A paper rebuking Stickels assessment of the McMartin tunnels

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

A paper rebuking Stickels assessment of the McMartin tunnels

Postby lightningBugout » Wed May 20, 2009 1:42 am

On the surface, this is a reasonable refutation of the Gary Stickel archeological report, built primarily on a charge of confirmation bias and an alternative hypothesis - that the "tunnels" were a string of hand-made trash pits from previous residents of the McMartin buildings. On the other hand, Joseph Wyatt is an academic psychologist and expert witness in the area of forensics and child abuse allegations, just like Underwager, which demands closer investigation.
----------------------------------------------------------
What was under the McMartin preschool? A review and behavioral analysis of the "tunnels" find

Behavior and Social Issues , Fall 2002 by Wyatt, W Joseph


ABSTRACT: The McMartin Preschool child abuse case began in 1983 in Manhattan Beach, California, and was one of the most visible cases in history. Although two trials were conducted and no convictions were obtained, some individuals continue to believe that dozens of children were sexually abused at the preschool. In 1990 an archeologist was hired to determine whether tunnels had existed under the school because some of the children had alleged that some of their abuse took place in tunnels under the building. The archeologist's report was issued in 1993. It concluded that evidence of back-filled tunnels had been found. This critical analysis of the archeologist's report concludes otherwise, that what the archeologist found was actually the filled-in remains of a rural family's trash pit that pre-dated construction of the school. Regarding artifacts discovered in soil under the preschool, alternative interpretations to those of the archeologist are given. A theoretical functional analysis of the variables that may have accounted for the archeologist's evident misinterpretation is presented.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... ntent;col1
"What's robbing a bank compared with founding a bank?" Bertolt Brecht
User avatar
lightningBugout
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A paper rebuking Stickels assessment of the McMartin tun

Postby waugs » Wed May 20, 2009 3:51 pm

lightningBugout wrote:On the surface, this is a reasonable refutation of the Gary Stickel archeological report, built primarily on a charge of confirmation bias and an alternative hypothesis - that the "tunnels" were a string of hand-made trash pits from previous residents of the McMartin buildings. On the other hand, Joseph Wyatt is an academic psychologist and expert witness in the area of forensics and child abuse allegations, just like Underwager, which demands closer investigation.
----------------------------------------------------------
What was under the McMartin preschool? A review and behavioral analysis of the "tunnels" find

Behavior and Social Issues , Fall 2002 by Wyatt, W Joseph


ABSTRACT: The McMartin Preschool child abuse case began in 1983 in Manhattan Beach, California, and was one of the most visible cases in history. Although two trials were conducted and no convictions were obtained, some individuals continue to believe that dozens of children were sexually abused at the preschool. In 1990 an archeologist was hired to determine whether tunnels had existed under the school because some of the children had alleged that some of their abuse took place in tunnels under the building. The archeologist's report was issued in 1993. It concluded that evidence of back-filled tunnels had been found. This critical analysis of the archeologist's report concludes otherwise, that what the archeologist found was actually the filled-in remains of a rural family's trash pit that pre-dated construction of the school. Regarding artifacts discovered in soil under the preschool, alternative interpretations to those of the archeologist are given. A theoretical functional analysis of the variables that may have accounted for the archeologist's evident misinterpretation is presented.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... ntent;col1


Right off the bat, there were HUNDREDS, not dozens of children abused at McMartin. Of the roughly 400 kids who said they were abused, 80 percent had physical symptoms including blunt force trauma, rectal bleeding and STDs.
User avatar
waugs
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby sunny » Wed May 20, 2009 4:09 pm

waugs wrote:Right off the bat, there were HUNDREDS, not dozens of children abused at McMartin. Of the roughly 400 kids who said they were abused, 80 percent had physical symptoms including blunt force trauma, rectal bleeding and STDs.


Certainly there were hundreds of children, but could you provide a source for the last part of your comment, especially the STD's? I always want to say that to McMartin debunkers but can never find a reliable source for it.
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: A paper rebuking Stickels assessment of the McMartin tun

Postby barracuda » Wed May 20, 2009 4:36 pm

waugs wrote:Right off the bat, there were HUNDREDS, not dozens of children abused at McMartin. Of the roughly 400 kids who said they were abused, 80 percent had physical symptoms including blunt force trauma, rectal bleeding and STDs.

It occurs to me that he may be refering to the 48 children involved according to the indictments. And your objection doesn't really address his conclusions regarding the tunnels' genesis.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby waugs » Wed May 20, 2009 4:41 pm

sunny wrote:
waugs wrote:Right off the bat, there were HUNDREDS, not dozens of children abused at McMartin. Of the roughly 400 kids who said they were abused, 80 percent had physical symptoms including blunt force trauma, rectal bleeding and STDs.


Certainly there were hundreds of children, but could you provide a source for the last part of your comment, especially the STD's? I always want to say that to McMartin debunkers but can never find a reliable source for it.


Psychic Dictatorship by Alex Constantine--pg. 77 is one source. At least one of the children was tested positive for chlamydia. I've read this elsewhere as well, but I happen to be in the middle of this book at the moment. If I find another I will post it.

I haven't read the rest of it yet. Hence the "right off the bat" comment.
User avatar
waugs
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: A paper rebuking Stickels assessment of the McMartin tun

Postby waugs » Wed May 20, 2009 4:47 pm

barracuda wrote:
waugs wrote:Right off the bat, there were HUNDREDS, not dozens of children abused at McMartin. Of the roughly 400 kids who said they were abused, 80 percent had physical symptoms including blunt force trauma, rectal bleeding and STDs.

It occurs to me that he may be refering to the 48 children involved according to the indictments. And your objection doesn't really address his conclusions regarding the tunnels' genesis.


Could very well be...need to read the rest of article.
User avatar
waugs
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby lightningBugout » Wed May 20, 2009 4:47 pm

i don't think constantine includes a reference on that one. but i know i have seen one elsewhere.
"What's robbing a bank compared with founding a bank?" Bertolt Brecht
User avatar
lightningBugout
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby waugs » Wed May 20, 2009 4:48 pm

lightningBugout wrote:i don't think constantine includes a reference on that one. but i know i have seen one elsewhere.


No, he doesn't.
User avatar
waugs
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Project Willow » Wed May 20, 2009 11:10 pm

This debunker doesn't mention the cut root, or the archway chiseled in the concrete foundation. Those two details are from memory, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

They sure worked hard on covering up McMartin, making it safe for the quasi-academic and the leftie crowd. Does anyone else find it absurd that a psych is critiquing an archeologist? Some better educated person please quote me what rule of professional practice that violates, there has got to be one. Maybe I could write a critique of the designation of that new missing link species, without looking at the fossil, and get it published in an academic journal.
User avatar
Project Willow
 
Posts: 4798
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Thu May 21, 2009 2:30 am

Project Willow wrote:.....
They sure worked hard on covering up McMartin, making it safe for the quasi-academic and the leftie crowd.
.....


Yup. Having the public give weight to McMartin could lead to concerns about:
> the Pentagon (Presidio daycare scandal with Aquino)
> the White House (Franklin cover-up)
> Republican party (Straight teen bootcamp scandal).

Oh, yeah. Raymond Buckey's CIA-Hollywood decoy movie-
Image
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby lightningBugout » Thu May 21, 2009 4:50 am

Project Willow wrote:This debunker doesn't mention the cut root, or the archway chiseled in the concrete foundation. Those two details are from memory, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

They sure worked hard on covering up McMartin, making it safe for the quasi-academic and the leftie crowd. Does anyone else find it absurd that a psych is critiquing an archeologist? Some better educated person please quote me what rule of professional practice that violates, there has got to be one. Maybe I could write a critique of the designation of that new missing link species, without looking at the fossil, and get it published in an academic journal.


You are correct about both the cut root and the archway from Stickel's report.

Yes, it is absurd that psychologists keep getting the last word over archaeologists here. Although this one is not nearly as pathetic as Underwager's picture of the indoor play structure that is supposed to represent the "tunnels."
"What's robbing a bank compared with founding a bank?" Bertolt Brecht
User avatar
lightningBugout
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby mulebone » Thu May 21, 2009 1:22 pm

Right off the bat, there were HUNDREDS, not dozens of children abused at McMartin. Of the roughly 400 kids who said they were abused, 80 percent had physical symptoms including blunt force trauma, rectal bleeding and STDs.



Gee, those "400 kids" would be in their 30s by now. You'd think that some of them would be outraged enough at the continual debunking of their claims to go public with some kind of reaffirmation. But nope. Not a thing. Only unsourced crap from folk like Constantine. Did you ever notice how Constantine never includes an index in his books, making them all but useless for research?

Wait, maybe they're much too traumatized to talk, eh? Funny, those poor kids in Ireland suffered horrible abuses for years & years & years, yet they haven't buried any memories or refused to talk about any of it.

Kind of makes one wonder, doesn't it?

Oh wait, there was Kyle Zirpolo who said,
"'I felt everyone knew I was lying. But my parents said, "You're doing fine. Don't worry." And everyone was saying how proud they were of me."
[snip]
I think I got the satanic details by picturing our church. We went to American Martyrs, which was a huge Catholic church. Every Sunday we had to go, and Mass would last an hour, hour and a half. None of us wanted to go: It was kicking and screaming all the way there. Sitting, standing, sitting, standing. What I would do was picture the altar, pews and stained-glass windows, and if [investigators] said, "Describe an altar," I would describe the one in our church. Or instead of, "There was a priest in a green suit"�someone who was real�I would say, "A man dressed in red as a cult member." From going to church you know that God is good, and the devil is bad and has horns and is about evil and red and blood. I'd just throw a twist in there with Satan and devil-worshipping.

I remember going in our van with all my brothers and sisters and driving to airports and houses and being asked if we had been [abused in] these places. I remember telling people [that the McMartin teachers] took us to Harry's Meat Market, and describing what I thought the market was like. I had never been in there before, and I was fairly certain I was going to get in trouble for what I was saying because it probably was not accurate. I imagined someone would say, "They don't have that kind of freezer there." And they did say that. But then someone said, "Well, they could have changed it." It was like anything and everything I said would be believed.

The lawyers had all my stories written down and knew exactly what I had said before. So I knew I would have to say those exact things again and not have anything be different, otherwise they would know I was lying. I put a lot of pressure on myself. At night in bed, I would think hard about things I had said in the past and try to repeat only the things I knew I'd said before.

[snip]

We had a highly dysfunctional family. We argued and fought all the time. My mother has always blamed anything negative on the idea that we went to that preschool and were molested. To this day, she believes these things went on. Because if they didn't, how can she explain all the family's problems? To this day, I can't open up with her about my personal problems. She's always asking me why I never do. That one night skewed our relationship.

Once the case was over, it was just over, in the past. The defendants were set free and that was it. The kids' parents never asked, "Why were they innocent? Why were they unable to find evidence to convict these people?"

My family has not seen the movies or read the books questioning the prosecution. It's like skeletons in a closet that you just don't want to take back out. I'm the only one who ever brings the topic up and who admits nothing ever happened to me. I've said I lied about everything, but I've never gotten a real response from my mother and stepfather. It seems really strange, seeing their reaction to the fact that nothing happened to me. If I had gone my whole life thinking my child was molested, I would be elated to find out that he or she wasn't. I'd like to think learning that your child was not molested would supersede anything. After all, all you have is your next day. It would be a shame to live the rest of your life thinking molestation had happened when you could think it didn't.

McMartin is something negative in my life and I'm trying to make it a positive. I've got two little kids I love dearly, they've changed the priorities in my life. My goal is to raise them as best as I can and try to lead by example. I want to be totally honest with them, to say, "This is something that happened to me. I did something dishonest, then at some point I was able to be honest about it." I want my children to be able to come to me like I wish I could have with my parents.


I wonder how many more like Kyle are out there. I also wonder if Constantine ever actually interviewed any of the folk involved before he made his wild sourceless allegations.

Oh yeah, good luck finding a credible source for his " blunt force trauma, rectal bleeding & STDs" claim.

Personally, I don't think it exists.

Since everyone here seems to think McMartin was legit, why not do a collective debunking of the debunkers?

That would quite interesting &, I think, highly amusing.

Of course, the "facts" might put a crimp in the RI belief system, then everyone here would have to find something else to be afraid of, wouldn't they?
Well Robert Moore went down heavy
With a crash upon the floor
And over to his thrashin' body
Betty Coltrane she did crawl.
She put the gun to the back of his head
And pulled the trigger once more
And blew his brains out
All over the table.
mulebone
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby barracuda » Thu May 21, 2009 2:19 pm

Project Willow wrote:This debunker doesn't mention the cut root, or the archway chiseled in the concrete foundation. Those two details are from memory, someone correct me if I'm wrong.


Here is the "archway", from Stickel's report avilable here:

Image

Does anyone else find it absurd that a psych is critiquing an archeologist? Some better educated person please quote me what rule of professional practice that violates, there has got to be one.


I guess I don't find it any more remarkable that a forensic psychologist should evaluate Stickel's report than I do that an archeologist who worked on Raiders of the Lost Ark should be performing forensic detective work on a crime scene.

I had thought, though, that the Kyle Zirpolo recant was somehow tainted by proximity to Debbie Nathan?
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Percival » Thu May 21, 2009 2:38 pm

mulebone wrote:
Right off the bat, there were HUNDREDS, not dozens of children abused at McMartin. Of the roughly 400 kids who said they were abused, 80 percent had physical symptoms including blunt force trauma, rectal bleeding and STDs.



Gee, those "400 kids" would be in their 30s by now. You'd think that some of them would be outraged enough at the continual debunking of their claims to go public with some kind of reaffirmation. But nope. Not a thing. Only unsourced crap from folk like Constantine. Did you ever notice how Constantine never includes an index in his books, making them all but useless for research?

Wait, maybe they're much too traumatized to talk, eh? Funny, those poor kids in Ireland suffered horrible abuses for years & years & years, yet they haven't buried any memories or refused to talk about any of it.

Kind of makes one wonder, doesn't it?

Oh wait, there was Kyle Zirpolo who said,
"'I felt everyone knew I was lying. But my parents said, "You're doing fine. Don't worry." And everyone was saying how proud they were of me."
[snip]
I think I got the satanic details by picturing our church. We went to American Martyrs, which was a huge Catholic church. Every Sunday we had to go, and Mass would last an hour, hour and a half. None of us wanted to go: It was kicking and screaming all the way there. Sitting, standing, sitting, standing. What I would do was picture the altar, pews and stained-glass windows, and if [investigators] said, "Describe an altar," I would describe the one in our church. Or instead of, "There was a priest in a green suit"�someone who was real�I would say, "A man dressed in red as a cult member." From going to church you know that God is good, and the devil is bad and has horns and is about evil and red and blood. I'd just throw a twist in there with Satan and devil-worshipping.

I remember going in our van with all my brothers and sisters and driving to airports and houses and being asked if we had been [abused in] these places. I remember telling people [that the McMartin teachers] took us to Harry's Meat Market, and describing what I thought the market was like. I had never been in there before, and I was fairly certain I was going to get in trouble for what I was saying because it probably was not accurate. I imagined someone would say, "They don't have that kind of freezer there." And they did say that. But then someone said, "Well, they could have changed it." It was like anything and everything I said would be believed.

The lawyers had all my stories written down and knew exactly what I had said before. So I knew I would have to say those exact things again and not have anything be different, otherwise they would know I was lying. I put a lot of pressure on myself. At night in bed, I would think hard about things I had said in the past and try to repeat only the things I knew I'd said before.

[snip]

We had a highly dysfunctional family. We argued and fought all the time. My mother has always blamed anything negative on the idea that we went to that preschool and were molested. To this day, she believes these things went on. Because if they didn't, how can she explain all the family's problems? To this day, I can't open up with her about my personal problems. She's always asking me why I never do. That one night skewed our relationship.

Once the case was over, it was just over, in the past. The defendants were set free and that was it. The kids' parents never asked, "Why were they innocent? Why were they unable to find evidence to convict these people?"

My family has not seen the movies or read the books questioning the prosecution. It's like skeletons in a closet that you just don't want to take back out. I'm the only one who ever brings the topic up and who admits nothing ever happened to me. I've said I lied about everything, but I've never gotten a real response from my mother and stepfather. It seems really strange, seeing their reaction to the fact that nothing happened to me. If I had gone my whole life thinking my child was molested, I would be elated to find out that he or she wasn't. I'd like to think learning that your child was not molested would supersede anything. After all, all you have is your next day. It would be a shame to live the rest of your life thinking molestation had happened when you could think it didn't.

McMartin is something negative in my life and I'm trying to make it a positive. I've got two little kids I love dearly, they've changed the priorities in my life. My goal is to raise them as best as I can and try to lead by example. I want to be totally honest with them, to say, "This is something that happened to me. I did something dishonest, then at some point I was able to be honest about it." I want my children to be able to come to me like I wish I could have with my parents.


I wonder how many more like Kyle are out there. I also wonder if Constantine ever actually interviewed any of the folk involved before he made his wild sourceless allegations.

Oh yeah, good luck finding a credible source for his " blunt force trauma, rectal bleeding & STDs" claim.

Personally, I don't think it exists.

Since everyone here seems to think McMartin was legit, why not do a collective debunking of the debunkers?

That would quite interesting &, I think, highly amusing.

Of course, the "facts" might put a crimp in the RI belief system, then everyone here would have to find something else to be afraid of, wouldn't they?


I have to agree with you, it isnt the popular choice but that is ok. There is way too much unsourced allegations all over the fucking internet these days dealing with conspircies of all kinds from 9-11 to McMartin and everything in between. I have my own little conspiracy theory of course as to why it is this way, there are some really fucked things going on in the world and as long as people like Alex Jones and Constantine can keep the attention of those few who might take notice diverted from whats really going on the easier it is to get away with it.

Also, the fact that fucking Gunderson was behind this whole McMartin charade is enough for me to put it to bed once and for all, which I did long ago. Anyone who believes anything that windbag has to say...

Keep in mind that I want the truth, regardless of the cost or toll, about what is really going on in this world, but unsubstantiated BS like this and no planes on 9-11 ETC, really makes it difficult for those of us really searching for it, to be taken seriously by anyone anymore, thanks to the fucking internet and this new trendy fad of being a conspiracy theoriest tin foil beanie baby.


I am not saying nothing happened at McMartin and surely I am not saying that ritual and sexual abuse does not happen to both children and adults in an organized and widescale manner, but those kids are old enough now that they could really shed some light on this matter and I have not seen many if any of them ever come forward. Simply throwing the idea out there that they had anal, vaginal damage and had STDs without any credible evidence to back that up is very irresponsible and stinks of psyops and purposed disinformation to me.

Maybe McMartin was just another distraction, used as a scapegoat to cover up something else, much more sinister, that people like Gunderson and his tag-along disinfo groupies knew about or are/were involved in?****

Maybe not.

Color me causiously skeptical.





****The above statement is an opinion and stated as such with no basis in fact, so take any charges of libel, defamation or slander and shove them up your ass.
Last edited by Percival on Thu May 21, 2009 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Percival
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:09 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby mulebone » Thu May 21, 2009 3:11 pm

Thank you, Percival.

There is way too much unsourced allegations all over the fucking internet these days


I googled "New World Order" a week ago and got over a billion and a quarter pages in return. In a few years, there will be a NWO web page for every person on the planet.

there are some really fucked things going on in the world and as long as people like Alex Jones and Constantine can keep the attention of those few who might take notice diverted from whats really going on the easier it is to get away with it.


I agree. My problem with Constantine is that he sources very little, making it impossible to check anything. It's as if he expects folk to take his word for everything. In my opinion, if you make allegations you'd better be able to back them up with something that approaches evidence. I don't think folk like Constantine should be granted any more slack than one would grant a president babbling about imaginary nuclear weapons.

When someone parses data & makes wild unsubstantiated claims based on little more than rumor, I think they do a grave disservice to any legitimate victims.

As far as the tunnel theory goes, if I remember correctly, Stickels said the "tunnels" were filled in after the first allegations were aired. Did Stickels go on to explain how that little feat was accomplished? The amount of dirt needed would have filled a few dump trucks, yet no one in that town saw a thing. Seems a bit odd since most folk in that town were apparently keeping a close eye on the "abuse site."
Well Robert Moore went down heavy
With a crash upon the floor
And over to his thrashin' body
Betty Coltrane she did crawl.
She put the gun to the back of his head
And pulled the trigger once more
And blew his brains out
All over the table.
mulebone
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Grizzly and 162 guests