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. > ------------------------------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] >