Talk:McMartin preschool trial/Archive 2

Bizarre allegations and source verification
The new paragraph needs source verification from a neutral observer, even if 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 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. Pac if ic Bo y  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 - 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. 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)

This would violate wikipedia's neutral point of view. Also, (without very full knowledge of what "Christanic" is; I assume it is some form of term used as a replacement for "Christian".) Christianity is not widely classified as a "cult", so including this would be false anyways.


 * If able to be proven with verifiable and relatively unbiased sources, you could include that religion (or even Christianity specifically) was involved in the case. However, this is fairly summed up in the final line of the prelude "The case... early 1990s", and adding it appears to be unnecessary and/or redundant.


 * Also, your entire statement seems to be heavily biased. The statement sounds more like a protest then an encyclopedia article. As previously stated, including religious influence could be a valid move. Claiming it's in violation of separation of state, that the "christianic" judges were insane (without any verified evidence such as medical records), etc. is not. Stating any wide-held beliefs or suspicions wouldn't be in violation, provided that there are legitimate sources to cite and that they are labelled as "criticism" [or the like] is not. [I.E. a news article]173.202.83.154 (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

was using non-standard terminology, and I don't think the correct view of what he said is important, but the accusations did involve certain distortions of Christian rituals; Christanic might be an attempt to say "Satanic as seen through Christian myths". I don't consider it an important view, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2015 (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)


 * Actually John Earl's information (cited in the article) refuting Stickel's characterization of what he found has tunnels suitable for human use and movement doesn't just come from "a layman opinion". It comes from a professional and licensed geologist named Eugene Michael.  He's the one who concluded that there would have to have been wall and ceiling support (none of which was found) for any such tunnels to be maintained, and he also said that contrary to Stickel's description of the "secret room" being almost 7 feet in height, Michael actually went into the cavity and measured it at less that four feet. He also provided alternative explanations for the presence of that cavity, contrary to Stickel's claim that there were no other explanations.  76.170.162.114 (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, to address the semi-related issue of 'layman vs. expert' -- in the US, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence does not list formal credentials as a requirement to qualify as an 'expert' in a criminal trial; the RoE only list 'knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education'. In fact, I could qualify as an expert under 702 (in a number of fields), and I don't even have any college degrees. 75.157.24.181 (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What is Stickel supposed to be an expert in. Even if the Court found him to be an expert, it would not mean that we would need to give his conclusions any weight except in that they were accepted by the court or by real experts.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on McMartin preschool trial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810165136/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcmartin/lettertoparents.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcmartin/lettertoparents.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030031909/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcmartin/mcmartinaccount.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcmartin/mcmartinaccount.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on McMartin preschool trial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210011533/http://forum.signonsandiego.com/showthread.php?t=53465 to http://forum.signonsandiego.com/showthread.php?t=53465
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050616081619/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcmartin/mcmartin.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcmartin/mcmartin.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Relevance of Finders Report(19/10/25)
The Finder's report, released by the FBI today, appears to contain information w/ regards to tunnels and potential intentional design for purposes of abuse at McMartin pre-school, and information that would appear to show definitive evidence of human use of tunnels under the school(a children's school bag which was found in the tunnels, 4 large containers, plates with pentagrams drawn on them, animal bones, etc). Unsure whether any relevant information should be added to specific section or given its own section, which may provide greater clarity. This report also explicitly states that one tunnel led into a neighbouring triplex, and it is noted that children precisely predicted entrance and exit point of one tunnel. Majority of information I have seen thus far exists on or around page 49 of the document, though I've yet to do a full read and was merely seeking to confirm information I had been told prior to downloading the file. 66.102.84.93 (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We would need to be able to point to coverage in reliable sources to support this claim. Exceptional claims (like this one) generally requires exceptional sources, and a picking stuff out of a 300 page FBI report isn't going to cut it.  Nblund talk 01:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a very unusual bar seeing as the media is most of the time in bed with government agencies, and this is not some conspiracy. HeinzMaster talk 4:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You may want to check out pages 48-50 of the pdf. This is not 'picking stuff out', but instead a clearly legitimate source with contrary facts.Fitzydog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks those pages are referencing stuff from Ted Gunderson, those claims have been floating around for decades. There's nothing unusual about asking for reliable secondary sources for an exceptional claim. If you can't find any reliable secondary source that supports this interpretation, then there's nothing here we can add.  Nblund talk 03:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , those pages have no context other than being part of a "preliminary report". Rather than making our own interpretations of this type of primary source, we need to wait until it is covered in independent secondary sources. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Confirmed, document comes from Ted Gundersons report, it's unclear why these documents were included, but they do not appear to contain any new information- the page included in the Finder's Report is within the document Gunderson released. 66.102.84.93 (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Would we be okay with inserting language into the "continuing allegations of tunnels" section that says something along the lines of "In October 2019, documents released by the FBI contained a preliminary congressional report from 1993 alleging firsthand archaeological evidence of a tunnel network under the school building."? It seems that this article is incomplete without a mention of the appearance of the McMartins in these files, and that secondary media sources are, for whatever reason (I don't care to speculate), lacking. I'm not sure why quoting a preliminary congressional report would be considered a primary source that one must pick over or even interpret to be able to say "X report alleges Y." It seems like a secondary source of ambiguous validity, claiming to digest the primary source (that is, the forensic report referred to in the document). Given all that, a quote that neutrally describes what it alleges and in what context would seem useful. MechaBonaldMkV (talk) 05:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "A secondary source of ambiguous validity" would not be a reliable source, especially when exceptional claims require "multiple high-quality sources". – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The media isn't covering it because it isn't news. It comes from the 1993 report from Gunderson and Stickel. That report is already discussed in the entry here. If someone wants to present this as new information, they need to find a reliable secondary source that supports that presentation. Nblund talk 15:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

See "The Finders Part 01 of 01 pdf" page 48 and 49 at https://vault.fbi.gov/the-finders/. Tunnels were found beneath the McMartin School, led to neighbor's bathroom floor, contained animal bones and even a plastic plate with three pentagrams drawn on it. All of that documented, but denied evidence, lends great credibility to the testimony of the children. Media said nothing was found, but this document says otherwise and goes into great detail what was found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.14.210.193 (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Read the discussion above, which is already about this topic. The documents about the tunnels are from a source which was later debunked, the FBI is just including them in these records because they were presented to the FBI during their investigation. This is not the FBI saying "this happened," it's the FBI dumping all the paperwork they gathered into one big online bin. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not there is new material or not, a law enforcement source is useful for any scenario like this. I wouldn't call the FBI an unreliable source. Nuke (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , you should read the comment directly above yours. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2019
Because of the recently released FBI documents on the finders that can be found at: https://vault.fbi.gov/the-finders

new information on the McMartins Preschool incident has come out, specifically on pages 48/49 it shows that an archeological survey of the preschool found tunnels where the children described them and the discovery of pentagrams and thousands of artifacts including 100 animal bones. I feel as though this information should be included in this wiki. Chrisdies (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. Please provide reliable, secondary sources that support these claims, and then make a  request about text you'd like to add.  Providing your own interpretation of primary sources violates Wikipedia's policy on no original research.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Wait we can't include the finders doc? Thats bullshit --Generaluser11 (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Read this talk page for why. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 21:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

FBI released new data Oct 2019 confirming the tunnels existed
Goto Page 48 and 49

https://vault.fbi.gov/the-finders/the-finders-part-01-of-01/view --OxAO (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Previous discussion on this talk page has explained that this information is neither new nor accurate. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Bearing in mind WP:NOTAFORUM, I have to say it baffles me that so many people seem to want to believe these children were molested, even though there was zero credible evidence to support it. The initial complaint came from a certifiably mentally-ill person who claimed Buckey could fly (the investigation should have ended right there), and in the many decades since this happened, not a single 'survivor' child has come forward as an adult to say that they were in fact molested. Why would you want this to have actually happened, when clearly it didn't? Rhetorical question. The 'tunnels' claim was nonsense, no credible evidence has ever been presented that they actually existed. Be glad this turned out not to be true, rather than wishing it were....okay, soapbox stowed, apologies for the WP:NOTAFORUM commentary. Anastrophe (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Michael P. Maloney was the only examiner that discredited the accounts of many highly trained professionals in each respected fields after reviewing video tapes of the kids. That alone doesn't make sense.  The contractor in-charge of the demolition of the school years later said there was filled in tunnels.   This report from the forensic reports of the FBI it wasn't from Ted Gunderson.  The head of the FBI and many others reputation was destroyed because they wouldn't back down from what they knew.  If you where one of a hand full of witnesses would you come forward?  I don't want to believe there are human sacrifices such as these.   though I do believe the preponderance of evidence does lean to murder.  You wanting to believe Michael P. Maloney seems frivolous knowing his record of other cases. --OxAO (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * A) the document from the FBI included documents Ted Gunderson released, and no new information. This has previously been established on this talk page.  B), this is Wikipedia, it's not the place to make claims and discuss potentials.  If you can provide a source showing that the head of the FBI and 'many others' were removed from their offices for refusing to cover this up, provide them so we can include it in the article.  If this happened, I would love nothing more than to do my part to tell the world about how the government played a role, but without a source, you come across as merely deranged, especially as you talk about 'the preponderance of evidence does lean to murder', when no body has been found and no missing person pointed to as the victim.  If you find evidence, go to the news and get it aired- there's not a single publication in the country that wouldn't love to air this dirty laundry.  Until then, Wikipedia can't host it because there's no reason to believe it's true.  I understand that you want to see those responsible punished, but the first step is proving that there is something for someone to be responsible FOR.  66.102.84.93 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Two things that is new about this. 1.  It says this is forensics work which Gunderson wasn't part of forensics.   2.  It was in the category of the "the finders" which Gunderson didn't work on--OxAO (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Your statements are simply incorrect. There is a link to the Gunderson report above if you want to confirm it yourself. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I read it. it's a different drawing with a little different tunnel locations and wording was changed with the new document stating it was from forensics.   These forensic files was categorized under "the finders" which Gunderson did NOT work on.   this is two points.  You might argue that Gunderson influenced the forensic teams report therefore it may not be new information.  Though you can't avoid these forensics were under "the finders."  Which the MO of the claimed group used tunnels --OxAO (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The "finders" information looks like part of a huge FOIA dump, and I see no other indication where the information on the pages from it come from or who wrote them, which is not reliable enough for something controversial like this. Also, page 49 of the "finders" information even references Gunderson ("Gunderson says two tunnels may have once been connected"). Have any reliable secondary sources reported on the information? Otherwise, I don't think it has enough verification or due weight to be included. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It's unclear who created these 2 pages or what their relationship is to surrounding pages in the document. The site comes with lots of disclaimers. So I don't think this proves much. So it doesn't warrant the whole new subsection that's been added. But I suppose we should keep the link. I'll try to fix this, and hope other editors can improve it. DougHill (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Why no Bail?
Imprisoned for five years? 2A00:23C3:E284:900:7520:A02C:72FA:FC97 (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for discussing the article's subject. You'd likely have to read the court transcripts to find why the judge denied bail. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

No molestation, but the FBI still says there were tunnels, and artifacts
Let me be clear: I do not believe that the children were molested. Some of the allegations are either physically impossible, or would be fatal if they were somehow possible (such as kids who claimed to have been flushed down the toilet, for example).

The FBI document declassified last year still shows what it shows. The presence of artifacts in the tunnels is not evidence of molestation by Principal Virginia McMartin or any of the teachers working for her. If anything, the artifacts are evidence that the children occasionally wandered into the utility service tunnels underneath the school.

Sure, that sounds unsafe, and sure, restricted utility tunnels should have had childproof gates by today's standards. That said, it was the 1980s. I myself did unsafe things as a little boy that today's children would never be allowed to get away with; my friend and I used to explore an abandoned bus while our parents were buying Christmas trees. We also crawled through storm drainage pipes. He knows in retrospect that this stuff was unsafe, and so do I. (Another close childhood friend was a girl, and I don't remember any obvious examples like that with her. That's ironic considering she's now an amateur MMA fighter. They say girls bring sanity, but I digress.)

Yes, I am still friends with both of them, but that's not the point here. The point is that, based on forsenic evidence now declassified by the FBI, children occasionally sneaked into restricted utility service tunnels. Again, I myself did stupid things like this as a little boy, and I grew up in the 1990s! These children were the decade before mine, and so the "standards of the era" had an even more...to put it politely...nuanced relationship with child safety.

Again for clarification: Just because children sometimes went where they weren't supposed to be, it absolutely does not mean that the teachers were molesting them. The latter claim is false, with overwhelming evidence against it. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The FBI document is just one of many documents given to the FBI by others. Being included in the archive does not mean the FBI says "tunnels were there," it just means a third party submitted a document which claimed the tunnels were there (and they weren't). This has been discussed previously and consensus was that it didn't belong in the article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Every academic campus, whether it's a University, a K12 school, or even a Preschool such as McMartin, has occasional repairs or upgrades to its utility systems (electricity, water mains, and so forth). If there weren't utility tunnels of some sort, than how did Principal McMartin and other campus officials bring contractors to utility lines for repairs or upgrades when needed?
 * What was in dispute was the finding of artifacts in those service tunnels, such as empty lunchboxes and broken toys. As a 1990s boy myself, little kids decades ago sneaking around, with relatively little fear of punishment, is not a bold claim. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is rapidly turning into speculation, which we don't do. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pages 48 and 49: https://vault.fbi.gov/the-finders/the-finders-part-01-of-03/view.
 * The existence of the artifacts in the tunnels is not speculation. Not when an official FBI source says so. This is a matter of being able to adjust when the FBI releases new information, and that's what happened last year. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there should be one sentence, in the existing section, that links this source and explains that the FBI has published dubious 3rd party information. DougHill (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you're conflating "someone sent a paper to the FBI" with "the FBI says so." This archive is just everything that got submitted in that case, even from the nutjobs. It's not evidence the tunnels were there. It's not new information. We've been over this multiple times. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how an archeology team completing and filing reports on evidence under the school isn't considered important enough to include in this article?
 * I get that a preliminary report is about responding to the accusation of a crime, but this was a team that identified actual evidence from the scene.
 * Why would the FBI include a random letter from an agency or group that had no professional or realistic interaction with the case?
 * I mean, unless there's a quote from the FBI saying a plate with a pentagram wasn't found, why wouldn't we take it seriously? Wideshuteyes (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Er, we do include mention of this investigation in the article. What we don't do is use primary sources to "verify" it, especially since no one else has been able to corroborate Stickel's claims of tunnels. In fact, the other evidence suggests there aren't tunnels at all.
 * We don't take it seriously because no other reputable source takes it seriously. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed the following paragraph:

"An FBI FOIA release regarding an unrelated group of sexual traffickers called "the Finders" includes an undated preliminary report from an unknown source discussing these supposed underground tunnels found at the McMartin preschool. In the report, hand-dug tunnels were described stretching under Classrooms 1, 3 and 4, and under a bathroom off the office. It was also reported that "Children described entrance and exiting tunnel in triplex yard exactly where tunnel and exit were found," possibly substantiating the children's testimonies. More than 2,000 artifacts, including over 100 animal bones, were also reportedly found under the school floor. Redacted versions of these documents were released by the FBI in 2019. The FBI notes of their FOIA releases that "the content of the files in the Vault encompasses all time periods of Bureau history and do not always reflect the current views, policies, and priorities of the FBI.""

I've read the document in question; the pages dealing with the McMartin case are 48 and 49. Contrary to the paragraph above, page 49 is not "from an unknown source". It's the third page from Gary Stickel and Ted L. Gunderson's McMartin Scientific Report from 1993. Given that Gary Stickel's alleged findings, and the oppositions to them, are already discussed in the article, there is no sense in quoting the Finders document as additional evidence. Page 48 shows a map of the preschool; I'm uncertain as to where it originates (the 1993 report has a different map). It appears to be connected to Stickel and Gunderson's disputed research, as the latter individual is mentioned by name in the caption.

As a note, the presence of these two pages in the Finders report (with no context or explanation as to their presence) has a new lease of life to conspiracy theories recording the McMartin preschool. But the truth is, these two pages add nothing new beyond that which can be found in the 1993 report, and do nothing to counter the objections made to said report.

(Incidentally, the paragraph's description of the Finders as a "group of sexual traffickers" is also objectionable: the investigation cleared them.) DorVS (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, my edits have since been undone (twice), presumably because I'm a new account. Perhaps an established editor can look over my comments and see if they agree. DorVS (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * DorVS, I agree with your reasoning, and I am going to remove the content as well. I am not sure why the other two accounts restored the material without responding to your comments here. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I imagine they reverted my edits because a newly-registered account deleting an entire paragraph is naturally going to look suspicious. Incidentally, in my first post here, the line "...has a new lease of life to conspiracy theories recording the McMartin preschool" should read "...has given a new lease of life to conspiracy theories regarding the McMartin preschool". Apologies for the lapse. DorVS (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into that content and leaving this explanation here for the removal. I thought this issue had been raised before and removed for similar reasons to what you describe, but I must have been wrong. The other accounts appear to be fairly new accounts as well, and so maybe that played a factor. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

On the use of the "alleged" adjective for describing the Finders cult
User Doug Hill has insisted to refer to the Finders cult as the "alleged Finders cult". When I reverted his edit, he suggested me to provide a source to substantiate my stance that the cult's existence is more than an allegation but something confirmed by credible sources. What baffles me is that on that very paragraph I link to an elaborate FBI document on the Finders, that doesn't discuss whether or not the Finders cult does indeed exist, but very plainly acknowledges the cult's existence and instead discusses the specificities of the cult and the reports made upon it. You could still remain skeptical of the documents, but you must remember that these documents weren't made by a uncredible conspiracy theorist on BitChute, but by the primary federal law-enforcement agency of the USA.Sir Rapator (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The term "cult" is pejorative and should be supported. But instead of putting back "alleged", I've asked for a source to substantiate this classification.  If you think that the Finders are notable, you might consider starting a page for them.  But this whole paragraph was misleading, making this FOIA dump look like something more official from the FBI.  My edit included some other things to improve this.  (Also, could you please sign your notes on talk pages with 4 tildes.) DougHill (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response, your stance becomes far more reasonable than I originally interpreted it to be. I thought you considered the existence of the Finders to be alleged, rather than the status of the Finders as a cult to be alleged. Even now the [citation needed] mark I think could give an impression that the existence of the Finders altogether is unsupported and thus I will add quotation marks to the term "cult" to emphasize that it is this status in specific that is unsupported. I will have to reread the documents once more but from what I remembered, the reports seemed very set on the fact that the group members followed and obeyed a leader called the Gamecaller, and they were engaged in criminal activities such as negligence of the children's dietary needs and even clear evidence of sexual assault. These criteria, especially the obedience to the mysterious "Gamecaller", does fit the dictionarial standards for the term "cult".Sir Rapator (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that FBI source is unusable. It is a primary source, it is impossible to search for anything in it, and it takes ages to look at one page, which means it takes over 300 ages to look at the whole thing. Instead, we need reliable secondary sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove / substitute the photo?
I have no special agenda here, but feel that the photo of Virginia McMartin perpetuates the false negative opinions of her which led to the prosecutorial fiasco in the first place. The photo shows a downturned mouth, which will potentially prejudice the reader. A more appropriate photo for the article would probably be of Judy Johnson, the woman whose delusions initiated the preschool suspicions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bticho (talk • contribs) 16:16, August 14, 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree completely. She looks sad which highlights the fact that she was actually one of the victims. Whether the photo is indeed fair use is another question. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)