SCREEN-L Archives

January 1994


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Jacob Levich <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Jacob Levich <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 14 Jan 1994 10:27:54 -0500
text/plain (40 lines)
On Thu, 13 Jan 1994, Alison McKee wrote:
> 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.
Funny, I had always thought that the person making a controversial assertion
was the one required to supply evidence, not the audience to whom the
assertion is being made.
I guess they do things differently at UCLA.
I am fascinated, however, that Ms. McKee seems to think that her vague
recollection of some article in the LA Times better qualifies her to
pronounce on the McMartin case than a familiarity with the trial transcript.
> > On Tue, 11 Jan 1994, Alison McKee wrote:
> >
> > > Additional evidence supporting the claims of the McMartin Preschool
> > > 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]