed your son in his penis or had you heard that she grabbed your son in his penis?"
"I certainly did. "
"Was that something that you observed?"
"No."
"How was it that you heard that?"
"My son told me."
"And how was it that your son told you that?"
"I asked my son if anything happened at the school. . . so I could tell the parents."
"And after asking if anything happened, what were you told?"
"That ------ grabbed him in the genitals through his clothes."
"And what did your son say?"
"He told me that he told her she shouldn't do that....."
"Now at the time your son told you about ----- grabbing his genitals, did he tell you that ----- was sitting on his lap?"
"All I remember is that he just told her not to do that again. He did not make a big thing of it to the child."
"Did you ask your son where it happened?"
"All I know is he was sitting."
"Did you ask your son how long she had her hand on his genitals?"
"She just grabbed him and let go...."
"When you checked, that one time, you saw he did have a hard on, correct?"
"He certainly did not!"
"Would you agree it is an unusual event when the director of a preschool checks her son for an erection?"
"I told you I did it one time and one time only. It's such a dumb question!....It had to do with his being male."
"Have you ever seen your son with an erection on any other occasion?"
"Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence...."
"Was she [amother who made accusations against Ray] lying?"
"Yes, she was lying."
"Why would she lie?"
"Why did everybody lie in this case?"
"Do you have a reason to lie in this courtroom?"
"I don't lie. . . . I'm telling the truth. I've heard the word, 'lie,' so much in this case I've learned to say 'lie'
like the rest of you. . . ."
"Are you accusing me of lying?"
"No, I'm not...."

"It's true, Mrs. Buckey, that as time went on, there were more and more complaints about your son, Raymond Buckey, correct?"
"No."
"Mrs. Buckey, when Mrs. ----- first informed you that she had been notified by the police, did she tell you during the conversation that she was informed as to when the molestation was supposed to have taken place?"
"No...."
"Now, when you talked to Det. Hoag, whether it be the thirtieth or the thirty-first of August 1983, you in fact told Det. Hoag that the parent should have come to you first before going to the police, correct?"
"I don't remember saying that."
"That's something you believe, isn't it?"
"No, I think that's up to the parents to make their decision. I've said that I think it would be nice if they would come to me, but that was up to the parents to do what they thought was the right thing, not for me to tell them what to do."
"Now, from the thirtieth or thirty-first of August, within the next few days after that, on the second of September, that was when your residence was searched, correct?"
"Yes."
"And before the search actually began, you told one of the police officers that 'You can't believe little kids. They'll llie.' Correct?"
"I do not recall saying that."
"Mrs. Buckey, showing you this document, I would ask you to read the end of the first paragraph. . . . And doesn't that refresh your recollection that, shortly after Det. Hoag arrived at your residence, you remarked that 'You
can't believe little kids. They all lie. '?"
"I do not remember saying that."
"Mrs. Buckey, if Det. Hoag put that in her police report, would that be untrue?"
"It certainly would be. She lied about a lot of things...."

So, yes, I do know what the fuck I am talking about, think twice post once and dont ever call me to task like that again until you have done the research.

Charles link:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... imony.html


Peggy link:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... imony.html

[lightningBugout]

What I mean to say is I must have missed the place where the underwear came up in the thread. I am familiar with its role in the case.

[lightningBugout]

So, yes, I do know what the fuck I am talking about, think twice post once and dont ever call me to task like that again until you have done the research.

Layoff on the tough guy bullshit, thank you very much and perhaps respond to any of the other many points I've made thanks.

[Percival]

Reading this whole thread over, I don't have much to add. My fundamental impression of McMartin remains about the same. I will point out that, IMHO, to whatever degree there are two sides at work here, it is the debunkers who've been wielding some big words and emotional appeals and generalizations .

All of which goes against my own intent for this thread - to focus on the details as best is possible rather than to create a platform for people to share large-scale opinions about capital M "McMartin."

No offense.

Personally I am still interested in the archaeology of the site. And nothing I've read here has changed my basic impression that something similar to the tunnels described by the kids was found.

I am of all people definitely NOT a debunker of anything, the study of conspiracy, the paranormal, deep politics and high weirdness is my life, it is what I do and I am not here to try and debunk anything at all. I just dont see the evidence to support the McMartin case in particular and as much as I want to believe this was a grave miscarriage of justice and the evil fucking child molesting, animal sacrificing perps walked free with the help of those with wealth, inlfuence and positions in high places, I just dont see the evidence to support it and I am puzzled further by the absence of alternative explanations by Skitler, a guy who should know better than to be so biased, as to what he found under that building.

[barracuda]

Stickel's paper is carefully worded to say that he is investigating whether or not the kids claims can be dismissed due to the physical form of the site. He never claims that tunnels have or have not been found.

Can you reference this with any excerpts from the paper?

Many of these claims (by the children) were made *before* any professional questioning took place.

Can you reference this?

it was done in good faith. The people doing this questioning believed that abuse had taken place (due to kids having claimed so) and were simply doing their best to get the kids to talk.

How do you know this? I am under the impression that the funding for the Children's Institute was hugely expanded by their involvement in the case.

Then why not acknowledge that some of us who are more prone to believe McMartin probably did involve some form of organized multiple perpetrator child abuse believe so because we *have* seen that sort of thing with our own eyes?

I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a concern about is further allegations such as those appearing in the McGowan article with what seems like little or no referencing wrt what must be voluminous documentation of the court system. From McGowan:

The harsh reality is that the McMartin Preschool, in conjunction with at least two other Manhattan Beach preschools and one babysitting service, was the center of a massive child prostitution and child pornography ring whose operations were protected and covered up by any number of local, state and federal officials – or so it would appear.

"The harsh reality is... or so it would appear." What the hell does that add up to? Allegation.

The stories told by these children, it should be noted, were not fed to them by some diabolical team of therapists and headline-seeking journalists. Many of them were offered spontaneously to hundreds of parents and scores of childcare specialists. And the victims of the McMartin Preschool, all adults now, still tell the same stories today.

Is there any reference for the spontaneous stories? Why can't I find any of these adult stories in the thousands of pages of information available to me?

t while it is true that the investigation commissioned by the District Attorney’s office found no evidence of tunnels, one of the dirty little secrets of the McMartin case is that the tunnels did, in fact, exist.

Only if you accept the Stickel report as definitive verification of this. If you accept the DA's professional independant research, then, no.

these child victims can accurately describe the look, smell, texture and colors of human viscera. This is an ability, it has been argued, that very few adults possess, other than those who have been trained as surgeons or coroners.

These children also display a remarkable level of knowledge of a wide variety of human sexual practices, including many bizarre acts that, again, most adults do not have knowledge or awareness of.

The interview transcripts make these statements somewhat equivocal to me.

And on and on. I keep being asked just to accept that these things are true after the most expensive trial in US history was not able to prove that they were against Buckley et al, and I am really just asking for a discussion in which everything need not be taken on faith.

[lightningBugout]

Stickel's paper is carefully worded to say that he is investigating whether or not the kids claims can be dismissed due to the physical form of the site. He never claims that tunnels have or have not been found.

Can you reference this with any excerpts from the paper?

Many of these claims (by the children) were made *before* any professional questioning took place.

Can you reference this?

it was done in good faith. The people doing this questioning believed that abuse had taken place (due to kids having claimed so) and were simply doing their best to get the kids to talk.

How do you know this? I am under the impression that the funding for the Children's Institute was hugely expanded by their involvement in the case.

Then why not acknowledge that some of us who are more prone to believe McMartin probably did involve some form of organized multiple perpetrator child abuse believe so because we *have* seen that sort of thing with our own eyes?

I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a concern about is further allegations such as those appearing in the McGowan article with what seems like little or no referencing wrt what must be voluminous documentation of the court system. From McGowan:

The harsh reality is that the McMartin Preschool, in conjunction with at least two other Manhattan Beach preschools and one babysitting service, was the center of a massive child prostitution and child pornography ring whose operations were protected and covered up by any number of local, state and federal officials – or so it would appear.

"The harsh reality is... or so it would appear." What the hell does that add up to? Allegation.

The stories told by these children, it should be noted, were not fed to them by some diabolical team of therapists and headline-seeking journalists. Many of them were offered spontaneously to hundreds of parents and scores of childcare specialists. And the victims of the McMartin Preschool, all adults now, still tell the same stories today.

Is there any reference for the spontaneous stories? Why can't I find any of these adult stories in the thousands of pages of information available to me?

t while it is true that the investigation commissioned by the District Attorney’s office found no evidence of tunnels, one of the dirty little secrets of the McMartin case is that the tunnels did, in fact, exist.

Only if you accept the Stickel report as definitive verification of this. If you accept the DA's professional independant research, then, no.

these child victims can accurately describe the look, smell, texture and colors of human viscera. This is an ability, it has been argued, that very few adults possess, other than those who have been trained as surgeons or coroners.

These children also display a remarkable level of knowledge of a wide variety of human sexual practices, including many bizarre acts that, again, most adults do not have knowledge or awareness of.

The interview transcripts make these statements somewhat equivocal to me.

And on and on. I keep being asked just to accept that these things are true after the most expensive trial in US history was not able to prove that they were against Buckley et al, and I am really just asking for a discussion in which everything need not be taken on faith.

I can and will get back with documentation and/or my own good faith reasons for believing each point.

Though in short reply - are you kidding Cuda? By arguing therapists would've been motivated to coerce kids into false testimony in order to solicit more money for the CI?

[Percival]

More importantly, the stigma of "evidence" in child abuse cases is well known. I can tell you from personal experience, as most survivors can, physical evidence is often non-existent. Yet I will side time and time again *against* the person who claims that physical evidence is necessary, as it implies the testimony of victims is not evidence in its own right.

Testimony is fine but that alone cannot or should not be used to lock people up in cages like animal's, especially when that testimony is coming from children with a lot of ideas planted in to their heads by zealots on a witch hunt.

So, let's all back up and remember - copious numbers of children accused staff and others at the McMartin pre-school of sexual abuse. Many of these claims were made *before* any professional questioning took place.

Not entirely true, Judy Johnson, a known mentally ill alcoholic who first abandoned her child on the doorstep of McMartin, started making up allegations FIRST. THEN the police sent out letters to all McMartin parents telling them to look for signs that their children have been abused or used in satantic rituals. THAT is what set this off, the letter, and once that letter was sent the PARENTS then started drilling the kids with god knows what sort of questions, and the kids, always wanting adult apporval, went along (maybe or maybe not--not saying they were not abused).

No offense, buddy but that made me Laugh Out Loud. "Tall tales?" Not to mention, do you realize the Freudian slip you made? Stickel becomes "stickler." IE a stickler for details. IE the details that you've just circuitously explained by constructing a fantasy of your own.

Ever done any plumbling work under a concrete foundation? Let me know when you have. What Stickel described was exactly that in my professional opinion.

Then kindly do what all of us should do all the time - acknowledge that your very strongly stated desire for evil not to exist might cloud your ability to perceive it.

Sure thats possible but strictly from an objective POV, I still see now real concrete physical evidence to support that anything happened at McMartin.

Dont make this about the larger issue of child abuse and child sex slaves etc. I know that crap takes place but I am not convinced it took place at McMartin.

[Percival]

CUDA SAYS:

How do you know this? I am under the impression that the funding for the Children's Institute was hugely expanded by their involvement in the case.

They got 20 million bucks just from that case alone.

[lightningBugout]

More importantly, the stigma of "evidence" in child abuse cases is well known. I can tell you from personal experience, as most survivors can, physical evidence is often non-existent. Yet I will side time and time again *against* the person who claims that physical evidence is necessary, as it implies the testimony of victims is not evidence in its own right.

Testimony is fine but that alone cannot or should not be used to lock people up in cages like animal's, especially when that testimony is coming from children with a lot of ideas planted in to their heads by zealots on a witch hunt.

Ignoring this one. Cages and zealots and witch hunts, oh my!

So, let's all back up and remember - copious numbers of children accused staff and others at the McMartin pre-school of sexual abuse. Many of these claims were made *before* any professional questioning took place.

Not entirely true, Judy Johnson, a known mentally ill alcoholic who first abandoned her child on the doorstep of McMartin, started making up allegations FIRST. THEN the police sent out letters to all McMartin parents telling them to look for signs that their children have been abused or used in satantic rituals. THAT is what set this off, the letter, and once that letter was sent the PARENTS then started drilling the kids with god knows what sort of questions, and the kids, always wanting adult apporval, went along (maybe or maybe not--not saying they were not abused).

Since you claim to know McMartin so well, you ought to know better than to refer to Johnson as a "known mentally ill alcoholic." You ought to know damn well that saying so is using a characterization of her that is highly loaded and that has often been contested.

Talking about the kids "always wanting adult approval" is another moment of deference to common sense and it is anemic.

No offense, buddy but that made me Laugh Out Loud. "Tall tales?" Not to mention, do you realize the Freudian slip you made? Stickel becomes "stickler." IE a stickler for details. IE the details that you've just circuitously explained by constructing a fantasy of your own.

Ever done any plumbling work under a concrete foundation? Let me know when you have. What Stickel described was exactly that in my professional opinion.

What I referred to was not the legitimacy of the plumbing scenario but the rest of the imagined story you created. Particularly the whole bit about a staff member telling stories about imaginary tunnels on a rainy day.

Then kindly do what all of us should do all the time - acknowledge that your very strongly stated desire for evil not to exist might cloud your ability to perceive it.

Sure thats possible but strictly from an objective POV, I still see now real concrete physical evidence to support that anything happened at McMartin.

Dont make this about the larger issue of child abuse and child sex slaves etc. I know that crap takes place but I am not convinced it took place at McMartin.

It is about the larger issue of child abuse. McMartin is a critical moment in the history of child abuse prosecution, child abuse legislation, public opinion thereof, guidelines for therapists, police and CPS workers, etc.

[barracuda]

I can and will get back with documentation and/or my own good faith reasons for believing each point.

I will help you with the first reference I was looking for, your assertion that "He never claims that tunnels have or have not been found." See page 3 of Stickel's report, after Gundersen's resume on page 2, and look just below the page heading which reads, "The Tunnels Found at the McMartin Pre-School". Below that head appears a long list of tunnels he says he found at the McMartin Pre-School. So it would seem, at least at first glance, that he claims tunnels have been found. At McMartin Pre-School.

Though in short reply - are you kidding Cuda? By arguing therapists would've been motivated to coerce kids into false testimony in order to solicit more money for the CI?

I am not kidding. Large sums of grant money, noteriety, testifying before a deferential congress, television interviews... perks like this are known far and wide to influence the actions of groups and individuals, whether consciously or not. Your incredulity is disingenuous -we both know you are not so naïve as to believe otherwise in a general sense. The coercion need not have been deliberately linked to the money and fame, but there's no doubt that the interview techniques used on the children were massively flawed, and that these techniques, now utterly discredited, prolonged the trial and brought huge monetary gain to CI throughout that period and after.