Now, why would I want to perform the research footwork for someone who is so
obviously ready to dismiss as "ludicrous" any evidence that contradicts his
own point of view?  Mr. Levich can, if he likes, do his own search of
*The L.A. Times* under the topic of the McMartin Preschool case.  He might
also consult Jill Waterman's *Behind the Playground Walls:  Sexual Abuse
In Preschools* (New York:  Guilford Press, 1993) for a contextualized study
of such abuse generally.  "Having read extensive excerpts from the McMartin/
Buckey trial transcripts" does not a fully informed opinion on the subject
make, since such excerpts are, by their nature, partial, and since information
relevant to the case has come to light since the conclusion of the trial.
 
We do agree on one thing:  we have strayed from the original topic of the
depiction of child molesters in film.
 
Alison McKee
Department of Film and Television
UCLA
[log in to unmask]
 
 
 
 
------------------------------TEXT-OF-YOUR-MAIL--------------------------------
 
> On Tue, 11 Jan 1994, Alison McKee wrote:
>
> > Additional evidence supporting the claims of the McMartin Preschool children
> > has come out since the case was decided several years ago, but it tends to
> > be buried on p. 30 of newspapers like *The L.A. Times.*
>
> I _do_ wish people would give citations when making claims of this sort.
> Having read extensive excerpts from the McMartin/Buckey trial
> transcripts, I can only suspect--absent a source--that any "additional
> evidence" in the case is as ludicrous as that adduced by the prosecution
> in the trials.
>
> Since we're in danger of getting off-topic, anyone who wishes to respond
> to me is encouraged to do so by Email.
>
> Jacob Levich
> [log in to unmask]