A paper rebuking Stickels assessment of the McMartin tunnels

[nathan28]

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.

The thesis from the OP--about confirmation bias--is naive, or dishonest, or both. Maybe someone needed to write an article. Regardless, generally speaking, taking any expert witness's reports or testimony as definitive is a bad move. An "expert witness" is someone you pay, often handsomely, to come up with a conclusion generally favorable to your argument and to write "Ph.D." after his name.

On edit generally I find McMartin to be the disinformation used to discredit things like Presidio/West Point, Franklin, the Finders incidents involving children and their seeming protected status, etc. Likewise SRA would cover up the very real phenomenon of pedotrafficking, particularly that catalogue of cases Jeff dug up among the elite. I think there's more to RA than that, but as you can tell this is entirely speculation and I don't exactly have much evidence.

I'm disappointed by that McGowan article, his citations are awful.

[lightningBugout]

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.

Yes, in one sense you are absolutely and indisputably right. But, when I have time, I want to post very specifically about the language with which he sets the report up in the beginning. But not til the AM.

[Project Willow]

The point I was trying to make is about evidence. Some of the most damning evidence to me is the testimony, usually held up as the example of why the entire case is invalid, of the small child up thread. He describes very accurately a ritual with which I am familiar, and nearly in sequence in terms of the events. I'm pretty sure I get what he means by "poke". I don't worry about him saying that a lion did this or that, because I know that costumes, nicknames, drugs and toys exist. I don't worry about planes or trains, because I've experienced being transported for "use" as it were, and I've also been given cover stories for how I was transported. The statement is evidence, because either the child has an awareness of activities he could not have unless he were exposed to them or he was thoroughly coached. Either way, someone connected to the case is familiar with ra cult ritual practices and possibly mc too.

The tone of the father's voice in the earlier article, that isn't one of guilt, or rationalization of having been caught up in something disingenuous, it is one of resignation, because he understands the cultural gestalt at work and that there will be no justice. That to me is evidence too.

And no, I'm not taking this umpteenth debunking of McMartin personally. (Please, it's not necessary to bring the caveat out on my behalf.) What frustrates me is the smug certainty of some posters. I do identify with the families, and I have had some contact with them, so yes, I can get worked up about it. I don't care if you've read everything available about McMartin, that doesn't mean you know something, it just means you've been exposed to what you've been allowed exposure to and it certainly doesn't mean you can interpret it correctly.

I believe there is still energy at work in making certain the case is perceived as invalid. I believe it because I have lived in a system apparently similar to what was tangentially exposed through the case and I know how fastidiously it can work to keep its cover.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, someone with some detailed knowledge of ra needs to review what is available and possibly try to get access to material that isn't as easy to find to take a new look at the case. I find it curious that reports of physical evidence aren't immediately available on the internet. I find it interesting that complaints against the defense in their handling of child witnesses aren't immediately inserted into the discussion. I can't believe people still quote the Eberles. I'd like to work on all of those, but I can't do it, I don't have time. What I will do, occasionally, and hopefully with good reason, is complain.

Percival, you're an energy sink on this one.

'Cuda, go for it.

Carry on.

[Percival]

Good points PJ and thanks for sharing. The one piece of testimony that stood out most to me was a father who testified that he took his son to a doctor one day and when the doctor inserted a thermometer in the childs rear end the child randomly commented, out of the blue: "That is what Miss Peggy does to me at nap time." When the child was asked what he meant by that he something to the effect that Miss Peggy used her finger to see if he was hot or not in that place.

These are not exact quotes but that was the gist of it and it was the one thing that made me start really looking more closely at McMartin.

Ill have to try and dig that link up somewhere, I saw it many years back when I was doing most of my research in to McMartin. That was really the only peice of real evidence that gave me pause but I was never able to determine at what point the child said this, in otherwords was it after he was interviewed by the therapists and already had these ideas in his head or was it completely random and in no way connected to what was going on that the time, if it was the latter than I would say there is definitely something to it.

[lightningBugout]

What I dont understand is where are all those 400 + abused kids today and why arent they talking about those tunnels now that they are adults. Had I been a kid, abused in those tunnels and now 30 years old in the midst of the Age of Information, I would spreading my story far and wide.

It would behoove you, then, to read a bit about trauma. First, many of these kids were younger than 6 years old. Age six is a developmental point at which memory is "capped" meaning that much of what happens beforehand is naturally shut off in one's mind. Second, the quality of traumatic memory is entirely different than normal memory. It may be retained as impressions, stories, fragments, felt sense, etc. And third, the last thing most survivors want is attention called to them, much less their credibility.

In sum, these kids were babes when McMartin happened. As adults they are very unlikely to feel a burning sense of injustice due to their clear memories of abuse, if it did happen.

[barracuda]

Project Willow, I assume you are refering to Judy Johnson's police interview which Percival quoted here regarding her 2 year and 8 months-old boy. Your recognition of the events outlined there is one of the most frightening things I have ever read on this forum.

The further I go into reading about McMartin the less comfortable I am with my own airing of skeptical comments which have been floated all along by some generally dispicable individuals, including the Eberles, Underwager, FMSF, and so on. It's pretty clear that the trial was delayed and strung out as a defense tactic meant to wear out the stamina of the parents and scare them away from allowing their children to testify. I hesitate to think that I would allow my own child to face a defense attorney under such circumstances. I have a lot more reading to do, so thanks for your comments.

[lightningBugout]

That was really the only peice of real evidence that gave me pause but I was never able to determine at what point the child said this, in otherwords was it after he was interviewed by the therapists and already had these ideas in his head or was it completely random and in no way connected to what was going on that the time, if it was the latter than I would say there is definitely something to it.

It bums me out to see anyone thinking they can make their own determination about any court case years later using info they find online. The way you've written this it sounds like what you think you have done. What is available online represents less than a perecentage point of the evidence, testimony etc. in the trial.

[lightningBugout]

This thread has really gotten under my skin, something PW is much too wise to let happen to her. I oughta learn a lesson from her.

But I am troubled each time I read a self-proclaimed skeptic yet again use the kids descriptions of things that sound far-fetched as evidence against their claims.

I know this went on long before McMartin, but it is like an object lesson for novice perps - 1) choose kids who are of a particular age where fantasy and reality have fluid lines of demarcation, 2) stage scenarios involving monsters, magic, aliens, zoo animals, celebrities, demons, 3) if caught, ridicule kids' descriptions as evidence of their confabulation.

Are people here not aware that this is one of the most consistent aspects of RA/MC?

A friend of mine who has done academic research on aspects of RA has told me that there are manuals available on the black market that detail *how to perp*. That they include the type of thing mentioned above as well as information on the physiology of trauma and how to manipulate a child's memory through lite versions of MC, like shocking a child via satanic imagery then forcing them to run or dance in place, all of which is designed to complicate their fight or flight response. Not to mention, I have heard speculation that manuals on MC programming were leaked onto the black market in the 1970s.

I'm losing my focus but what I wanted to say is this - I have yet to meet more than a very small handful of well-meaning McMartin skeptics who do not engage in the type of nastiness evidenced earlier in the thread.

For whatever reason (perhaps just a safe way to blow off steam) debunkers always have a great deal of anger and/or indignity that does not seem like an appropriate response to the scenario.

[SonicG]

I realize I am chiming in very late here but I spent Sunday morning reading through a lot of this stuff- and I lived in Socal. in the 80s so I have a vivid memory of this story...Given the involvement of folks like Gunderson and the Eberles, the waters become quite muddy but I still don't see why there is no hard photographic evidence of the tunnels. Mcgauley claims to have a ton but has never bothered to put any online (?). Summitseems to suggest that the tunnels were there and matched one child's description but, again, are there any photos of the tunnels, the pots, the Disney bag??
Again, I mean no disrespect nor ruffling of feathers.

[lightningBugout]

sorry sonic, not what you're looking for, but I was just about to post these:

mcmartin:



first dig:





ray:



peggy:



virginia:



prosecutor:



defense:

[nathan28]

This thread has really gotten under my skin, something PW is much too wise to let happen to her. I oughta learn a lesson from her.

But I am troubled each time I read a self-proclaimed skeptic yet again use the kids descriptions of things that sound far-fetched as evidence against their claims.

I know this went on long before McMartin, but it is like an object lesson for novice perps - 1) choose kids who are of a particular age where fantasy and reality have fluid lines of demarcation, 2) stage scenarios involving monsters, magic, aliens, zoo animals, celebrities, demons, 3) if caught, ridicule kids' descriptions as evidence of their confabulation.

Are people here not aware that this is one of the most consistent aspects of RA/MC?

A friend of mine who has done academic research on aspects of RA has told me that there are manuals available on the black market that detail *how to perp*. That they include the type of thing mentioned above as well as information on the physiology of trauma and how to manipulate a child's memory through lite versions of MC, like shocking a child via satanic imagery then forcing them to run or dance in place, all of which is designed to complicate their fight or flight response. Not to mention, I have heard speculation that manuals on MC programming were leaked onto the black market in the 1970s.

I'm losing my focus but what I wanted to say is this - I have yet to meet more than a very small handful of well-meaning McMartin skeptics who do not engage in the type of nastiness evidenced earlier in the thread.

For whatever reason (perhaps just a safe way to blow off steam) debunkers always have a great deal of anger and/or indignity that does not seem like an appropriate response to the scenario.

I am going to point out some things that do give the skeptics some ammunition, with the understanding that I suspect abuse did occur at McMartin, though not necessarily in line with the totalizing picture presented by the plaintiffs.

First, please read the psychologist/psychiatrists' interviews Barracuda posted. It is very clear that the questioning isn't just "leading", it's practically instructing the children how to answer.

Then there is Johnson. She's apeshit bonkers. I'd almost suggest that she was handled or planted etc. since her behavior is also discrediting. I think that may have some explanatory power with the child's description of the ritual, too--either he was coached to hide something in public, or he was familiar with a sequence of events that took place but him being a child made his testimony unreliable. This is all speculation, obviously.

On the other side, there is Gunderson. Whether he is an actual agent or just an opportunist in this instance is something that's hard to call.

I also want to say that the claimed scope of the abuse is ridiculous, but I'm reminded of that "swinger" pedo club in TX that had hundreds of members and was based in a town of 5000. That's a lot of non-locals showing up between 10pm and 6am, to say the least. "Hundreds" is perfectly possible

Barracuda, you'd be right not to put your own kids on the stand.

My own personal speculation is that McMartin was heavily stage-managed. It may have even been completely fraudulent from the get-go in order to discredit prior and later claims.

[Percival]

This thread has really gotten under my skin, something PW is much too wise to let happen to her. I oughta learn a lesson from her.

But I am troubled each time I read a self-proclaimed skeptic yet again use the kids descriptions of things that sound far-fetched as evidence against their claims.

I know this went on long before McMartin, but it is like an object lesson for novice perps - 1) choose kids who are of a particular age where fantasy and reality have fluid lines of demarcation, 2) stage scenarios involving monsters, magic, aliens, zoo animals, celebrities, demons, 3) if caught, ridicule kids' descriptions as evidence of their confabulation.

Are people here not aware that this is one of the most consistent aspects of RA/MC?

A friend of mine who has done academic research on aspects of RA has told me that there are manuals available on the black market that detail *how to perp*. That they include the type of thing mentioned above as well as information on the physiology of trauma and how to manipulate a child's memory through lite versions of MC, like shocking a child via satanic imagery then forcing them to run or dance in place, all of which is designed to complicate their fight or flight response. Not to mention, I have heard speculation that manuals on MC programming were leaked onto the black market in the 1970s.

I'm losing my focus but what I wanted to say is this - I have yet to meet more than a very small handful of well-meaning McMartin skeptics who do not engage in the type of nastiness evidenced earlier in the thread.

For whatever reason (perhaps just a safe way to blow off steam) debunkers always have a great deal of anger and/or indignity that does not seem like an appropriate response to the scenario.

I am going to point out some things that do give the skeptics some ammunition, with the understanding that I suspect abuse did occur at McMartin, though not necessarily in line with the totalizing picture presented by the plaintiffs.

First, please read the psychologist/psychiatrists' interviews Barracuda posted. It is very clear that the questioning isn't just "leading", it's practically instructing the children how to answer.

Then there is Johnson. She's apeshit bonkers. I'd almost suggest that she was handled or planted etc. since her behavior is also discrediting. I think that may have some explanatory power with the child's description of the ritual, too--either he was coached to hide something in public, or he was familiar with a sequence of events that took place but him being a child made his testimony unreliable. This is all speculation, obviously.

On the other side, there is Gunderson. Whether he is an actual agent or just an opportunist in this instance is something that's hard to call.

I also want to say that the claimed scope of the abuse is ridiculous, but I'm reminded of that "swinger" pedo club in TX that had hundreds of members and was based in a town of 5000. That's a lot of non-locals showing up between 10pm and 6am, to say the least. "Hundreds" is perfectly possible

Barracuda, you'd be right not to put your own kids on the stand.

My own personal speculation is that McMartin was heavily stage-managed. It may have even been completely fraudulent from the get-go in order to discredit prior and later claims.

ABSOLUTELY agree. That is what I think also and I believe the evidence suggests such if one sets aside emotion and looks closely enough.

[lightningBugout]

This thread has really gotten under my skin, something PW is much too wise to let happen to her. I oughta learn a lesson from her.

But I am troubled each time I read a self-proclaimed skeptic yet again use the kids descriptions of things that sound far-fetched as evidence against their claims.

I know this went on long before McMartin, but it is like an object lesson for novice perps - 1) choose kids who are of a particular age where fantasy and reality have fluid lines of demarcation, 2) stage scenarios involving monsters, magic, aliens, zoo animals, celebrities, demons, 3) if caught, ridicule kids' descriptions as evidence of their confabulation.

Are people here not aware that this is one of the most consistent aspects of RA/MC?

A friend of mine who has done academic research on aspects of RA has told me that there are manuals available on the black market that detail *how to perp*. That they include the type of thing mentioned above as well as information on the physiology of trauma and how to manipulate a child's memory through lite versions of MC, like shocking a child via satanic imagery then forcing them to run or dance in place, all of which is designed to complicate their fight or flight response. Not to mention, I have heard speculation that manuals on MC programming were leaked onto the black market in the 1970s.

I'm losing my focus but what I wanted to say is this - I have yet to meet more than a very small handful of well-meaning McMartin skeptics who do not engage in the type of nastiness evidenced earlier in the thread.

For whatever reason (perhaps just a safe way to blow off steam) debunkers always have a great deal of anger and/or indignity that does not seem like an appropriate response to the scenario.

I am going to point out some things that do give the skeptics some ammunition, with the understanding that I suspect abuse did occur at McMartin, though not necessarily in line with the totalizing picture presented by the plaintiffs.

First, please read the psychologist/psychiatrists' interviews Barracuda posted. It is very clear that the questioning isn't just "leading", it's practically instructing the children how to answer.

I'm fine with that as long as we keep in mind that the testimony online is presumably the worst of the worst in this regard. In the defense of the shrinks, getting kids to talk is really fucking hard, and even more so if they've had their own life or the lifes of parents, pets, etc. threatened. This touches on some stuff that is way too shitty and too personal for me to approach objectively, but I will say that I'm not entirely certain it would be possible to get kids who had been brutally abused to talk *and* maintain an objective, non-leading modality

Then there is Johnson. She's apeshit bonkers. I'd almost suggest that she was handled or planted etc. since her behavior is also discrediting. I think that may have some explanatory power with the child's description of the ritual, too--either he was coached to hide something in public, or he was familiar with a sequence of events that took place but him being a child made his testimony unreliable. This is all speculation, obviously.

I've read in the past that the portrayal of her as "apeshit bonkers" is way off the mark. First, Jackie McGauley maintains that Johnson was never diagnosed as psychotic or paranoid schizophrenic. Second, I've read (somewhere) that Johnson was not at all an alcoholic but simply highly allergic to alcohol but chose to drink anyway due to the stress. In either case, its been so often repeated that she was crazy that I find it difficult to approach in a reasonable way. But I am generally very, very skeptical of any portrayal of a hysterical woman who makes false or overblown abuse charges. That is the archetype that underlies the entire FMSF movement and should (IMO) be treated with great skepticism. More importantly, having watched Diana Napolis deteriorate (and I believe someone is or was fucking with her) and being mindful of Theresa Duncan's demise (I also believe she was probably stalked or fucked with at least once or twice), I am of the opinion that it takes very, very little to compromise someone's sense of safety and once thats done, it is very easy to make them feel totally fucking paranoid. As a result, when we read some of her charges (ie the family dog was raped) now, they come off as wacko, but depending on what else had been done to her, anything might've seemed possible. And to further play devils advocate, raping a dog isn't all that far-fetched.

I think one of the scariest aspects of Johnson is this - the Buckeys claimed that Judy had dropped her son off and just left him there even though they told her they had no space for him. They chose to take him in anyways but would later remark that this was the worst decision they ever made. Yet this vignette also portrays the kid as an absolutely classic target for perps - a neglected child with an unstable parent. That scenario is another way, for me, of making sense of the role that Johnson's craziness played in the whole thing - basically a slightly less orchestrated version of being set up.

On the other side, there is Gunderson. Whether he is an actual agent or just an opportunist in this instance is something that's hard to call.

Nothing to add to what you said, but I hate missing the chance to call that guy a piece of shit. Personally I think he's nothing but an opportunist. Ever since I heard about his assault on Art Bell, I've concluded he is a bumbling leech.

[Percival]

Lets not forget she abandoned her own child on the doorstep of McMartin to begin with.

How long was Gunderson on the scene before Johnson was found dead?

Can you say planted and pulled.

And I also agree, where the fuck are all the pictures of the tunnels, you would think those photos would be plastered all over the internet by now, yet there is nothing, nada, zip, zero, not a one.

Youre being played.

[lightningBugout]

Jesus.

Those of us who hold out some belief wrt to the tunnels are "being played" whilst you imagine cloak and dagger scenarios whose genesis is found solely in your own mind. Uh-huh.