Talk:McMartin preschool trial

Bizarre allegations and source verification

The new paragraph needs source verification from a neutral observer, even if Wheresthekat (talk · contribs) isn't a sock puppet of a banned user. The NY Times references are not in the online archive (although some seem supported by other NY Times articles in the article), and the SF Chronicle's archive doesn't go back that far. Without the SF Chronicle's article stating the police found things supported by the children's testimony, it's not notable, so I'm not going to attempt to re-source the NY Times articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm Wheresthekat and I'd like to defend my citations. I'm not sure what you mean by "sock puppet" and I don't think it would be prudent to respond to that particular comment.

All of my sources were obtained from http://www.elibrary.com. I have the articles--both New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle--in full on my hard drive and have provided correct dates, titles, and author names. If the New York Times articles "BOY, 7, IS WITNESS IN CALIFORNIA CHILD ABUSE CASE" (1985) and "REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK: 6 MONTHS OF CALIFORNIA CASE" (1985) are missing from the New York Times archive, then it is indeed interesting that they appear in www.elibrary.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheresthekat (talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the sock puppet allegations. There was an editor, now banned, (and who continued creating new editor names after he was banned), who placed statements about the prevelance of SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse), which turned out not to be from where he said it was, and, after further investigation, turned out to be from a web site selling SRA-related materials. I'm a NY Times archive subscriber, and if I can verify those articles, I'll properly tag the {{cite news}} sections. (It's supposed to be "publisher=New York Times", rather than "work = in New York Times", but that's minor.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the San Francisco Chronicle article "Satanism Linked to Scores of U.S. Abuse Cases" (1987) constitutes the main evidence for my paragraph, I would prefer that your efforts be focused on the verification of that. You say that the San Francisco Chronicle archive doesn't go back that far, but the article should still be accessible through a microfiche at a public library. My public library provides users with access to ProQuest, which owns/incorporates elibrary. Perhaps your library has a similar set-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheresthekat (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the later SF Chronicle "articles" on McMartin in the archive seem to be editorials, which we also cannot use toward toward supporting statements of fact, only toward supporting notability. Could you re-check and make sure the article is really an article, and not a commentary piece? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This particular article was not about the McMartin case per se, but focused on the trend of preschool molestation cases and cited claims relating to as well as evidence from many such cases. The particular piece of information in the article that is relevant to my paragraph of the McMartin Wikipedia article reads

"Some children also alleged that a McMartin teacher cut the ears off rabbits to scare them. Investigators raided the home belonging to the girlfriend of one suspect and found a pair of rabbit ears, a black cloak, a black cape and black candles." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheresthekat (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The section still places undue weight on the reality of the claims - there were hundreds of claims made in the investigations, interviews and during court. Finding one person's candles (which many people have) a black cloak and cape (what's the difference? Was it a Hallowe'en costume? In the Eberle's book I also recall the police citing as evidence a black skirt as a "satanic costume" when it was, well, a skirt). Rabbit ears can mean the ears of a rabbit, or items used to improve television reception. There's also an award-winning series of articles by Shaw on how the media coverage of the McMartin trial was relentlessly negative and uncritical, making the claims suspect. The trials (because there were two) ended without conviction, so obviously the evidence was meaningless and the whole thing is now considered the results of flawed interviewing techniques by overzealous prosecutors. Having the section in is a way of saying "look, there was credibility, a mistake was made". It's undue weight that ignores the mainstream critical coverage and retrospective analysis of the trial as part of the moral panic. We are not bound to cite articles merely because they exist. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

From mediation page

Pasted from the mediation page WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Note that wikipedia is meant to report what the contemporary, mainstream authorities think about topics, not what was reported twenty years ago in coverage that was criticized for being biased. We are bound to give due weight to the relevant experts - contemporary sources name it an iconic example of the satanic ritual abuse moral panic. We do not source everything that can be sourced, particularly not sources from the peak of the panic that have been supplanted and replaced by sources that have the benefit of hindsight. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You may believe that the entire McMartin preschool episode was the result of hysteria and that the charges had absolutely no merit. The reader is free to believe this, too. I am simply stating that some of the allegations were corroborated by police investigations. Unless you are claiming that the San Francisco Chronicle was so biased that it faked a police report, then there is no reason to prevent my very short and factual contribution from appearing on the page. Readers should be presented with facts, no matter what prevailing viewpoint they support, and allowed to make their own conclusions. Wheresthekat (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Wheresthekat

Actually, far more relevant than my opinion about McMartin is the opinion of the majority relevant scholars (and cultural commentators since it's not a scientific issue). "Some of the allegations" being "corroborated" is certainly an opinion. A news report of a couple items from the vast list produced by children being found in someone's house is rather irrelevant. There were two trials, and the defendants were found not gulity on all of them. So placing in a statement that basically says "but they were really guilty, they just beat the system" (and that's certainly the subtext of those particular pieces) misrepresents the actual outcome of the trial and places undue weight on the idea that they were really guilty and just got away with it, a belief and approach certainly held by some zealots within child protection and conspiracy fringes, but not by most of society. I would not even include a "Some corroboration was found for the children's testimony" as we can not tell from the context which children reported these items, what was the context they were found in, if they ever appeared as evidence in the trial, if they had any impact (which obviously they did not because the defendants were found not guilty), if it was truly corroboration, etc. This looks like a rather textbook fringe POV-push for undue weight. Next will we cite the claim made by Treating Abuse Today that Ray Buckey had access to a special effects studio and that's how he faked killing a horse? Perhaps point out that the Eberles were child pornographers? I don't think so. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WLU, I think that you are going overboard in your interpretation of my three-sentence contribution. I have read about the case and have not made up my mind on it one way or the other. What I do believe is that the whole episode was not as cut-and-dry as many would like to believe. For instance, all seven of the jurors who attended the press conference after the second trial told reporters that they believed that the children had been abused by someone, but said they simply couldn't convict based on the wild claims with which they were presented. The Wikipedia article as it now stands leads the reader to believe that none of the children were ever abused in any way, that nothing at all out of the ordinary happened and that overzealous busybodies were responsible for the whole episode. I am simply stating that things were not that simple. You do not seem to have a problem with the truth of my contribution, only the fact that the contribution does not fit the press's current view about the case, which seems, coincidentally, to be your view. Ignoring evidence does not make for honest writing. Wheresthekat (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Wheresthekat (talk • contribs) 19:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The trial found that none of the children were abused by any of the defendants, so why should we put in unclear, possibly irrelevant information that suggests they were? Your point is covered explicitly in this section and needs no dubious pre-trial commentary from a biased source that appears to have had no follow-up and did not significantly impact the trial. Also, how is adding 24-year-old newspaper articles helping with the press' current view about the case? And finally, we attribute claims to reliable sources. Adding "evidence" makes it sound like you are either trying to force a conclusion or draw your own, either of which is inappropriate. Addressing your actual wording on the page, no bizarre sounding claims were verified by the police. In one suspect's house (which one? Buckey? One of the McMartins? Was it Peggy McMartin, whose black graduation robe was found and labelled by the police as "satanic"?) they found a robe, cape, candles and rabbit ears. Which does not verify that a black mass occurred. You have one piece of tangential evidence cited as if it vindicates everything said by the children. It does not. Should the page list all the claims of the children that were not verified (tunnels, making chiild pornography, rape, Raymond Buckey killing a horse, flying through the air like a witch, being flushed down the toilet, children having sex with giraffes, being abused by Chuck Norris)? No, it should not. Clearly undue weight, clearly inappropriate. They interviewed these kids for hours, days, months. Should we be surprised that they managed to find a small number of mundane items that corroborated a small number of claims? Should we cite that Buckey owned some playboys and was therefore into child pornography? Do you have any indication that these items were entered into evidence and therefore had even a tiny impact on the trial and are therefore relevant to the page? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid WLU's comment is not quite correct. The trial found that no defendant could be shown to have abused any children beyond a reasonable doubt. It did not (specificially) find that none of the children was abused by any of the defendants. In fact, no credible evidence was presented that any of the children was abused by any of the defendants, but that's a conclusion, which cannot appear in the article unless published by a WP:RS. Still, the statement which Wheresthekat wants to add doesn't seem to be notable, even if the SF Chronicle article is an article and not an editorial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To retain all details published in any source that had some bearing on the case would for one thing seem rather akin to using primary sources, for another overwhelm the page with minutia and for a third, run the significant risk of selecting only those items which gives the impression that the trial outcome was in fact a miscarriage of justice for the children. The media reporting was primarily critical, slanted to give the impressions the defendants were guilty without any other option, and ultimately were published at the time of the investigation. I also see no reason to include any of it in the trial. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WLU, do you honestly consider a pair of severed rabbit's ears to be a "mundane item"?Wheresthekat (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Wheresthekat

Thread your posts. I have in my house an impression from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, a copy of the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, a statue of Kali, Death Goddess, five library books with "satan" in the title, a variety of extremely sharp knives, leather, steel-toed combat boots, a three foot long authentic killing saber, a variety of cords suitable for restraining someone and a whole lot of black clothes. None of whick proves I am obsessed with death, Tibetan, a Hindu death worshipper, a satanist, a Nazi or Neo-Nazi, a mercenary from 18th century Europe, a serial killer or a Goth. I don't believe the criteria for including stuff on wikipedia was stuff I thought was weird. Wheresthekat, do you really think it is worth including, it somehow demonstrates something vital to our readers, the presence of five innocuous objects which say nothing about the individual or the case? Five objects which could easily have been seen by the student when the teacher brought them in to school? Or that the only, the only things the satanists (and, or including, Chuck Norris), while killing giraffes, transporting children through tunnels and sewer pipes, making pornograpy, flying through the air, messily dismembering babies, the only thing they forgot to do was get rid of a couple pieces of clothing? While we're on the subject of "what editors think of the 'evidence'", what do you think could be other reasons for having any of those items? Are you telling me the only explanation that could apply is "oops, the worldwide conspiracy missed something"? Or could it be something like, oh, say, taxidermy, a hallowe'en party, a good luck charm, a tchotchke, a graduation gown? The "evidence" proves nothing and was not sufficient to secure a prosecution, making it meaningless. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WLU, I don't understand why you feel that you need to make such virulent defenses against world-wide networks and massive conspiracies that I have never claimed or implied, and certainly haven't tried to contribute to the article, which should be the focus of our discussions here. Yes, I acknowledge that there could be reasonable reasons for having each of those items separately (although taxidermists shouldn't be lopping the ears off of specimens they are supposed to be stuffing and preserving to look lifelike), and I am not claiming that that one incident alone constitutes proof that any of the suspects or defendants were involved or guilty. But I still say that it deserves to be in the article, for the simple reason that it gives credence to one of the "wild" claims made by the children and balances out the article's biased tone that all of the claims were unfounded. We are going in circles here; I await comment from a neutral observer. Wheresthekat (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Wheresthekat

Undent. A series of innocuous items certainly does not give credence to the wild and bizarre allegations made. A dead giraffe, horse, evidence of tunnels or toilets you could flush a child down, those would. This is a series of innocuous objects. By placing them in a paragraph called "Bizarre allegations" it gives the impression that the actual bizarre allegations may have had credibility when these items are in fact totally unrelated to the bizarre allegations. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I still think it's utterly, utterly irrelevant, but the person who had these items removed from their home was Robert Winkler [1] Winkler was in prison for unrelated charges of child molestation, but was never charged in relation to McMartin and later committed suicide. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 05:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I know this debate has long passed, but it galls me that some people can't seem to differentiate between plausible findings at the time and current thinking (which is how articles like this are supposed to be driven). To Wheresthekat's way of thinking, we should continue to keep innocent people in prison despite new DNA evidence that exonerates them, simply because authorities at the time had reason to believe guilt. Sorry. Just had to get that off my chest.PacificBoy 22:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Book resources

In addition to the further reading I just added, I may have found the Pulitzer prize-winning Shaw stories criticizing the media coverage on google books - [2] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename discussion for all ritual abuse cases

Editors note generalized discussion affecting all ritual abuse cases, at Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#Rename_discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Longest running criminal case in American history?

This case is often cited as the longest running criminal case in American history. I have found the specifics of that. Since definitions vary, I have settled on a continuous charge-to-resolution criteria. Resolution is exoneration or sentencing. I decided on sentencing rather than conviction because culpability is still being determined in the sentencing process. For example, a person pleading guilty to involuntary manslaught might still be able to prove in the sentencing process that he had a seizure he lost control of his car and killed someone, but sentencing is otherwise a very short process that adds to the resolution tedium.

In this case, charges were initiated 1984 March 22 and the first trial ended 1990 January 18, for a total of 2129 days:

http://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?m1=3&d1=22&y1=1984&m2=1&d2=18&y2=1990&ti=on

I don't count retrials since some people have gotten retrials years or maybe even decades after their first trial, so that means to me that retrials can't be considered part of the continuous charge-to-sentencing process, and don't add anything to the overall question of how tedious the proceedings were.

Does anyone know of any continuous charge-to-resolution criminal case that's longer than 2129 days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwasty (talk • contribs) 18:18, September 19, 2009

Wikipedia asserts verifiability, not truth, and we're not allowed to present our own analysis. If the citations support the statement then they can't be removed or contradicted unless there's a newer source that states explicitly "X trial was longer than the McMartin". It's not guaranteed that it's still, or ever was the longest trial ever, but there are a lot of sources saying it was. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Janet Reno and Followup

The role which Janet Reno played needs to be described in fuller depth inasmuch as Reno was of the opinion that upwards of 300,000 babies are ritually bred, raped, murdered, and eaten in the United States annually, commentary of which can be found in a number of clinical aftermath books written which chronicalizes the McMartin Preschool fiasco, including "The Abuse of Innocence," and "Satan's Silence," titles selected for shock value yet books which details the absurdity of the beliefs harbored by the Christian cultists who see their "Satan" god evidenced everywhere.

Reno, of course, was another primary driving force in ther Branch Davidians fiasco, once again operating under the belief that Vernon and the other Davidians were "Satanists," believers in the Christanic gods and worshipping the Christanic gods, raping kids, stockpiling illegal weapons, and part of the world-wide baby-eating conspiracy ideologies under which Reno operated.

Since I run The Skeptic Tank and participated in the deunking of the false memory implantation which occured during the McMartin fiasco, I get a whole lot of email from Christanic cultists who still believe that the McMartin Preschool et al. was part of their believed-in world-wide Satanic conspiracy, and I received an email from one of the principle insane women who observed a rash on her child's bottom and, given the prediliction of her Christanbic occult beliefs and her mental problems, launched off the whole fiasco.

She informed me that tunnels had been found, presumably the same tunnels children were walked through on their way to airplanes which took them to Puru for ritual rape, dismemberment, and then reanimation through magic as eventually described by some of the children after months of massive abuse by Christianic parents, Christanic therapists, and Christanic law enforcement officers. The evidence was the deranged cultists had purchased McMartin Preschool property and excavated and found old tin cans buried when the region was constructed by the site's developers. The fact that cans were dug up was used by the cultists as confirmation of their occult notions, and some of the most profoundly mentally disturbed Christianics still believe it and still send emails trying to whip up the alarm that babies are being bred and eaten and that the "Satan" god is walking among us.

An article covering the McMartin Preschool fiasco in depth would constitute several books however I think any serious Wikipedia article should include comments from Janet Reno underscoring her involvement, motivated by her occult beliefs.

Reno also deserves more mention here in this article because she involved herself in a number of cases which she whipped up in to levels of "Satanic Panic" which, while they never achieved the McMartin level, they were still horrible enough to put innocent people in jail which, after several years, had to all be released eventually after retrials with non-Christian extremist prosecutors and without Reno's office pushing insane claims were held. Her record in regards to fomenting Satanic Panics in Florida and Northern California were epic and, in her mental problems, her confabulating of other religions -- such as palo mayombe -- as being "Satanic" Christianity never stopped regardless of the endless series of court case losses which found all defendants to be innocent.

Fredric Rice (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal correspondence, unless acknowledged or published, is not allowable in our articles. However, if Reno's involvement is significant, and you can find reliable sources, it probably should be included, or possibly more so in the "Satanic ritual abuse" article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Church and State

There's another lesson here that should be underscored in the article which the article lacks. The involvement of Christanic cult extremists in the legal system was rampant in the McMartin case and once again the world saw the consequences of insane cultists dragging their mental problems in to the Judicial system and trying to put people in prison predicated upon conspiracy beliefs that cultists harbor.

The United States where the McMartin fiasco took place is supposedly a nation whose Constitution dictates the seporation of religious cults from the government however McMartin was defacto Christanic cultists trying to put innocent people in prison under the shield of legitimate governmental law enforcement.

This aspect of McMartin should also be underscored in this article since failing to underscore the reasons why mcMartin took place does not tell the full story. Fredric Rice (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Chuck Norris

the allegations of Chuck Norris appear to be fabricated considering that his name could not be found in the source cited 173.180.202.22 (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Should I remove it? 173.180.202.22 (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Eh, this talk page is dead, I'ma just go ahead. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've read it several times, it's legit. I've sourced it to Abuse of Innocence, page 22. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, my bad, wonder how that other cite got there, just a mistake. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries, if the source used didn't actually verify the point in question then it should have been removed or replaced. As the replacing editor, it was up to me to find a source. I did, and the page is better, win-win! Thanks for checking the original reference. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Math problem

the trial ran from 1987 to 1990. After six years of criminal trials, no convictions were obtained, and all charges were dropped in 1990

90 minus 87 is 3. How is that "six years" of trials?

Accusations were made in 1983. Arrests and the pretrial investigation ran from 1984 to 1987

84 to 90 would be six years, but arrests and investigations are not "criminal trials" so it would be incorrect to say that.

Shouldn't we change this to either "three years of trials" or "six years of prosecution"? Ranze (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate section to discuss suffering of the accused

Was reading some interview transcripts. If what is said is true, this is horrifying and I think something relevant to touch upon in the article, as an example of what sex abuse hysteria can result in. From UMKC.edu:

"I very stupidly took a small pair of scissors [for protection] and I let my dogs in the house and I went out to the back. You know, in Manhattan Beach how houses are on the side of a hill and you have to walk back to the alley. And as I walked back…someone grabbed me from the back, and I passed out. This guy threatened me that he would harm my mother. He took scissors and he cut me..."

It gets very graphic. Shouldn't the article discuss things like this happening to the accused? Ranze (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the Tunnels - Why is layman opinion given equal weight on the expert opinion?

As far as I can tell the only reason Stickel's report was dismissed is because people don't like his conclusions. What a coincidence that he finds tunnel networks exactly where the children alleged they would be, huh?

E. Gary Stickel, Ph.D.

Archaeological Investigations of the McMartin Preschool site, Manhattan Beach, California

Executive Summary

During the month of May 1990 an archaeological project was conducted at the McMartin Preschool site to determine, once and for all, whether or not there had ever been tunnels under the building, as described by various children. Excavation was carried out according to established scientific conventions with a careful research design defining what might prove or disprove the existence of "an underground feature that would connect to the surface of the site and extend underground for some distance..(with) dimensions large enough to accomodate adult human movement through it." (p 24)

The project unearthed not one but two tunnel complexes as well as previously unrecognized structural features which defied logical explanation. Both tunnel complexes conformed to locations and functional descriptions established by children's reports. One had been described as providing undetected access to an adjacent building on the east. The other provided outside access under the west wall of the building and contained within it an enlarged, cavernous artifact corresponding to children's descriptions of a "secret room". Both the contour signature of the walls and the nature of recovered artifacts indicated that the tunnels had been dug by hand under the concrete slab floor after the construction of the building. Whatever the purpose of this elaborate enterprise, even more effort must have been devoted to filling the tunnels back in and trying to conceal any evidence of their existence. Much of the fill dirt used for packing the tunnel spaces was mixed with historic debris, as if to mimic the surrounding terrain.

Not only did the discovered features fulfill the research prequalifications as tunnels designed for human traffic, there was also no alternative or natural explanation for the presence of such features....

http://www.webcitation.org/5T6SrSIn1

64.222.209.188 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)