This may be heavy for survivors.

From: Psychic Dictatorship in the USA, Alex Constantine (Feral House, 1995)

part four :

Ray Buckey's Press Corps and the Tunnels of McMartin

Others appearing in the story threatened me. They did not sue. Why not? They
made such a noise. Now they are the sources of your movie, still making noise
about "innocence abused," and itšs hollow.
They contend there is no evidence that children were abused at McMartin.
On the contrary, there is an abundance of evidence. But the DA had no real
intention of gathering it. Neither did the press. Same as JFK, eh?
The CIA connection to cults around the country began in 1963. The story
was told by a Berkeley psychologist in a thesis entitled "The Penal Colony,"
which was presented at a psychiatric conference in San Francisco by
Congressional aide Joe Holsinger after Leo Ryan was killed at Jonestown.
The hybrid was conceived because people were asking questions about
experiments at McGill, the University of Pennsylvania, John Hopkins, UCLA,
Honeywell, NASA and other haunts of the CIAšs MKULTRA mind control
fraternity. Jonestown was one product of the association. Another, more
recent example was the Solar Temple killings in Switzerland. The British
press reported that this cult was running arms to Australia and South
America, and laundering the proceeds at BCCI. The American press couldnšt
find this information. What does this tell you?
Buckey Sr. testified that he did not have tunnels dug beneath the
preschool. Why would anyone do that? Five scientists have put their
reputations on the line to confirm that there are tunnels. One, a
carbon-dating specialist, discovered that the tunnels were excavated in
1968. That was the year the preschool was built. It was built by Charles
Buckey. He lied on the stand. The kids gave fairly accurate descriptions of
the tunnels. Did Abby?

Regards,
Alex Constantine

Despite this protest, and threats of a boycott of HBO from children's
advocacy groups around the country, Indictment aired anyway. The movie
simply reinforces the many misconceptions the public has been force-fed
since Abby Mann became involved in the case.
The Most Hated Man at the L.A. Times

In January, 1990, after the anti-climactic, deadlocked verdict of the
second trial, the Los Angeles Tmes ran a four-part series by media critic
David Shaw, trashing the paper's own coverage of the McMartin case. Shaw
described press coverage of the case as a "media feeding frenzy" ranking
with exposes of Gary Hart, Oliver North and Dan Quayle.
"More than most big stories," Shaw explained, "McMartin at times exposed
basic flaws in the way the contemporary news organizations function. Pack
journalism. Laziness. Superficiality." Daily newspaper coverage, he argued,
was contaminated by "cozy relationships with prosecutors," and a competitive
furor "that sends reporters off in a frantic search to be the first with the
latest shocking alllegation."
Shaw's McMartin series won the Times its 18th Pulitzer, but few
reporters attended the champagne party thrown in his honor. "Most people
don't like him," Times staffer Lee Dye told a reporter for Los Angeles
magazine. "He really is disliked at the Times," said restaurant critic Ruth
Reichl. Bill Boyarsky, another staffer, says "everyone around me hates him."
The harshest opinion of Shaw came from the late Glenn Binford, the
paper's late night editor at the city desk, who refers to Shaw as "an oily
little prick." The nickname stuck. "Even the late Dial Torgerson," reported
Los Angeles, "a droll, dry-witted newsman's newsman ... adopted the moniker,
though it was uncharacteristic of Torgerson to disparage anyone."
Reporters for the "Metro" section particularly harbor a keen disdain for
David Shaw.

Why is so much animosity directed his way? Most of Shaw's colleagues at
the Times feel that he receives special treatment. He is contracted to write
a mere four stories a year. He moonlights as the monthly "Dining Out"
columnist for GQ magazine. As the official ombudsman of the Times, one
reporter complains, "Shaw plays favorites and purposefully ducks anything
that may really irritate his superiors, tending instead to aim at those with
no actual power."
One of his primary targets is staff writer Lois Timnick and Cathleen
Decker, whose McMartin coverage was hardly "frantic" or "superficial."
Shaw's depiction of them as reportorial McCarthyites is not borne out by a
review of the newspaper's McMartin coverage, and the air around Times Mirror
Square has, since his series appeared, been thick with acrimony.
A week before Shaw received the Pultizer, Timnick (who has since stopped
talking to him) threatened to organize an office "suicide party" if he won.
When he did walk away with an award, the Pulitzer committee stated that it
was given to Shaw not on the merits of his writing, but because the Times
permitted him to criticize the paper's own coverage of a landmark trial.
Shaw was born on an Air Force base in Dayton, Ohio. He was educated at
Pepperdine and UCLA. His career took off when, as a reporter for the Long
Beach Independent Press-Telegram, he published a scalding investigative
story on Max Rafferty, the Republican opponent of Alan Cranston for a Senate
seat. Shaw's five-part series killed Rafferty's political prospects with
allegations of draft dodging. Shaw received an award from the Los Angeles
Press Club for the story, and a job offer from the Times.
That was 18 years ago. He was informally assigned to "the sex beat."
Shaw plied his investigative skills with titillating exposes of massage
parlors and strip clubs. His piece on a nightspot featuring live sex with a
dog threw the newsroom into turmoil ­ this is the same commentator who later
dismissed most press coverage of McMartin as "sensational" and
"superficial."
Shaw defines himself pulbicly as a "liberal," but he frequently
expresses right-wing sentiments, and his writing can be fairly summed up as
propagandistic. He chose to write on McMartin, Los Angeles magazine
reported, "because he needed an excuse to stay in town. 'My wife was eight
months pregnant, and I was looking for a story that would keep me in L.A. so
I would be here for the birth."
"Experts" on the McMartin debacle ­ Shaw, the Eberles, Dr. Underwager,
Abby Mann, and others ­ have, in violation of their own admonitions, retired
it in the press. Ray Buckey is supposed to be as innocent as Ceasar's wife.
If so, why do Buckey's supporters ignore critical evidence? Why the
statistical fabrications? Why lament repeatedly that the case took five
years to try when dragging it out was a conscious defense strategy? Why
ignore the tunnels and the bones?
And, most troubling off all, why has so much effort been put into
propagating mass deception on Buckey's behalf?