Subscribe to Newsletter

Categories

Most Viewed

Archives

Excerpts from the Trial Transcript in the McMartin Preschool Abuse Trial

Opening Statements

Opening Statement for Prosecution by Deputy District Attorney Lael Rubin

“Your honor, ladies and gentlemen, this is a case about trust and betrayal of trust . . . trust placed in the hands of Ray Buckey and Peggy Buckey. Parents who will testify will tell you. . . they didn’t ask about activities that were going on at the preschool. They didn’t piece together the clues they were getting from their children. These parents will tell you they now understand the importance of listening. The case contains one hundred felony counts of Section 288-A and B, and one count of conspiracy….”

“Betrayal! These innocent children placed their trust in these two teachers and the teachers betrayed them. . . . One mother observed her two daughters performing oral copulation on each other. Another mother saw a sore rectum in her child. She will tell you she did not want to go to school, did not want to sit on her father’s lap and that she ran through the house singing. ‘What you see is what you are/ You’re a naked movie star.’

“One mother will tell you that she saw her daughter masturbating with a wooden pole. One mother will tell you that her children had nightmares. One mother will tell you that her child had a rectal fissure. Another mother
will tell you she saw bloody stools when her child went to the bathroom. Then, the people will ask you to bring back verdicts on all one hundred counts…. ”

Opening Statement by Dean Gits, Attorney for Peggy Buckey

“Ladies and gentlemen, yesterday, Miss Rubin told you this is a case about trust. I’m here to outline Mrs. Buckey’s defense. This is not a case about trust. This is a case about victims. It is your job to decide who are the victims, and what I call ‘the enemy….’ ” “It is the theory of the defense that all these people are victims. There is one more victim I will not name, but before this case is over you will know who he is.”

“You will come to know Mrs. Buckey. You will find out she is not a perfect person. Some say she talks too much, that she is nosy. But under all of it you will see a warm and kind heart. You will come to know that Mrs. Buckey does not molest children. She loves children. You will come to know that Mrs. Buckey does not slaughter animals. The D.A. seems to talk about games and mentions that someone dug up a lot, and someone left the school with a bunch of boxes, suggesting that pornography was somehow secreted. You will come to know exactly what was taken out. Also, you will come to know the money that was spent and the people utilized. It’s what I call the nonevidence in this case.”

“The people interviewed included 450 children and 150 adults. Also, forty-nine photo lineups were prepared, bank account records were seized and examined. Eighty-two locations were photographed, one church was investigated. Three churches were implicated, two food markets, two car washes, two airports, and one national park. Thousands of pornographic photographs and movies, confiscated by police, were examined in a search for pictures of the McMartin children. Laboratory tests were conducted of twenty blankets from the school, children’s clothing, sheets, rags, and a long list of other items, including mops, kitchen rags, notebooks, soil samples, sponges, animal bones, quilts, underwear, and an archeological dig was conducted.

“All of these investigations came up negative. They were looking for secret tunnels, trap doors. They conducted surveillance of Ray Buckey, his family, and friends, which consumed 135 hours. They consulted with a
satanic expert, U.S. Customs agents. They contacted pedophiles; they checked real estate records, utilities records, relatives, friends, associates of the Buckey family, other possible offenders, vehicles, uncharged suspects.

“They attempted a pornography buy. All of this cost more than one million dollars. The results? Zero! We believe the money was well spent. It was well worth it. Everything they investigated and found nothing– [this is] defense evidence! It was well worth it.

“Between August 17 and September 7, 1983 . . . Detective Hoag will tell you she contacted twelve families, and you can imagine what impact that would have. But the result of the investigation was zero molestation. Peggy’s name was never mentioned. So, as of September 7, 1983, there was no molestation. There was a search, and the purpose of the search was to find pornography. So she executed a search warrant. A letter was sent out stating that Ray Buckey was arrested for child abuse. It told the parents ‘ask your child. . . .’As of that date, nobody indicated any molestation was going on at that school.

“Within the CII structure, many things happened that you have to know. . . . And when Kee MacFarlane said a child had been molested, the mother would talk to another mother. . . . The interviewers gave the parent a nine-page questionnaire, and while the parent was filling out the questionnaire, they took the child into a separate room and interviewed the child for an hour, or two hours!

“You need to look at that tape carefully. . . . Why did the parents take their children there? They were told that they were experts. They had an impressive building. They had a separate unit called ‘Child Abuse Diagnostic Center.’ These people must know what’s going on. The parents were told and believed they were experts.

“The interviewer in every case walks in the door and says, ‘Mr. and Mrs. [Parent], I have some bad news for you. Your child has been molested.’ You will see the tape. Each and every parent was told, ‘You have to be supportive
of the child.’ It is hard to disagree with that, but the result is that it reinforces the child.

“And they wouldn’t look at the whole tape. They would fast-forward so that the parents never saw the denials. . . the parents were convinced that it happened. . . . The child gets love and affection. You will see that they were referred to a therapist. One of those people was an employee of the very agency that did the evaluation, connected ideologically. . . .

“The involvement of the CII didn’t end there. They brought in an employee of CII, Dr. Heger. She will testify her findings. She will conclude [that] they are consistent with sexual abuse. She will testify the children were molested ….Medical evidence does not exist.”

“You will find further reinforcement of the child. . . . It provides a bonding with other families. They have been told and they believe their children were molested in these cases.

“You will see from the tape how [a child] testified in the preliminary hearing that she was locked in a closet. There are no closets in the preschool!…”

“You will see how easy it is to think that constitutes evidence of molestation. So simple. So easy. You will hear of trips away from the school and the problem of maintaining the school while all the teachers are away molesting entire classes. The parents did come and go, and yet you will hear of entire classes molested. The ‘Naked Movie Star’ game. Each of thirteen children spoke of this and not one played the game the same way.”

“Why were the Manhattan Beach Police, and CII victims? Because they believed in what they were doing. They were not entirely victims, because they should have known better.

“There is one more victim, and that last victim is the same as the enemy. And when you get to know this person you will have solved this case.”

Opening Statement by Daniel Davis, Attorney for Ray Buckey

“Good morning, ladies and gentlemen….I have heard negative things about betrayal of trust. There was something very, very wrong about what happened. The truth never really had a chance because children were artificially traumatized by interviewers into falsely believing they were molested.

“The evidence itself will be a source for you to decide. There are people who are primarily responsible for what is very wrong in this case. . . . What is the effect of telling parents that their child has been molested? If the child has not been molested, could you ever convince the parents thereafter that the child was not molested? Can winning a trial at all costs be consistent with justice?”

“The evidence. . . will tell you that Ray Buckey was not at the school at the critical times….Ray Buckey was not even there at the school when [a boy who accused Buckey] was there. The teachers who have died were not accused. Those who are living were all accused.

“There were good reasons for people putting their trust in the school. There will be testimony that naked games were played. The children played good, wholesome, healthy games. The children went on field trips. Parents came along. . . . Songs were sung. There was a music environment. No guns were permitted. . . . There were projects. Individual pieces were put up on the bulletin board. There were drawings and paintings these children did.. . . There were pets. Turtles, rabbits, guinea pigs, dogs, bird feeders. It was a happy environment.

“The D.A. sent [the families] to CII. CII said they were molested and referred them to therapists. . . . They were directed to Manhattan Beach Police Department and made statements. . . and parents were told to go to an agency that provides funds for victims. That led to payments to CII and therapists. . . . Witnesses were generated. The D.A. is putting on his case with witnesses almost entirely from CII. CII provided the witnesses.”

“Ray Buckey is twenty-nine. He was born in 1958 in Hawthorne. He attended the Virginia McMartin Preschool. He is an athletic person. You will find that he has been active in a number of sports. He attended El Camino College for two years. He has coached a variety of sports.

“When he was at home he kept a number of pets. He is not a person who could likely harm an animal. They secretly taped conversations between Ray and his mother for hundreds of hours, hoping to hear conversations of crimes. Instead, they talked about animals. He began as a teacher at McMartin Preschool in 1981, took classes at UCLA. He became a teacher in 1981 until he was arrested. He was living with his parents. The house he lived in was searched. Ray Buckey rushed to a hiding location and pulled out some pornography and attempted to flush it down the toilet. It was not child pornography. It was pictures of nude adults. He was caught trying to flush it. Nude adults.

“I am Ray Buckey’s attorney and I do speak for him, so I would like to tell you that I will be testifying in this case. He will be testifying. And we ask that you keep an open mind and that you await all the evidence in this case, and that he fully intends to reveal all he knows about the case, and that there may be victims on both sides…..”

“…Mrs. Johnson told authorities that [her boy] was molested at a time when Ray Buckey was in jail. He gave no testimony at the preliminary hearing. He was interviewed on videotape by Dr. Gloria Powell. That videotape has disappeared.”

“….We were told that they were experts, that they had expert credentials. . . . Kee MacFarlane’s only credentials were a driver’s license and a welder’s license.”

Selected Witnesses for the Prosecution

Alleged Victim (girl, age 12)

August 3, 1987

Direct Examination by Lael Rubin:

“How old are you today?”
“Twelve. ”
“Do you live in Manhattan Beach?”
“Yes….”
“What school do you go to?”
“American Martyrs.”
“Did you go to the McMartin Preschool?”
“Yes….”
“You said Ray was at the school. Can you tell us what Ray did?”
“Kind of a helper.”
“What was his relationship to Peggy?”
“Ray is Peggy’s son.”
“Can you look around and see Ray?” (The girl identifies Ray Buckey)
“I’d like to talk to you about McMartin. Did you stay all day or half a day?”
“Sometime half a day. Sometimes I’d stay for lunch and a nap.”
“Did you tell your parents you didn’t like to stay for a nap?”
“Yes….”
“When you were at the McMartin Preschool how many rooms did you see?”
“Four.”
“There is a little yard. Can you tell us what was in the little yard?”
“Tricycles and things like that….”
“Did you play, and you had to take your clothes off?”
“Yes.”
“What was the name of the game?”
“The ‘Naked Movie Star.’ ”
“Did someone tell you to take your clothes off?”
“Yes.”
“Who?”
“Ray.”
“In what room was Ray in?”
“Room A.” (pointing to a diagram)
“Did somebody say something to you?”
“Yes.”
“What?”
” ‘We’re gonna play naked movie star.’ ”
“Who was the person who said that?”
“I’m not sure. Ray or Peggy.”
“And when Ray or Peggy said, ‘Time to play naked movie star,’ was that in a classroom full of children?”
“I’m not sure.”
“When Ray said, ‘We’re gonna play the “naked movie star game,” what did you do?”
“Just stand or do something….”
“Did you hear anybody taking pictures?”
“Yes. I heard clicking.”
“Did you ever see a person taking pictures?”
“No. I could see the lens sometimes.”
“Where was the click coming from?”
“The accordion divider.”
“When you played ‘naked movie star’ did Ray or Peggy have their clothes off?”
“Sometimes. ”
“When you finished modeling or posing, did you put your clothes back on?”
“Yes.”
“What did you do then?”
“Went back outside and played with the kids.”
“During the ‘naked movie star’ did you ever see another adult in the room?”
“Miss Peggy. . . Virginia. . .”
“Where?”
“In the doorway of Room A.”
“How many times did you play ‘naked movie star’ at the school?”
“I don’t remember.”
“When you played ‘naked movie star’ was there any music?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Was anything covering the windows?”
“Curtains at each end of the window.”
“At any time you played ‘naked movie star’ did anyone have an animal they showed to you?”
“Yes….He cut [a cat] on the side and told us if we told anybody he would do the same to our parents. ”
“Was the cat dead when he brought it in?”
“Yes….”
“When you were at the house where you played ‘naked movie star’ did you get undressed?”
“Yes….”
“Do you remember when you were going to the McMartin school, waking up in the middle of the night shaking or having nightmares?”
“Yes. ”
“Do you remember going to CII [Children’s Institute]?”
“Yes.”
“On March 14 you went to CII and talked to a woman named Shawn.Did she ask you what happened at McMartin?”
“I told her I didn’t know anything.”
“During and right after the ‘naked movie star’ did anybody touch you?”
“Ray and Peggy.”
“Tell us what Ray did-how he touched you. You said Ray and Peggy touched you. Describe to us what Ray did to you. Did Ray touch you in some part of your body? Tell us as best you can. . . .”
“He touched my vagina.”
“Did Ray put anything inside your vagina?”
“Yes.”
“One time or more than one time?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Did Peggy touch you in some part of your body?”
“Yes. ”
“Outside or inside?”
“Outside. ”
“One or more times?”
“I don’t remember,”
“You remember one time-right?”
“Yes.”
“You’re not sure?”
“No”
“When Ray touched you with his finger in your vagina were his clothes on or off?”
“Off.”
“When Peggy touched your vagina with her finger were her clothes on or off?”
“Off. ”
“Can you tell us when was the first time you told anybody that Ray and Peggy touched you?”
“July 3 of this year.”
“Before you told your mom in July did you tell anyone else?”
“Sometime before July 3, I tried to tell somebody,”
“Who?”
“You.”
“Why didn’t you tell me?”
“I was embarrassed. I started to cry.”
“Any reason you just told your mom about Ray and Peggy touching your vagina?”
“I couldn’t even admit it to myself.”
“No further questions, your honor.”

Cross-Examination by Dean Gits

“——, I’d like to ask you some questions. If they seem too hard, stop me. ——, when you went to McMartin you went for about three years. Is that correct?”
“Yes.”
“And what grade are you in?”
“Sixth grade….”
“As you think about it now, can you remember how long you were in class?”
“About forty-five minutes.”
“What happened when your mom and dad picked you up?”
“They just came to the gate.”
“Where would you be?”
“Outside in the yard.”
“——, if you would have a look at that, do you remember whether that picture was taken during your second year at the school?” (showing a picture)
“Yes. ”
“You said Miss Lo taught in Room B, right?”
“Yes.”
“When the ‘naked movie star’ was played was Miss Peggy your teacher?”
“Yes. ”
“When you started at the preschool Miss Lo was your teacher, right?”
“Yes. ”
“And in the third year was Miss Peggy your teacher?”
“Yes.”
“You talk about going to see Shawn at CII. . . . Do you think your memory is better today than when you went to CII?”
“I don’t know.”
“Do you think your memory was better with Shawn at CII than at the preliminary hearing?”
“Well, it wasn’t a better memory.”
“Do you think your memory is better today?”
“Yes. ”
“Why?”
“Because I’ve thought about it.”
“Going back to McMartin, were you afraid?”
“Sometimes. ”
“You talked about the ‘naked movie star’ game. Did that happen in the morning?”
“I’m not sure.”
“Before noon?”
“Yes.”
“So it was not at naptime?”
“No.”
“You told us you were not sure how many times you played the ‘naked movie star’ game. What would be your best ballpark figure?”
“I don’t want to say because I’m not sure.”
“Can you tell us when it was you were afraid to go to school?”
“A couple of months after something happened at the school.”
“You talk about times you stayed during naptime. Did anything bad happen during naptime?”
“Yes. . . that’s when I went to the house.”
“Did you ever go to the house in the morning?”
“I don’t remember.”
“—–, when you talked about the time you were taken to the house during naptime, did that happen more than one time?”
“Yes….”
“Do you remember how many grownups were there?”
“No.”
“Did you take your clothes off and put them in a pile?”
“Yes. ”
“Did Peggy have her clothes off?”
“No.”
“Was she touching anybody?”
“No.”
“Did Ray take his clothes off?”
“Yes.”
“Did he touch anybody?”
“I don’t know. He didn’t touch me.”
“You said Ray brought in a cat and it was dead.”
“Yes.”
“Was that the first time you played ‘naked movie star’?”
“Yes.”
“Do you remember you played the second time at school?”
“No.”
“So you eventually forgot what happened at the preschool?”
“Until I went and saw Shawn. I put it back in my mind.”
“You had friends at American Martyrs who went to CII?”
“Yes.”
“And they told you about yucky secrets. . . .”
“Yes.”
“You told your parents you didn’t remember anything bad happened at the preschool and one time they offered to take you to CII and you said there was no need to because nothing happened.”
“Maybe. I don’t remember.”
“Did you tell anybody in the world about this before CII?
“I don’t know.”
“Some of your best friends and classmates had been at CII?”
“Yes. ”
“Did your parents tell you something bad happened at the school?”
“Yes. ”
“Did you believe something bad happened at McMartin? You got a sense of that from your parents and CII?”
“Yes.”
“You had a sense that something bad happened at McMartin but you couldn’t remember until Shawn told you about the ‘naked movie star’?”
“Yes. ”
“Were you told that this was being videotaped?”
“After we were done my parents came in. We looked at the tape, and they talked while I was out of the room.”
“Do you remember Shawn telling your parents you were molested at the preschool?”
“I’m not sure what she said because I wasn’t there.”
“You were shown portions of the videotape? Did you see bits and pieces?”
“Yes.”
“Did Kee tell you that Ray had threatened children?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Do you remember testifying at the preliminary hearing that Kee told you that Ray had touched children?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Do you remember testifying at the preliminary hearing that Kee told you Ray forced children to play the ‘naked movie star’ game?”
“I don’t remember.”
“And you told Cheryl Kent, right?”
“Yes. ”
“Do you remember Deputy District Attorney Christine Johnson?”
“Yes.”
“How many times did you talk to Christine Johnson about the case?”
“I don’t know. A lot.”
“After the preliminary hearing you talked to Lael Rubin six or seven times about the case?”
“Yes. . . . Her and Roger came to see me.”
“Six or seven times?”
“Yes. ”
“Was Gusty Bell with her each time?”
“Yes.”
“All the times you were talking about the case, were they taking notes?”
“Yes.”
“Did the talks get longer and longer?”
“They were usually close to an hour and then they got longer.”
“Did Lael Rubin give you transcripts of the preliminary hearing?”
“Yes. ”
“Do you remember telling at the preliminary hearing that somebody gave the kids a pink medicine?”
“No.”
“Today you’re not sure you were given any medicine by the teachers at the school?”
“I didn’t want to tell something 1 was not sure.”
“Do you think your memory about the ‘naked movie star’ game was better at the preliminary hearing than today?”
“No. My memory is about the same on that issue.”
“Are you aware of a song, ‘The Naked Movie Star’?”
“Yes.”
“Did you ever hear that at the preschool, —–?”
“I’m not sure.”
“Do you remember testifying at the preliminary hearing that you don’t remember in what room you played the ‘naked movie star’?”
“I don’t know.”
“Do you remember testifying that the ‘naked movie star’ game was played iin Miss Lo’s class?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Why is it today you say you weren’t in Miss Lo’s class?”
“I thought a lot about what happened.”
“Do you remember telling us at the preliminary hearing that the cat was not cut until about four months after you played the ‘naked movie star’ game?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Did Lael Rubin or Gusty say it’s rather strange that the cat was cut four months later?”
“I don’t know.”
“——, if you can, tell us why you’re sure now that the cat was cut the first time you played the ‘naked movie star’ game. Do you feel the cat was cut the first time you played the ‘naked movie star’ game?”
“I’m positive.”
“Was your testimony wrong in the preliminary hearing?”
“I thought about it.”
“Did you ever see anyone of the teachers give you shots at the school?…”

August 4

“——, did you talk yesterday about nightmares at the time you were going to the preschool?”
“Yes.”
“Do you recall what they were about?”
“Dragons. Alligators. I was afraid to get up and go to the bathroom so I wet my bed.”
“Did you have any redness or soreness in the vaginal area?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Did the district attorney ever show you a transcript of the videotape at CII?”
“Yes.”
“Did they read portions of it to you?”
“Yes. . . last week.”
“Did Lael and Gusty do that?”
“Yes.”
“Did Lael come to visit you Saturday?”
“Yes.”
“How long?”
“Two hours. Sometimes longer.”
“What do you think was the longest?”
“Four hours.”
“Did she go over what you’re going to testify in this case?”
“She went over her outline.”
“You told us the ‘naked movie star’ game was played before lunch, right?”
“Yes….”
“When it was all over was the recess still going on?”
“Yes.”
“I think you told us that the ‘naked movie star’ was played during recess.”
“Yes.”
“Was Peggy in the classroom when Ray came in and announced the naked movie star’ game?”
“I’m pretty sure she was inside.”
“Was anyone else there?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Is there anyone child you can recall now that was present when you played the ‘naked movie star’?”
“No.”
“Going back to your first year at the preschool, was Ray there in Miss Lo’s class?” Gits asked.
“I don’t remember.”
“Do you remember testifying in the preliminary hearing that Ray was iin Miss Lo’s class?”
“I don’t remember.”
“After your testimony in the preliminary hearing did anybody tell you maybe Ray wasn’t there at the school when you were in Miss Lo’s class?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Did anybody tell you that Ray was not at the school when you were iin Mary Ann’s class?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Was there any music during the ‘naked movie star’ [game]?”
“I don’t remember.”
“You said when you went to the house you were walking around in a circle holding hands?”
“I’m not sure.”
“Would you stop and pose or keep walking?”
“I’m not sure.”
“After the curtains were put up, was it dark?”
“Yes. ”
“Did you see a flash from a camera?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Did children cry during the ‘naked movie star’ [game]?”
“No. ”
“When you were touched by Ray did you cry?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Was the recess still going on?”
“Yes.”
“Did any of the other kids come in?”
“I don’t remember.”
“When Ray came in with the dead cat did he have the cat in a bag or a box?”
“It was like a mashed paper bag with a cat on top.”
“Did he cut it first or did he say something first?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Did blood go all over?”
“Just on the paper.”
“Do you remember telling us at the preliminary hearing that blood got all over?”
“Yes. ”
“Do you think your memory is better now than at the preliminary?”
“Maybe.”
“Was there a lot of blood that came out of the cat?”
“Yes.”
“And did Ray say this will happen to your parents if you tell?”
“Yes. ”
“Up until Ray cut the cat were you horrified?”
“Not really.”
“So it was Ray cutting the cat that really made you afraid?”
“Yes.”
“Did you get sick and throw up?”
“I don’t remember….”
“Going back to the school,——, do you remember Miss Betty?”
“Yes.”
“Was she your teacher during your last year there?”
“Yes.”
“Was she there at naptime?”
“I don’t remember.”
“You told us after the morning session a lot of moms came and picked up children and other children stayed during naptime.”
“Yes.”
“Were the teachers in A and B rooms watching the kids?”
“Yes.”
“Did they tell you they were taking you to a house?”
“No.”
“Did they say, ‘Come with us’?”
“Yes.”
“Who?”
“Ray or Peggy….”
“When Kee talked to you at CII did Kee tell you Ray touched children in their private parts?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Do you recall being taken to the house where the ‘naked movie star’ game was played, in the morning?”
“Yes.”
“Then Ray said, ‘Come with me’?”
“No, it was at recess. ”
“Do you know who was watching Peggy’s kids while Peggy was at the house playing ‘naked movie star’?”
“It wasn’t recess and the other teachers were watching them.”

Cross-examination by Daniel Davis

“——, it’s been a little over two years. . . . Has anything come to mind…iif you think of anything you didn’t say, please tell us now so we can get to the final truth about this. Do you think there’s anything you haven’t told us?”
“Not right now.”
“Back in the preliminary [hearing] you said, ‘I think’ and ‘kind of.’ Does that mean you’re not sure?”
“Yes.”
“Did you learn that Bob Currie told your father that children were molested at McMartin?”
“No. ”
“When you went to cn did you have a feeling that something might have happened to you?”
“Yes. Sort of.”
“But you said, ‘Dad, it didn’t happen to me’?”
“I don’t know.”
“By the time you talked to Kee you had a strong feeling Ray had been molesting children?”
“Yes.”
“When you went to the preschool you had a good time, right?”
“Yes.”
“From what you saw at American Martyrs, did everybody say there was an investigation going on at the preschool?”
“Yes.”
“That was the hot topic? That was the thing you heard people talking about?”
“Yes.”
“Did you ever see Ray Buckey’s picture on TV?”
“Yes. , , it seemed like every day, and what was going on….”

August 5, 1987

“You told Shawn about a lot of naked games, and now at the trial only one naked game. Did you believe, when you told Shawn, that there were other naked games?”
“I don’t remember.”
“The house you talked about in the interview with Shawn, was it a brown house?”
“Yes. ”
“But you didn’t say brown. Do you recall saying brown?”
“Not really,”
“I want to get to the people you had discussions with before the preliminary hearing. Christine Johnson. You had three meetings with her before the prelliminary hearing and you talked about statements on the videotape.”
“Something or other. ”
“Didn’t you do questions and answers you would be testifying in the preliminary hearing?”
“Yes.”
“And you were preparing for your testimony so you would know what to say. Didn’t you prepare so you would know what to say in court?”
“I don’t know. It was more like I knew what was going on.”
“Did you do the same with Lael Rubin?”
“She asked me things I wasn’t too sure about. She said names and I didn’t even know who the person was.”
“Did you go over questions and answers for the trial?”
“Yes.”
“Shawn told you all the other kids were molested?”
“Yes.”
“Did you know Lael Rubin during the preliminary?”
“I’m not sure.”
“Did you come to know her better when you came to the meeting with her to prepare for the trial?”
“Yes. . . I met Roger, too.”
“You read the notebook. Did you ever discuss the notebook with your parents?”
“We read transcripts from the preliminary hearing.”
“You opened your notebook and Lael opened hers?”
“Well, she would just, like, if there was a hard answer, how to answer. . . .She would say, ‘Answer like that’ and it would be okay?”
“Yes.”
“I have some pictures here. Take a little time. . . . Do you still have the feeling that a child could fit in the cupboard?”
“No.”
“Do you remember anything bad that happened in the bathrooms at the school?
“I don’t remember.”
“Did you ever tell one person that the house you were taken to was one of the teachers’ houses?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Do you remember anything about the house?”
“There were wooden animals. The mailbox is like an animal.”
“You’ve been to Peggy’s house many times. You know there are wooden animals there. ”
“I was talking to Lael. She brought pictures and showed it to me.”
“So today you don’t know whether the house was Peggy’s house?”
“No. Kee said it was Peggy’s house.”
“Do you remember you said it was a white house when you talked to the police department?”
“No. I don’t remember. . . .”
“Do you remember anything that happened at the white house?”
“No. ”
“Do you know the name of any other child that was with you when the cat was killed?”
“No. I don’t remember.”
“Do you know the name of one single child who was present when you were touched?”
“No.”
“Do you remember one child who was present when you played the ‘naked movie star’ game?”
“No.”
“When you say you were taken to Peggy’s house, is that a guess?”
“No. Kee said. ”
“At the preliminary hearing you said the cat was cut six months after the ‘naked movie star’ [game] was played the first time. Today you said it was cut the same day. . . . Is this something you were telling Lael Rubin . . . did she tell you that it didn’t make sense for you to say six months and not be frightened about it? And not to tell your parents? Can you tell me anything that would contribute to the change that you haven’t thought about?”
“No. ”
“You described touching and changed your testimony. Is that correct?”
“Yes.”
“What caused you to change?”
“I’m not sure what happened.”
“You testified of a grownup that drugged little boys and giris. That’s a very serious thing.”
“Yes.”
“And you were saying that?”
“It was the truth to me at the time.”
“When the truth came to you what happened?”
“I just saw Pepto-Bismol in the refrigerator.”
“In the preliminary hearing testimony you told Dr. Heger cats, turtles, and rabbits were cut up.”
“Not that I remember.”
“Did you ever see anything like that?”
“Not turtles and rabbits….”

August 6, 1987

“Did Shawn tell you that 110 children had already been interviewed at CII . . . and every one ofthem had something happen to them at the preschool? Did she tell you that?”
“Yes. I don’t think she would lie to me.”
“When the police were following Ray around did that make you think Ray Buckey did bad things?”
“I don’t know.”
“When you talked to Shawn [at CII] you said you were touched on the vagina by teachers at the school.”
“Yes.”
“Did it hurt?”
“Not specifically.”
“Is it true today that it did hurt?”
“Yes.”
“Are both of these statements true?”
“I don’t know. What is the question?”
“Two answers being true. Did you bleed?”
“No….”
“Do you feel your memory was better when you talked to Shawn and at the preliminary?”
“I don’t know.”
“Did teachers actually touch private parts of children?”
“I don’t know.”
“Did you ever see Ray Buckey?”
“No….”
“When did Ray touch you?”
“I don’t remember.”
“What part of his body did he touch you with?”
“His fingers.”

Judge Pounders asked: “In what position was his body and your body? Standing, sitting, or lying down?”
“I don’t remember.”

Gits: “When you got the transcript from Lael did she tell you how to answer questions with the tabs? What were the tabs for?”
“They pointed out some things–liike a smart answer.”
“Tabs to look at to understand smart answers at the preliminary hearing?”
“Yes.”
“Rubin gave you some smart answers?”
“We went through the answers and looked at them.”
“Was Lael going over the transcript, telling you how to answer?”
“Sort of….”

Mother of Two Alleged Victims

Direct Examination by Prosecutor Rael Rubin:

“Did you notice any other behavior [of your daughter] in the evenings?” [the mother had testified that her daughter suffered from nightmares and bladder infections when she was enrolled at McMartin.]
“She masturbated a lot. And we noticed, that she danced a lot, scantily clad. We discouraged this.”
“Did you notice any strange behavior in [your son]?”
“He looked extremely pale.”
“Did he ever come home with clothing that didn’t belong to him?”
“Yes, he came home wearing somebody else’s clothing, with his own clothes in a bag. We were told that he had had an accident….”

Cross-Examination by Dean Gits:

“Taking you back to the time when you took your children to McMartin, what was the reputation of the school?”
“The reputation was excellent. I checked it out myself.”
“Would it be fair to say you were satisfied that it was a good preschool?”
“Yes. I was very close to Virginia.”
“During the four years your children attended the preschool did you observe anything improper at the school?”
“I wondered why a twenty-year-old male was there with these children.”
“Did you know he was the son of Peggy and the grandson of Virginia?”
“Yes, I did.”
“And you were concerned about the fact that a twenty-year-old male was a teacher?”
“Yes, it was of some concern to me.”
“Did [your daughter] have any terrible reaction to the school?”
“Not at that time.”
“On a number of occasions [your son] was pale. When was that?”
“Toward the last year he was there.”
“Did you take him to a doctor?”
“He was always taken to a doctor for regular checkups.”
“Were you told that everything was okay?”
“Fine. ”
“During the time [your daughter] attended the school, did she ever say anything bad about the teachers?”
“I can’t remember.”
“You received a telephone call from a friend whose children attended McMartin?”
“She told me she got a letter from the Manhattan Beach Police Department. ”
“After hearing that, did you believe Ray Buckey could have touched kids?”
“I thought it was a definite possibility.”
“You didn’t question the kids?”
“No. We talked to each of them and the responses were all negative.”
“Did you notice any anxiety or fear?”
“I don’t remember.”
“You told us [that] after talking to them you were satisfied that nothing happened?”
“Yes…. ”
“Did [your daughter] indicate to you that kids were being molested?”
“No. ”
“Did Melinda ever indicate to you that kids played naked games?”
“No.”
“Did you believe kids were molested by Ray Buckey?”
“Yes.”
“Did you believe that the CII had the power to determine whether children had been molested?”
“Yes.”
“You spent the whole day at CII?”
“Yes. ”
“And when Kee came out she told you that Melinda had been molested?”
“I don’t know if that was the word she used but the sense of what she said was that they had been molested.”
“Did Kee tell you that it was important to be supportive of Melinda?”
“Yes.”
“How long was [your son] with Kee?”
“An hour and a half.”
“After an hour and a half Kee came in and told you the same thing she told you about [your daughter]?”
“Yes.”
“And she told you to be supportive, same as [your daughter]?”
“Yes.”
“You and your husband watched [your son’s] tape?”
“Yes.”
“You took the children to Dr. Cheryl Kent?”
“Yes.”
“How long?”
“About a year.”
“Did you attend meetings at community churches?”
“Yes.”
“How many times?”
“Maybe ten. ”
“And you had conversations with parents after CII?”
“Yes.”
“It was the talk of the town, right?”
“Yes. ”
“As you walked out of CII you were absolutely convinced that your children were molested?”
“Yes….”
“Did you see Ray and Peggy arrested on television?”
“Yes.”
“And you all got together, and would it be fair to say that the occasion was a party to celebrate the arrest of Ray and Peggy?”
“Yes. ”
“Were refreshments offered to the kids?”
“There was food for everybody.”
“Were you present at home when Lael Rubin and Gusty Bell talked to [your daughter] on two occasions?”
“Yes.”
“Was the purpose to go over [your daughter’s] testimony for answers in court?”
“Yes.”
“What was the length of time of these meetings?”
“Two or three hours.”
“Were transcripts provided?”
“Yes…. ”

Cross-examination by Daniel Davis:

“If you would, tracing the things most affecting your state of mind as to the belief that your children were molested, can you remember anything before the letter of 1983?”
“It caused me to start asking questions I should have started asking long ago. ”
“Did anything occur before you received the letter that led you to believe that molestation had occurred?”
“I did not think of sexual abuse….”
“Do you feel that [your daughter] was molested at that preschool when she went back to visit in 1982?”
“I definitely feel she was molested. Not necessarily in 1982.”
“Was it because of anything you saw at the preschool?”
“No.”
“And you definitely feel that [your son] was molested?”
“Yes.”
“Anything you saw at the preschool that indicated that?”
“No.”
“What made you feel that James was molested?”
“He told me.”
“What did you observe that was out of the ordinary at the preschool?”
“I noticed he was a male. . . . It seemed strange someone his age would want to be working with children….”
“[Your daughter] was interviewed in February 1984?”
“Yes. ”
“And she had a medical examination by Dr. Astrid Heger?”
“Yes.”
“And she was interviewed by Lael Rubin and Det. Bell on May 8, 1985, and testified in the preliminary hearing in May and June 1985?”
“Yes.”
“The investigation focused on Ray Buckey?”
“Yes.”
“And the police were asking parents to make inquiry of the children?”
“Probably. ”
“No one else was named?”
“Correct. ”
“And you began to believe. . .”
“Yes.”
“After CII, were more people than Ray Buckey implicated?”
“I don’t remember.”
“From the time [your daughter] went to McMartin to the time she was interviewed by CII was about a six-year lapse?”
“Yes. ”
“Did the kids tell you what they noticed at the school?”
“They didn’t notice anything out of the ordinary. Ray liked the children.”
“Did you feel, when you saw the [CII] video, that you saw evidence of molestation?”
“I believe so.”
“Little dolls made you feel. . .”
“It wasn’t dolls. It’s things she said. Body language. She became frightened.”
“Do you recall the Ray doll?”
“Yes.”
“Was it a large, black doll?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Were you convinced of molestation?”
“I was convinced both were molested. Everything fell into place.”
“You did not see the entire tape. . . .”
“That’s correct.”
“You saw excerpts queued up, the latter part of the video?”
“I don’t recall.”
“Did you see your daughter and son explain on other portions of the tapes that they heard about it from parents and others?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Did Kee suggest that all the kids interviewed had been molested?”
“They did tell us that the kids have been molested.”
“When you picked up your preschoolers in the afternoon, did you ever see the ‘lookout’ game played?”
“I wasn’t aware of it.”
“Your daughter told you about the ‘lookout’ game. What recollection do you have about that?”
“She told me the kids had to play and let Ray know, run in and tell Ray when children were picked up.”
“When you picked up your kids, were there some adults there?”
“Yes. ”
“Was Ray Buckey there?”
“Different places at different times.”
“When you picked up your children, were other teachers there?”
“Ray, and Betty was there, too.”
“Did you see Virginia?”
“Yes.”
“In what particular locations did Virginia locate herself?”
“In front of the school, usually in her wheelchair….”
“Was there a time when special prayers were made at a community church for the children involved in this?”
“Yes.”
“Did you also attend meetings at your church?”
“Yes.”
“Who was there?”
“Families of the children attending the preschool….”
“You indicated that sometimes you were late and sometimes you would come early. Did you see anything that looked like molestation?”
“No. ”
“Would it be fair to say that your belief in molestation is based just on things you heard?”
“No. It was based on what my children told me.”
“Did you ever go there and find out that you were locked out?”
“No.”
“Did you ever see any evidence that children were being molested?”
“No.”
“When you went to CII, did you do anything to inquire into the credentials of the people?”
“Objection. ”
“Sustained. ”
“And Dr. Heger found that she had been molested?”
“Yes, she did….”
“When did you see blankets on the classroom windows?”
“In the afternoon when I picked up the children. ”
“Did you think there was anything unusual about that?”
“No, I thought it was for nap purposes.”
“You indicated that your children went back to the school together…tiimes when you were shopping?”
“Yes. ”
“You believe they were molested during those times?”
“Yes….”

George Freeman (jailhouse informant)

Direct-examination by Prosecutor Rael Rubin:

“….’Mr. Freeman, have you been convicted of any felonies?”
“‘Yes, I have.”
“‘How many?”
“‘Five felonies….”
‘” Are you on parole?”
“‘Yes, I am.”
“‘Were you recently arrested?”
“‘Yes, I was.”
“‘When?”
“‘November 10, 1987…..”
“‘Have any promises been made to you in order to get you to testify in this case?”
“‘No promises whatever….”
“‘Did Ray [Buckey] tell you [while Buckey was in jail with Freeman] he left town?”
“‘Yes he did.”
“‘Why?”
“‘He said he was told to leave town and took the pictures and films to South Dakota. He was told to burn them but he buried them.”
“Did Ray Buckey say that molestations actually occurred in the preschool?”
“Yes, he did.”
“When?”
“At naptime.”
“Did he tell you he used anything to help him molest children?”
“Yes, he did.”
“What did he use to help him molest children?”
“KY and baby oil….”
“You told Ray Buckey you had molested children in order to make him comfortable. Why is it you wanted to make him comfortable?”
“I was curious. . . . I have kids….”
“What did he tell you?”
“He said he fucked a two-year-old boy in the butt. . . .”
“Did Ray Buckey tell you he took pictures to South Dakota?”
“Yes, he did.”
“Did he tell you what was on the pictures and films?”
“Kids in sex acts.”
“Did he tell you what was done with any other pictures?”
“Yes, he did. He said some of them were in Denmark.”
“Did you talk to Ray Buckey about church?”
“Yes, he did. He said he belonged to a church I couldn’t get into-like a cult.”
“Did Ray Buckey say anything about hurting animals?”
“Yes, he did.”
“What did he say?”
“If the kids told on him. . . . He slaughtered a cow at a ranch. ”
“Were there kids present?”
“Yes, there were.”
“How did you get to know Sgt. Dvorak?”
“I met him in 1983.”
“Was this in another case?”
“Yes, it was.”
“Did he help you out on your case?”
“Yes, he did. . . . He went and talked to the judge in San Fernando and instead of three years in prison I got one year in county jail.”
“On March 28, did a sheriff come and take you to see an attorney?
“Yes, he did.”
“When you got to the attorney room did you see any person you see here today?”
“Yes, I did.”
“Who did you see?”
“Danny Davis and Ray Buckey.”
“And what was said?”
“He said the Aryan Brotherhood want my ass and two Mexicans in San Fernando and the BGF in Soledad wanted to get me and he said he would put me on TV and the newspapers where everybody could see what I look like. He told me to get my ass out of Ray Buckey’s room. He said there would be two men waiting for me on the day of my release.”
“Did you tell Sgt. Dvorak about your meeting with Mr. Davis?”
“Yes, I did.”
“Did he look at your notes?”
“Yes, he did. . . . He said he couldn’t read ’em….”
“Did someone suggest that you move out of LA.?”
“Yes, they did.”
“And did anyone give you assistance?”
“Yes, they did. Mr. Gil Brunetti of the D.A.’s office paid the first month’s rent, approximately one thousand dollars.”
“Did you contact a TV station?”
“Yes, I did.”
“What did Dan Leighton tell you?” ,
“He told me I could make a lot of money from a movie or a book….”
“Did you talk to reporter Wayne Satz at Channel 7?”
“Yes, I did. . . . Satz wanted to put me on TV….”

Cross-examination by Defense Attorney Daniel Davis:

“….Mr. Freeman, are you a rat?”
“They say I am in different places….”
“Mr. Freeman, how would anybody in the world know how many lies you told in the preliminary?”
“Only God.”
“And you’re a strong-arm robber, aren’t you?”
“Depends. ”
“Depends on what?”
“If I’m drunk enough.”
“You were an informant in the Bailey case?”
“Yeah.”
“And you lied in front of the jury.”
“One thing, I believe.”
“Did you consider that a serious lie?”
“I had my reasons.”
“Those reasons you carried throughout your criminal career, right?”
“Right….”
“I’m going to list cases in which you committed perjury…Is there any case in which you didn’t perjure yourself?”
“I don’t know.”
“Was there any case where the D.A. didn’t know you were lying under oath?”
“I don’t know.”
“The D.A., Watts, used you as a witness after he knew you lied.”
“Yes, he did.”
“He wrote a letter for you after you told him you lied to him?”
“Yes, he did.”
“In Bailey, did you get up and say he made a confession. . . like you did in this case?”
“Yeah.”
“I’d like to talk about what you did with some sheep.” [laughter]
Rubin: “Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence….”
“You said you had only five felony convictions. Isn’t it the truth that you’ve had nine felony convictions?”
“Yeah, maybe. . . the way you calculate, yeah.”
“Have you ever said that a man committed murder when he did not?”
“That goes back to Soledad. I didn’t see him stab anybody….”
“You were afraid [that] being seen in newspapers and television [discussing the McMartin case] would endanger you, right?”
“Yes.”
“Two days after you got out of county jail, whom did you call?”
“Channel 7 Eyewitness News.”
“And that interview was broadcast on TV, right?”
“Yes. ”
“You were under a court order not to have any interview with news media. ”
“Yes.”
“And you deliberately disobeyed that order.”
“Yes. ”
“And you had a relationship with Sgt. Dvorak and that’s the reason you weren’t afraid of disobeying an order from a judge?”
[Inaudible answer.]….
“You say you were concerned for the safety of your family and that was why you committed your perjuries. Would that be principally your mother and sister?”
“Yes, it was.”
“And isn’t it true that in 1983 you tied up your mother and your sister and robbed them and burglarized their home?…”

Alleged Victim (boy, age 11)

Direct-examination by Lael Rubin:

“….Did Ray put anything in your mouth?” Rubin asked.
“Yes.”
“Which part?”
“His penis.”
“In a classroom?”
“I don’t know.”
“Do you remember seeing Miss Peggy without clothes on?”
“Yes. . . . I looked in the window. She had her bra on….”

Cross-examination by Daniel Davis:

“——, did you see a horse get killed?”
“Yeah.”
“Was it a full-grown horse?”
“Yes. ”
“Do you know what color it was?”
“I don’t know.”
“How did the horse get killed?”
“Ray hit it with a bat.”
“Where?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Did they ride the horse before it got killed?”
“I don’t know.”
“Were other kids there when the horse got killed?”
“I don’t know.”
“Who was your teacher when Ray killed the horse with the bat?”
“I don’t know.”
“Who was your first teacher at McMartin?”
“I don’t know.”
“Before today you had a meeting at your home?”
“Yeah.”
“Did you go over your questions with Lael Rubin?”
“Yeah. ”
“Lael Rubin asked you questions and you’d practice answers?”
“Yes.”
“Some of the answers you gave, you talked about with Ms. Rubin?”
“Yes. ”
“Did you practice the names of the teachers?”
“Yes.”
“Was your mom there practicing with you?”
“Yes. ”
“Did you practice with Lael?”
“Yes. ”
“Did you have other meetings with Lael?”
“Yes. ”
“You remember how far from the horse you were when it got killed?”
“No. ”
“Did the horse make a sound?”
“I don’t know.”
“Was the horse standing?”
“Laying down.”
“How many times did he hit the horse?”
“I don’t know.”
“Did the horse jump around?”
“I don’t know.”
“Was there any grownup there when it happened?”
“I don’t know.”
“How did Ray touch you?”
“With his finger.”
“Did he touch your wiener?”
“Yes.”
“How long did he touch your wiener?”
“I don’t know.”
“Did Lael Rubin practice your testimony with you?”
“No.”
“Did anybody practice your testimony with you before the trial?”
“No.”
“Last Friday, Lael was at your house showing you pictures?”
“Yes.”
“Did you practice questions and answers?”
“Yes.”
“Was there a time you forgot about molestation?”
“I forgot everything.”
“Did grownups help you remember?”
“Lael?”
“Were there other grownups that helped you remember?”
“Yes.”
“How about the puppet lady? Did she help you remember?”
“Yes.”
“Would it be fair to say you didn’t remember anything about molestation?”
“Yes.”
“Did your mother tell you you were molested at the preschool?”
“Yes.”
“Did she tell you [other children] were molested at the school?”
“Yes.”
“Did you believe her?”
“Yes.”
“Do you remember some twenty adults told you what happened?”
“Yes….”
“Does ‘bra’ mean underwear to you?” Davis asked.
“No.”
“What is underwear to you?”
“I don’t know.”
“Did you play ‘naked games’ outside?”
“I don’t know.”
“Do you remember talking about the ‘tickle game’ with Lael Rubin [while] preparing your answers?”
“Yes.”
“In the ‘tickle game’ were you touched on your private parts?”
“Yes.”
“Were you touched in the dirt?”
“I don’t know.”
“Do you remember what position you were in when Ray touched you?”
“I don’t know.”
“Do you remember what he did with his hands?”
“Yes. He touched me with his hands.”
“Could you describe how he did that?”
“No.”
“Do you remember any hand touching your penis today?”
“No.”
“Do you remember telling at the preliminary. . .”
“Objection. ”
“Sustained…. ”
“——, did you practice with the lady D.A.?”
“I don’t know.”
“When you went to the preschool, Ray wasn’t a teacher, was he?”
“I don’t think so.”
“Did you see Ray during your first year at the preschool?”
“I don’t know.”
“During your second year?”
“I don’t know.”
“During your third year?”
“I don’t know.”
“Do you think, when you talked to the puppet lady, that you were guess
ing answers?”
“I don’t know.”
“Back when she asked you about the ‘tickle game’ do you remember saying [that] Ray didn’t touch you?”
“No.”

[Davis read from the transcript of the CII interview with Kee MacFarlane:
Kee: Was the game some sort of tricky game?
——-: I don’t think Ray did anything.
Kee: Pacman glad to remember tricky games. . .
——-: Not of me.
Kee: Other kids?
——-: I never saw that. . . . Ray never touched me.
Kee: Oh, Pacman knows all the secrets.
——-: I don’t know any secrets.
Kee: We know the sneaky game. (She picks up the puppet and places iton top of another doll.) Can you show me the sneaky place? (——- points to the doll’s abdomen.)
Kee: How yucky! Any place real sneaky? Some place private?
——-: Maybe in wiener?
Kee: How well you remember! You have done a real good job!….

“Did you see Ray’s penis?”
“I don’t know.”
“Did anybody pee in your mouth?”
“I don’t know.”
“Did Ray put his penis in your mouth?”
“Yes.”
“Did it happen more than once?”
“I have just one picture. I see Ray.”
“What is Ray doing?”
“He’s sticking his penis up me.”
“Did you have your clothing on?”
“I don’t know.”
“Did he say anything?”
“I don’t know.”
“When Ray did this, was it hard like a stick or limp?”
“I don’t know.”
“Have you seen a hard penis?”
“I don’t know….”

[Davis read from the transcript of a CII interview:].
Kee: Did anybody put something yucky in your mouth?
—–: (No response)
Kee: Can you remember?
——: I’m not sure.
Kee: How about a finger in your hole?
——: Yes.
Kee: Boy! I bet it did! We’ll see how smart you are. Did anything come out of Ray’s wiener?
——: (No response)
Kee: What did the stuff taste like?
——: He never did that….

“You knew Ray Buckey had been accused of doing things, didn’t you?”
“I: don’t know.”
“Did the puppet lady help you remember that you were molested?”
“I think so.”
“Do you believe Ray Buckey put his penis inside your bottom?”
“I don’t know….”

Dr. Bruce Woodling

Direct Examination by Prosecutor Roger Gunson:

Woodling: I have participated in a number of training seminars that initially, in the 1970s, were gatherings of individuals who, like myself, were involved in doing sexual abuse examinations, where data was shared and where papers were presented in the work we were doing. I became very active in the area of sexual abuse evaluation and have participated extensively with the California Medical Association, the California Prosecuting Attorneys’ Association…. We developed the State of California protocol for examining suspected victims of sexual abuse. . . . I have participated in programs that involved the education of physicians and nurse practitioners through teaching hospitals. . . also through the California Prosecuting Attorneys’ Association. In 1975, I published a protocol in the California Prosecuting Attorneys’ Association guidelines for dealing with sexual abuse….
[Woodling affirmed Astrid Heger’s findings of sexual abuse,one by one.]

Cross-examination by Daniel Davis:

“…To your knowledge has any such study [using blind comparisons, without a suggestion as to whether a particular photograph depicted a child who had or had not been molested] ever been attempted?”
“No.”
“What are the necessary ingredients for rendering a competent opinion about sexual abuse in a child?”
“I have established for myself as a criterion that I will have a data base. I will have a history, and I will have photographs if I don’t have the child.”
“Isn’t it true that every human being is unique and no two are exactly the same?…”
“As a result of providing testimony on behalf of the prosecutors, how were you paid?”
“Through district attorney funds.”
“At what amount?”
“My time is $2,500 a day.”
“You were compensated for examining McMartin children in 1984?”
“I was.”
“What was your rate of compensation?”
“Two hundred fIfty dollars per examination. . . conducting the examinations, meeting with Dr. Heger and Kee MacFarlane, discussing the cases, preparing the reports. . . .”
“Doctor, have you seen children who may have been molested. . . and found there were absolutely no physical symptoms of molestation?”
“I have seen cases where there were no physical findings.”
“And have you ever found, after seeing a child suspected of being molested, with no symptoms at all, and found that that child was molested? You look at the child and found there was absolutely nothing wrong with it . . . and you determined that [the] child was molested?”
“As a physician who examines children for being victims of sexual abuse, what I do is collect a history which may include an allegation and the name of the perpetrator. . . .”
“In a court, you have actually articulated your opinion that both [names of two children] were sexually molested, haven’t you?”
“I did.”
“Now, in your own view, that’s an incompetent finding for a doctor, isn’t it?”
“No.”
“Wasn’t it true that that was ultimately a legal decision?”
“Objection. ”
“Sustained. ”
“Have you ever, without any physical finding, stated under oath that in your opinion, a child was molested?”
“I’m certain that in cases where there were no findings of molestation, what I have testified to in the past is that the lack of a physical finding does not preclude that the child was in fact either sodomized, fondled, or involved in an act of vulvar coitus.”
“Have you ever testified, when there were no physical findings, that in your opinion there was no evidence of molestation?”
“I’ve never used that word. . . .”
“Have you ever, in a court of law, testified that, in your opinion, a child was not molested?”
“I don’t believe I ever testified about [children being] ‘molested.’ I talk about trauma. . . consistent with digital manipulation, penile-genital contact, an act of sodomy. . . . The fact that a physical injury is not present does not preclude that a certain act may not [sic] have occurred.”
“Now when you talked to [name of child], did you fmd any physical evidence . . . on her anus, consistent with sodomy by a penis?”
“I saw no evidence of trauma to her perianal area whatsoever. . . but certainly the lack of signs of trauma did not preclude a fmger or other object entering her rectum. ”
“Did you see anything that, today, would affmn that a finger was put into her anus?”
“I saw nothing.”
“Now doctor, as a teacher and a lecturer, have you ever advised other physicians that their testimony should never include statements that there is no finding of sexual molestation?”
“I usually teach them. . . one of the points that I teach them is that when doing examinations as physicians we are examining children where a report is generated to be used by other persons in arriving at a determination and I suggest to all of the physicians that they should never use as part of their diagnosis that a child. . . was not raped or was not molested, rather, I say that if you have to make an opinion. . . ”
“Is it possible that a leading question might produce a false answer from a child?”
“A leading question might produce a directed answer….I have never been involved in any case where interviewers influenced children to say they were molested when in fact they were not. That has not been my experience…”
“In evaluating [name of girl] and other children, did you hold the conviction that children do not lie about molestation?” “Objection. ”
“Sustained. ”
“Do you believe, doctor, that children don’t lie about something as serious as rape and sodomy?”
“Objection. ”
“Sustained. ”
“Do you feel that your belief that children don’t lie about molestation may have influenced your opinion about [name of girl]?”
“No, I do not.”
“You profess that belief, don’t you?”
“Objection. ”
“Sustained. ”
“Do you believe that when children are being asked about molestationand say nothing happened, that can be a truthful statement?”
“It is my belief that sometimes children will say that nothing happened because they have a great deal of difficulty talking about the issue, and 1 believe a history is sometimes difficult to obtain. . . .”
“Can a child, in your experience, tell that he was not molested and be telling the truth?”
“Certainly. ”
“Let’s take the child [ who] says he hasn’t been molested and then, three or four months later, says he was raped and sodomized. Can both of these statements be truthful?”
“I think that in my experience children don’t give false reportings . . . and I know of a great many children who had a great deal of difficulty in making a disclosure. . . .”
“Do you think it’s possible for an adult to influence a child to believe they were molested when in fact they weren’t?”
“That has never been my experience and it’s not my belief. I have never been involved in any case where I [felt] interviewers influenced children who were not molested to say in fact they were. . . .” .
“Did you look at the CII interviews of the McMartin children?”
“I did not.”
“If a child makes serious allegations of rape and sodomy and then time passes and the child says instead of a penis going into a vagina, says it was a pencil-she changes the facts-in these circumstances would you consider the history to be believable in terms of molest[ing]?” . . .
“Would that give you any concern about the accuracy and reliability of the child?”
“No.”
“If she told you, when you examined her, that it was a pencil, and, years later, said it was a penis, would that change your opinion about what happened?”
“No.”
“I’d like to talk to you about false reports. By your definition would that include a situation where a child might say that he or she was sodomized and then, later on, say it didn’t happen? Is that a false report by your definition?”
“That would be a false report but I have never seen an allegation of something where it was proved that it did not in fact happen. I’m aware of children retracting allegations, but that’s part of the process of understanding the psychological dynamic of making disclosures.”
“So your view of a child who retracts an allegation of molestation is not a child that’s engaged in false reporting?”
“I would not conclude by retraction that a false report was made.”
“Do you believe a child can believe they [sic] were molested because of statements of adults?”
“I’ve never seen a child that, to my knowledge, wasn’t molested that’s been convinced that he was. I’ve never had that experience.”
“Did your medical findings corroborate sodomy?”
“There was no evidence on my examination of scarring but. . . the fact that I found no findings, in the sense of scarring, does not mean to me that sodomy did not occur, only that no scarring did occur from the sodomy. . . .”
“Do you feel, as a general principle, that children don’t lie about molestation, and that they should be believed?”
“Objection. ”
“Sustained. ”
“The exhortation that children don’t lie about molestation and that you should believe them. . . is that something you say every time you speak to your peers about evaluating child molestation?”
“I make that statement.”
“When you say that, do you place any limitation on that premise?”
“I usually have explanations I give. . . but I do make that statement that children, when they make disclosures, should be believed. . . .”
“Do you think your belief that children never lie might have something to do with the low incidence of your findings of false reports?”
“I don’t believe so.”
“You produced a videotape and you ended that videotape with the statement that children don’t lie. Remember?”
“Yes. That’s the last thing I said on that tape. Yes.”
“Have you changed from that position any?”
“No.”
“Your position on the anus of [name of girl] is that it’s consistent with the history, right?”
“Yes.”
“Without the history it would be ‘no opinion,’ right?”
“Without the history it would be a normal anus.”
“Could a doctor then say, looking at the anus of [name of girl], ‘It is consistent with no molestation’?”
“It would be consistent with molestation with no trauma or no molestation. ”
“And that’s the state of the medical evidence of Veronica today?”
“That’s correct….”

Kee MacFarlane

Direct Examination by Prosecutor Roger Gunson:

Gunson: “What is your occupation?”

MacFarlane: “I am a social worker and a director of the Child Sexual Abuse Center at Children’s Institute International,” she said. She said she was director of the program focusing on sexual abuse of children, that she received a bachelor’s degree in fine arts in Ohio, then decided to discontinue her studies in fine arts and begin working with children. “I applied to graduate school at the University of Maryland and . . . began work with a number of organizations that were involved in services to children. I worked with groups that were studying the court system. . . just trying to get to know people and how the system worked.” MacFarlane said she had received her master’s degree in social work in 1947.

“I was requested by one of my professors to try my hand at writing federal grant proposals. There was a priority announcement for federal funding for child abuse centers, ten of them in the country. And various universities and other organizations were applying for them, and so I was asked to write a grant proposal which hopefully would allow the University of Maryland to be the source of one of these grants and start a child abuse program.

“The grant was awarded. . . . I helped to organize the people who would run that project.” In 1974, MacFarlane said, she went to New Jersey to work at another child sexual abuse program, another of the ten. “It was a major grant. Two of the components of the grant were made into subcontracts of the grant which I was in charge of….”

Gunson: “Where did you go in 1976?”

MacFarlane: “To Washington, D.C. I went to join the staff of the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. . . . I was asked to come and be a member of the staff of the national center. My job title evolved into ‘child sexual abuse specialist.’

“I oversaw a number of programs that were funded by the federal government. . . . I was in Washington for six years. The United States Congress passed an amendment which provided special emphasis on child sexual abuse . . . and they authorized separate federal funding that would be specifically targeted to child sexual abuse. . . .”

Cross-examination by Dean Gits:

“When [name of girl] says she doesn’t remember any [naked games] you said, ‘I know ’em all because other kids told me.’ Do you think that puts pressure on Melinda to remember games that she might otherwise not remember?”

“Yes.”

“Do you think that having naked dolls with anatomical parts tends to suggest to the child naked games, naked people?”

“No, I don’t believe that.”.

“You made the statement, ‘Every kid from the preschool came in and told me.’ Do you think that statement puts pressure on a child?”

“No.”

“You said, ‘That’s why we wanted to use puppets. We wanted them to get real brave because more than sixty kids have come in and told yucky secrets, and every day more kids come in and tell us what went on down there.’ Do you think that statement might put undue pressure on [name of girl] to comply with what other kids said?”

“That statement was true.”.

“‘And ‘we found out all the scary stuff was just a trick to scare the kids to make the kids think that somebody would hurt their moms and dads or hurt them.’ ‘We found out’:’ Doesn’t that tell the child that you know that something happened?”

“Yes.”

“In this interview, you are the source of contagion, right?”

“Objection. ”

“Sustained. ”

” ‘All the kids’ mommies and dads now know what happened at the school, all the touching, all those sneaky little games.’ Do you think by using that statement, and authority figures as sources of knowledge is putting pressure on her?”

“I’m telling her all the parents came to see me and now it’s okay.”.

“Before that did [name of girl] make any statement about touching?”

“I don’t really remember. ”

” ‘Well, I’m glad you’re not so dumb, Snake.’ Do you think by telling [the interviewed girl] that, you are telling her she’s dumb if she didn’t agree?”

“No.”

” ‘The mommies and daddies are so glad the kids are telling.’ When you say ‘this stuff happened,’ are you telling Melinda touching happened at the preschool?”

“I think I’m trying to tell her I know something happened. I use the word, ‘stuff,’ on purpose.”

“Do you believe these statements tell the children you believe molestation happened at the preschool?”

“No.”

“. . . with the use of grownups and authority figures.”

“No.”

” ‘Now, Snake, I don’t think those teachers should still be teaching children, do you?’ Do you think that calls for an opinion?”

“Yes, I think it calls for an opinion.”

“Don’t you think it tells [the interviewed girl] the teachers are molesters?”

“No. Not at all.”

” ‘Well, Mr. Snake, you and any puppets you want to use can help us figure it out so no more kids will have that yucky stuff happen to them. . . .’ Do you think this is one of the most fundamental pressure points? ‘All the other kids said it happened.’ Parents, Kee, authority figures. Isn’t that telling [the interviewed girl] that kids are getting raped and molested? ‘Secret police are watching Ray all the time.’ Don’t you think that statement might influence [the interviewed girl] to believe that Ray is a bad person?”

“Yes. ”

” ‘. . . and we’re gonna make sure that no more kids get hurt.’ What did you mean, ‘we’?”

“I was referring to myself.”

” ‘If you have a good memory like all the other kids.’ Isn’t that putting pressure on [the interviewed girl]?”

“I’m not asking [her] to comply with my statement….”

:” ‘I think we should beat up Mr. Ray. . . . What a bad guy! Don’t you think he’s a bad guy? He’s not gonna do this any more to kids, is he?’ Did you encourage [the interviewed girl] to beat up the Ray doll?”

“In a manner of speaking, yes.”

“Is there a clinical reason for doing that? A therapeutic reason?”

“It can be…..”

“Looking back on [this] interview. . . do you think Raymond Buckey ever had a fair chance?”

“The issue of ‘fair’ may have to be left to the courts to decide.”

“No further questions at this time, your honor.”

Cross-examination by Daniel Davis:

“You indicated you had training from the FBI.”

“No, I was the trainer.”

“And who trained you before you trained the FBI?”

“I attended numerous workshops.”

“Did you ever sit down with police officers and did they tell you what law enforcement needs to do in interviewing a child who may have been molested?”

“Yes….”

“Do you think that by disrobing a doll and exposing a child to what appears to be an erect penis, that that’s suggesting things to the child?”

“Well, we worked very hard on the dolls to have them not appear to be an erect, stimulated penis. In fact we tied them down. If you’re asking about whether it can ever affect a child, it’s one the research of the last five years has been investigating and . . . there’s absolutely no evidence in the research that they do that. . . providing incorrect or false information just because they’ve got these dolls….”

“The reason you used ugly-faced dolls is because you wanted to impress a negative perception of Mr. Buckey. . . and then you go on to use a black doll with funny boobies to represent Peggy Buckey. Right?” .

“I couldn’t say. . . for the most part children picked the dolls.”

“Do you see any harm in telling a child what other children said?”

“Harm? Well I can see it can become a problematical issue in legal cases but it doesn’t have any effect one way or the other. You cannot say that it is harmful. In fact I did it because I saw a potential for children sitting and clamming up. I did it to prevent that.”

“. . . You can’t distinguish whether what the child says thereafter is something they actually experienced or something you’re telling them other kids said. Isn’t that one of the issues?”

“Objection. Speculation.”

“Sustained. ”

“Didn’t you tell, in the grand jury, that you did not tell one child what the other children said? . . . Combining your telling [a child] that ‘naked games were played at the school because all the other kids told us,’ and then to say ‘the kids really didn’t tell us, the puppets told us,’ what was the combined effect of that?”

“What I was trying to do in telling her [that] I already knew was to take from her any burden she might have about the repercussions of telling. . . . I was offering the puppets as a medium to communicate. ”

“And when you did that, did it occur to you that you might be creating a sort of realm of fantasy in which children might make false accusations in which they believe they’re just pretending?”

“No. It’s a major issue because there’s not any data to show that has ever happened. Any! But because it is consistently raised, all of the studies with the use of anatomical dolls have shown that the use of those dolls does not in any way lead to false reports about abuse, and there are now, because of this case and the many other cases in which these issues have been repeatedly raised in court, we now have research that looks into issues of suggestibility. There are five or six articles which address these exact issues which you are raising. And they are debunking the idea that by suggesting to children even leading and misleading questions suggestive of child sexual abuse they are debunking the idea that children just pick up and just repeat it. It’s information that I didn’t have when I did these interviews. Now, five years later, the research is out there. Numerous studies. . . and the resistance of children to these questions is in the ninety-three to ninety-nine percentile. . . . There is now research on the subject.”

“My gosh! It sounds like there have been a lot of current studies that really back up your techniques. . . . Could you be a little more specific please? The name of the author, the title, the date of publication?”

“I can’t recite that off the top of my head…”

“Just taking the act of a child beating a doll, do you feel there is a difference in interpreting what is going on when a child beats a doll of their own volition, as opposed to a child beating a doll at the suggestion of an adult?”

“It can be different. It can be the same. It depends on the child. . . . It may be the same, whether they’re invited to do it or whether they do it on their own.”

“To the extent that you adopted this doll-beating technique, you cannot direct us to the identity of any child in the McMartin case that initiated it in their own right-right?”

“Not off the top of my head.”

“And did any of these children, of their own volition, initiate the dollbeating?”

“Not that I recall.”

“You suggested it to the children?”

“I don’t remember.”

“Have you ever been tested for your credentials as an interviewer?”

“Not that I can think of. . . . Over the last several years I have been one of the trainers. . . . Several years ago, California changed its licensing requirements for psychologists and required that they be trained in the area of child abuse and. . . I’ve trained a number of these and I also teach a course at USC which meets the requirements for psychologists….”

“You accept, don’t you, that in some of these interviews you urged these little children to beat up on these dolls?”

“Yes.”

“And at the beginning of this piece you’re introducing the name of a game and the fact it may or may not be a naked game, correct?”

“Correct.”

“Don’t you feel that that is overly suggestive to a child to tell the child that it’s naked?”

“Absolutely not!”

“I’d like to explore a little of what you said about children naming names of other children. . . looking at the names in this piece on ‘horsey game.’ . . . Is this the context in which the child names names of people who played the games?”

“We asked the children. That’s one way we name names. They pick them out of photographs. That’s another way. . . . There are specific places in these interviews where I ask the child, ‘Was this child involved?’ or ‘Did they get touched?’ or ‘Were they naked?’ And if the child confirms those direct questions, I would generally pass that along.”

“You would generally pass that along by telling somebody in the police department, wouldn’t you?”

“Yes. We’re required to do that.”

“As a consequence of this conversation with [the child] about this ‘horsey game,’ did you suggest [that] he might be stupid? Chicken?”

“If you’re referring again to my talking to the puppets, I described that every way I know how…”

“”MacFarlane: All right, Mr. Alligator. Are you going to be stupid?’ And then you introduce in your words, not his, the ‘naked movie star’ game, correct?”

“Yes.”

“And wasn’t the essence of what you learned from him that he hadn’t seen or heard about this ‘naked movie star’ game until he heard this song?

“This chant?”

“Well, that’s what he said in this segment.”

“And was your response. . . that he was dumb?”

“No. That means you’re smart.”

“Wouldn’t the inevitable impact of this exchange be that any child would figure that you’re calling him dumb?”

“. . . It was an attempt to reach out [with] the puppets to help the child.”

“After he said he didn’t see any ‘naked movie star’ game, you asked him who took pictures for that game, correct?”

“Yeah. I asked him who took pictures of the ‘naked movie star’ game….”

“When you talk about ‘horsey,’ you were the one that added the names of those games and descriptions to that interview, weren’t you?”

“No. Some of the children said ‘horsey game.’ ”

“Anyone in this case call it ‘horsey game’ before you mentioned it?”

“I don’t recall.”

“How about the ‘tickle game’? You’re the one who put those words, ‘tickle,’ in , aren’t you?”

“No!”

“Isn’t it very easy for you to say there are lots of unnamed children out there in other interviews, without identifying the child?”

“. . . I did not make up a single game. These all came by children or by information I had beforehand.”

“Did you not introduce every one of the games to [the child] in this interview?”

“No. Of course not.”

“You introduced the ‘naked movie star,’ didn’t you?”

“I’m not disputing that I introduced games. You asked me if I introduced every single game and I’m saying I referred to ‘lookout. “,

“Your technique. . . Miss MacFarlane, is to take perfectly innocent games and convert them, by the insertion of words like ‘naked,’ and ‘yucky’ into accusations of crime, isn’t it?”

“No, it is not.”

“Then how do you justify, after he tells you ‘tug-of-war,’ the introduction of the word, ‘naked’?”

“I don’t think we’re talking about the same game. I asked him if any games were played and he says, ‘tug of war.’ ”

“MacFarlane: Mr. Pacman, do you remember any naked, tie-up games like other kids remember?” The child answers, ‘No.’ How can you justify inserting the suggestion that there were naked tie up games when he just told you about tug-of-war?”

“I can justify it by dozens of other children who told me they were tied up naked, showed me with the dolls, told their parents. . . .”

“After hearing it from the parents, you’d include it in your tapes, right?…”

“And did you make an effort to force little [name of boy] to make an accusation of oral copulation on my client in that interview?”

“Absolutely not.”

“Your sequence in the technique with [the interviewed boy] was to first talk about sexual acts and then attempt to have him demonstrate them-correct?”

“No. . . . The goal was to take it all and show anything significant to the parents.”

“What we saw [the boy] doing, demonstrating a little doll with its penis in the mouth of another little doll, do you think that had any pornographic effect?”

“Objection. ”

“Sustained…. ”

“‘MacFarlane: When Ray comes out, what does Ray do? How does something get in that little hole?’ [Boy]: ‘Well, nothing gets in that little hole.’ MacFarlane: ‘Remember when we figured all that out? That’s already in the secret machine?’ [Boy]: ‘Do yeah. Lemme think. . . .’ MacFarlane: ‘Remember that? How did that get in there? Let’s just show how that happened. That’ll be easy. And that can be in the secret machine, all gone. How did it happen?’ [Boy]: ‘Well, Ray kicked him.’ Does it seem apparent to you at this time, that. . . he’s saying nothing happened to his bottom?”

“No. It doesn’t seem apparent. It seems to me that he’s having a hard time with those questions. . . .”

“What you were really trying to do was to get him to demonstrate sodomy with the dolls so you could show it to the parents. Wasn’t that really what you were doing?”

“Mr. Davis! I never set out to try to prove to three hundred plus parents that I could make them believe by looking at some segment of tape that their children had been molested! I wanted them to see what I saw because they know their kids better than I did. . . so they could know in their own minds whether something happened to their children….”

“Do you see yourself as a link in the process that led to the children making these accusations?”

“I believe that I enabled children who had not been able to describe things, before they came to me. . . . My job was to uncork the bottle, to see what they had to say, once they had gotten over the fear they had.”

Selected Witnesses for the Defense

Dr. Michael Maloney

Direct Examination by Defense Attorney Dean Gits:

“Doctor. . . do you recall that your first function when you were appointed to assist the defense was to start looking at the tapes-is that correct?”

“Yes.”

“When you started looking at the tapes, initially, did you come to any initial conclusion with respect to the interview techniques utilized by CII?”

“Yes, 1 came to several after watching perhaps five or six tapes in their entirety. . . . One conclusion was that the interviews were clearly led by the interviewer rather than focused on the child, or the interviewee. And the other was that the vast amount of verbiage, or words said, were said by the interviewer, not by the children. Another observation was that these children indeed could talk and did seem quite willing to talk at the outset of the interview, and there did not appear to be a need for that kind of approach. In fact, that kind of an approach would be counterproductive in the sense that the interviewers were saying too much, and providing too much information, what I would refer to as a ‘stage setting.’ ”

“Were those your only conclusions?”

“There were many more. Those were the primary, first ideas that I had, the first conclusions that I did come to, yes.”

“Was it your conclusion that the number of words used by the interviewer were too many?”

“Yes, definitely. . . . I’m really talking about the ratio of words between the interviewer and the interviewee, the child. Given the premise that the goal of this kind of interview is to get information from a child, to learn about their experiences, their memories, what has been done with them, then we want to hear the child talk. And if the child is able to talk and is willing to talk, the interviewer’s job is to facilitate that and get them to talk.”

“Doctor, would it be fair to say that you are going to find children who are too scared to talk, so the interviewer has to talk more?”

“They were verbal kids. They seemed relaxed. They were talking. So there did not appear to be any basis for taking over the interview.”

“So the interviewer spoke more. What’s wrong with that?”

“There are many things. One is that you are presenting a template, or a design for what’s going to happen. You’re communicating to the child: ‘I’m gonna talk. I’m gonna ask questions. Your job is to sit back and follow my lead. . . .’ ”

“Why is that wrong?”

“Because you avoid being able to learn from the child, in the child’s own language, what their experience is, how they organize their own history, their own memories.”

“Why is that bad?”

“Because your task really is to find out that information. What is this child saying? What does the child remember. The more you use an interviewer to effect that, or provide them with information, that could contaminate them, the less you can rely on anything you get out of them. . . . These interviews did not flow in the direction of the child. In other words, typical child evaluation interview, you let the child talk, and you follow their lead. You keep them speaking. In these interviews the kids all were machined through the exact same process. Toward the end of that process they were being asked very direct and almost coercive questions about sexual behavior. At those times some of the children became fairly nonverbal and were simply pointing and did so in a somewhat passive way and sometimes even in a questioning way.”

“Did you form any opinion as to whether these children were such that numerous questions by the interviewer were inappropriate?”

“In all cases, yes. . . . As I was saying previously, one of the first observations I made was that the interviewers were doing the vast majority of verbal output. And there are reasons why that could be very problematical in an evaluation interview.”

“Without knowing anything about the children. . . would you be able to come to any conclusion, based on the numbers alone, as to whether or not the interview techniques were proper?”

“I would have to integrate one premise which I’ve already measuredthat the children were willing to talk. They did talk. . . . If you gave me a random sample of children, nine children roughly aged four and a half to nine, and I knew they were picked out of some kind of normal population, I would say that it was backwards, and it would be wrong.”

“Can you tell us what else you did with respect to your analysis of the interview techniques of the CII tape?”

“The next step I took was to categorize various aspects of these interviews and classify the type of behavior that was occurring, the type of inter-change between the interviewer and the child.”.

“Can you tell us how you went about that?”

“Several different ways. My first impression when I watched the very first tapes, was that these were done in some systematic way. These were not interviews that followed the lead of the child. I watched probably forty or fifty tapes of different children and developed what I have referred to as a script. And what I was trying to do in reviewing those tapes was to isolate out certain kinds of activities, behaviors, statements made by the examiners to all or most of the children.”

“Why do you call it a script?”

“The reason I called it a script is that in interviewing children the focus is on the child. The opposite of following the child is following some kind of predetermined program. I used the word, ‘script,’ for that-to refer to that program, but I also use the word, ‘script’ because even word usage by the various examiners with the various children was very close. It was if they were reading a script. . . .”

“Can you tell us, doctor, what’s wrong with the script?”

“The very concept of using a program or a script in an interview of a child is wrong in the sense that it is putting in the interview situation material from the interviewer rather than obtaining spontaneous information from the child. The more that’s done the less you will be able to conclude about the child’s behavior and statements.”

“But doesn’t that depend, doctor, on the particular child at hand?”

“It certainly depends on the particular child. . . . Generally the same script was used for all the children. That simply underscores that it was programmed that way. It was planned that way.”

“Is there something wrong with using the same methodology or script with children throughout that age range?”

“There’s something basically and inherently wrong with using a script in any type of evaluation interview.”

“What’s wrong with it? Why is it wrong?”

“Several things. First is that there does not appear to have been any consideration from the cognitive development of the children. Second, there is no consideration of the relative brightness of the children and the relative fluency of the children, the sex of the children. They are all considered, at least by implication, as a homogenous mass that you must treat the same way. . . .”

“Doctor, do you believe you have the ability, from looking at the CII tapes . . . to come to a conclusion of the cognitive development level of any given child?”

“Other than in a very general sense, without a complete evaluation of the child, it is very difficult to say. We don’t: have enough data in terms of their own responses on those tapes, to make that kind of a conclusion.”

“Would it be improper in your opinion to conduct an interview of a child for child sexual abuse without doing some kind of analysis as to the cognitive development of the child?”

“I believe it generally would because the cognitive evaluation provides you the additional data to assess what a child is saying. The bottom line of all this is: the child is saying something. How would we know why they’re saying it? Is it their own experience or did it occur some other way?”

“In your viewing of the videotapes in this case, did you observe any testing of a child to ascertain cognitive developmental level?”

“Not to determine cognitive level. There was some testing to see if they knew the names of certain body parts, but it wasn’t cognitive.”

“Can you tell us what particular things you observed that were repeated from child to child that led you to believe that there was a script being utilized?”

“In almost all cases the interviews started with drawing a picture that was typically outlined by the interviewer. After that there was a procedure where they went into naming body parts, the specific focus being on the sexual body parts. There was then an introduction of so-called anatomically correct dolls, with the focus again on sexual body parts of the dolls. There was an introduction of pictures of students and teachers from the school, where persons were identified by the examiner and by the child with specific focus on certain teachers in the school, and sometimes the child himself. There was an introduction of puppets as a method of presenting information. There was an introduction of the nature of these dolls, that they were dolls that you could not find in a store. There was an introduction of variously referred to ‘yucky,’ ‘sneaky,’ ‘tricky’ games. There was an introduction of Ray Buckey being a bad person, surveilled by police. There was an introduction of ejaculation in terms of Ray Buckey, and what that might look like, taste like, and so forth. Those items were in almost every case here and in many others as well. . . .

“I would like to add, however, in a number of these tapes, there is something going on. You don’t see a picture of a child walking in, and an examiner walking in and sitting down. They are already in process, so something could have happened before. I don’t know what. But when they are sitting down in this phase, they are drawing a picture of the person, frequently out-lined by the examiner. ”

“Is there something wrong with what occurred in that type of interaction?”

“The first thing that I would suggest that is wrong about that is that there is a subtle communication-and sometimes not so subtle-that what is going to happen between these two people is going to be controlled by the interviewer. And what you want is information that is controlled and generated by the interviewee, the child.”

“How is that communicated by this drawing?”

“It’s pretty straightforward, in the sense that if I want you to draw something and I want you to look at it and help me with it, the examiner is taking over the behavior.”

“Anything else that appeared improper about that kind of activity?”

“Drawing that picture is a stage-setting behavior for identifying sexual parts.”

“You said a ‘stage-setting’ behavior. What does that mean?”

“It simply means that it provides a certain kind of information, a certain kind of activity from which more information will be based or evolved from.”

“What information does that drawing of a picture provide to the child?”

“It goes into the next part of it where they say, ‘What are these?’ and if you recall that, they will often say, ‘What’s this?’ and they will have a mark in the middle of the torso, usually identified as the belly button. Then, they will have two marks up above, usually identified as breasts. Then they will identify private parts. They also do identify hair, fingers, and so forth, but very soon on-in one case, for example, it was four minutes into the interview-the child was saying ‘private parts,’ and ‘What’s another name for that?’ ‘Vagina,’ and ‘weenie,’ or whatever. That was introduced that soon into the interview.”

“You talked about naming body parts as something that gradually evolves from this situation. Can you tell us what’s wrong with naming body parts?”

“In isolation, nothing. The primary problem with that is that the end result of this identifying body parts is to identify the sexual body parts. In almost all cases, that’s where it ends. At that point in the interview the child[ren have], typically, said zero about their own sexual experiences. But they have been directed to talk about genitalia and other so-called private parts. Again, in doing that, you run the risk of stage-setting. . . . It also presents data that the children may not know. There are a lot of the children, four, five, six, that have not been able to say what even the difference between a boy and a girl is.”

“Wouldn ‘t naming body parts be an appropriate activity if you were simply trying to determine the terminology used by the children? . . . Would it be appropriate at that point?” “No. . . because it’s setting the stage that we are talking about sexual matters. . . . Once you do that you never know what they know before you got to that point.”

“Couldn’t that kind of activity be justified by virtue of the interviewer wanting to use the same terms that the child used?”

“You could argue that. But what I’m saying is that you are presenting that as a topic when the child never spontaneously brought it up.”

“What else was there that you observed about the scripting that occurred in this particular case?”

“The next one is the introduction of the dolls. . . . We are talking about dolls that are usually referred to as ‘sexually anatomically correct dolls,’ or so-called S.A.C. dolls.”

“Is it your opinion that there was something improper about the introduction of those anatomically correct dolls?”

“Yes.”

“Was it your opinion that the use of the dolls in these nine cases was improper?”

“Yes. . . they were very systematically introduced in a fashion suggesting that they were silly, that it was funny. They referred to the breasts as ‘cupcakes.’ In some of the later interviews, after the dolls had been used a lot, they got parts all over. The kids wrote on them, beat them up, and they had to repair them. There was definite levity in that, matched-or mismatched -with very serious content material for children this age. Obvious sex characteristics . . . sexual education for children is very serious. They’re concerned about it. It’s not funny to them. In many cases the way it was presented to them was in a derogatory way, a negative way. I can’t imagine a rationale for doing that. You might say it makes them more at ease, but it might not make them see it as a serious issue.

“Secondly, the dolls are almost always presented clothed, and the children are allowed to experiment with them, at their own rate, at their own speed. In this case, they are dumped out of bags and said, ‘These are funny dolls. You can’t find them in a store. They’re really silly.’ And they strip them, and they show them. You asked, initially, what’s wrong. We’re really forcing the focus on sex in these interviews. You might say, ahead of time, ‘I don’t know whether these kids were ever abused or not abused.’ ”

“You talked about reinforcement, doctor. When you say ‘reinforcement,’ what do you mean?”

“I could give it to you in example form. If a child were to have identified a private part of the drawing, the dolls were then introduced, and they say, ‘What was this part again?’ and the child says, ‘vagina,’ and they say, ‘Great! You’re smart! You’re really a smart kid!’ That’s the reinforcement.”

“Is there anything wrong with reidentifying the body parts on the anatomically correct dolls?”

“What it does is it gets these children farther away from their own spontaneous remarks about sex. You are presenting it to them in a drawing form. You’re presenting it to them in a doll form. It’s almost as if you wanted to make sure that they’re going to focus on those areas. If you’re interested in getting spontaneous information, it’s obvious to me that that would be wrong.”

“Couldn’t the use of dolls be justified in terms of trying to desensitize the child?”

“You can say that, sure, but you are presenting them with sexual material and saying this is a big deal.”

“Is there a danger that using these dolls might result in leading the child to react in terms of fantasy rather than actual events?”

“There is a danger, yes.”

“‘You mentioned that the focusing in on the body parts was done a second time when the anatomically correct dolls were introduced. In your opinion is there any justification for doing that a second time, that is, naming the same body part that the child picked on the picture and hooking it into the body part?”

“‘To me there is no justification. . . .”

“‘Can you tell us what other aspects of these interviews constituted a script?”

“Yes. Another one related to the dolls is a scenario wherein there is a presentation that these dolls ‘help us figure it out.’ Now that word, ‘it,’ has several different references but it is usually vague. But that kind of specific statement was used with most of the children.”

“What’s wrong with that?”

“Many things. The first one is the way that it is presented. There is an implication, if not a statement, that there is something wrong. At this point, from the children, we don’t know if there’s anything wrong or not. But saying, ”These dolls help us figure out some of these things,’ presents the idea that there is something there that needs to be figured out. So that’s a stage setting behavior as well. There’s ground laid that we’re going to have to work on something here. In some cases there’s something much more specific about that, saying that negative things happened. There are words like ‘yucky’ used very frequently in these statements. . . .

“Secondly, there is a game-playing quality to this. Before the dolls were being used to identify body parts to look at, this time, we’re using the dolls as an intermediary. ‘The dolls will help us figure it out.’ This is where you could really get into the risk of a fantasy problem. You are removing responsibility from the child. You’re not saying to that child, ‘I want you to only tell me what you know.’ You’re saying, ‘We can use the dolls. They’ll help us.’ ”

“‘Generally speaking, when the interviewer is using these dolls, to help us figure it out, is the doll clothed or unclothed?”

“‘I believe they’re usually unclothed at that point. This comes after the other parts of the script, which brings up a focus again, or contamination about sex.”.

“‘Is it your opinion that at that point in time, having pulled the clothes off the anatomical doll and making references to ‘dolls helping us figure it out,’ were you able to render an opinion as to whether or not the child would understand that that’s what it was about?”

“‘There’s no way to know exactly, but I think there’s a very high probability that sex has been emphasized so much, prior to that, that now we’re presented with a problem that needs to be figured, that would be one of the high-probability associations: ‘Figuring means sex….’ ”

“Are there other areas and portions of the script that you have identified?”

“Yes. Another portion of the script would be the presentation of photos of either classes or teachers or students at McMartin.”

“What is there about that that is improper?”

“The risk that this technique runs, and the potential harm it causes, is that it could be looked at as a teaching and rehearsal strategy, rather than a strategy wherein an interviewer independently determines what a child remembers. ”

“You say, ‘a teaching and rehearsal strategy.’ Could you tell us what you mean by that phrase?”

“What usually is involved when this is done is, photos are pulled out, regarding the child, usually, and the class that the child was in . . . photos of the school, and the technique is to say, ‘Well, let’s look at this. Do you remember some of these people?’ Now if the child spontaneously says, ‘Yes. This is so-and-so. . .’ and they recall them, I don’t see much harm in doing that. There are some cases, however, where children said they didn’t remember who they were. Sometimes they would misidentify people. And then they were corrected in that regard. The risk that you’re running here is that you’re not getting a spontaneous recall from the child. . . . The role in this kind of interview is to try to obtain spontaneous information from children. . . . Once a child identifies someone, verbally, in a spontaneous way, I think it might be a good procedure to go back and say, ‘Is this who we’re talking about?’ If you do it the other way around there is a contamination or a potential for a contamination that you can’t rectify.”

“How is it a contamination?”

“. . . Some of the other parts of the script say ‘things happened at the school,’ or ‘yucky things happened at the school.’ There’s an implication that some people might have done these things. The child might not even remember a given person. . . .”

“Anything else about using class photos that appears to be inappropriate to you?”

“In some cases the key figures are simply pointed out to the child. Some of the children didn’t recall who they were.”

“Are there other areas that you’ve identified as ‘script’?”

“Yes. . . which I have titled, ‘Mention of Children Who Have Attended CII.’ Children who had been evaluated there before. And I could give some of these examples. . . what we’re talking about here is statements wherein the interviewers say, ‘All these kids have been here before.’ ”

“What’s wrong with that?”

“That, in isolation, I wouldn’t say there’s something specifically wrong, other than that there starts to be a cumulative effect that something of a major nature went on. . . . There is also a social pressure and coercion in that they don’t just say that all these kids have been here. They tend to say that all these kids have been here and they’ve told us all these yucky things. There’s another part of the script and it’s integrated with this part of the script. ”

“You say it’s social pressure. What do you mean by that?”

“Social pressure in the sense that these children are told that. . . ‘hundreds,’ ‘every child in this picture.’ So they’re presenting this child in contrast to all the other children.”

“You talked about an element of coercion in this kind of technique. How is that coercive?”

“They are saying, ‘All of your mates have told us these secrets.’ There becomes an expectation that the child should do the same.”

“What danger could that have on the propriety of the interview?”

“It does present that expectation and there are data available to indicate that adults and kids do respond to social pressure.”

“Couldn’t that be justified on the theory of an attempt to put the child at ease?”

“It could be . . . [if] the child manifested anxiety. . . . But if you do it before that. . . there’s no way to get back to spontaneity. You’ve already laid out that part.”

“In viewing the nine videotapes in question here, did you observe any kind of anxiety reaction that preceded these kinds of words, ‘All the kids have told us about the yucky secrets’?”

“. . . I did not see what I would operationally define as anxiety.”

“Anything else about mentioning that other children had already been to CII that appeared improper?”

“In some of the cases there is a specific reference-it isn’t just that ‘children have already been here.’ There is an indication ‘we already know what happened.’ . . . It’s presenting that as a fact, as an authority, and the authority is based not only on the interviewer but on all the other children.”

“What effect could that have on the child?”

“I would see it as another form of pressure, another attempt at forcing conformity. . . . It decreases spontaneity.”

“Any other aspects to the script you’ve isolated or identified?”

“Yes. There is a part that presents the puppets as a vehicle for telling secrets. . . . You know what we have here are puppets, and they really help us. The kids don’t even have to do it.’ ”

“What’s wrong with that?”

“Well, from a purely clinical point of view. . . it’s an inappropriate start-off technique. . . . It tends to decrease personal responsibility. ‘The puppets tell us. The kids don’t have to say anything.’ ”

“Do you have a recollection of the interview between Kee MacFarlane and [name of girl]?”

“Yes, I do.”

“Can you tell us, in general, how you would characterize that interview?”

“It was a very long interview. A great deal of discussion by the examiner. . . . [The girl] says very little. Maybe two or three words.”

“Any other areas ofthe script you’ve noted?”

“Yes. The next one I have is titled, ‘Kids Have Been Scared.’ It’s a statement that ties in with mention of the kids to CII, but it adds information that either kids have been scared to talk or that kids simply have been scared.”

“The interviewer provides the information. What’s wrong with that?”

“It is what I would describe as ‘stage-setting.’ If you’re trying to obtain information from a child, once you say that, it’s difficult to determine whether that child himself has been scared or is simply responding to that kind of a statement.”

“If a child had not been threatened, what would or could be the potential effect on the child?”

“It presents information that something might have occurred that people were scared about. . . . ‘Listen, we’ve seen about a hundred kids and they’ve all been scared.’ ”

“Did you, in your view of the videotapes, . . . note any behavior that would indicate anxiousness on the part of the children?”

“I don’t recall any.”

“What about the response of an interviewer when Mary points to a particular picture?”

“The response is reinforcing, since the interviewer says, ‘Yeah!’ and ‘That’s what a whole lot of kids told us.’ ”

“So what if it reinforces the answers? What’s wrong with that?”

“The next time you get into another area and say, ‘Can you point?’ there would be a higher probability they would point to Ray.”

“What about the next area?”

“The next area is titled, ‘The Secret Machine.” ”

“Could you tell us what that area involves?”

“It’s an instruction to the children that if they have a secret they can say it into the microphone. . . and they tell them that the secret will go down the wire and into a box and will be gone forever, or they won’t have to worry. . . . First, it can be confusing. . . . I don’t know if there’s any clarity as to what that word really means to children. . . . If these children were molested, if they were traumatized, it’s simply a misrepresentation. It wouldn’t go away.”

“And would you go into the next area of the script?”

“There is a part that I have titled, ‘Older Kids/ Younger Kids.’ ”

“Would you tell us what that involves, please?”

“There’s a fairly systematic statement given to the children that the older kids are very helpful because they are able to give a report the younger children can’t give. They are better detectives. They are smarter. They need to help out the younger kids.”

“… And what is wrong with that approach?”

“….It is an inducement to the children to talk. It presents some external pressure, and in some cases the pressure is relatively severe. . . . You run the risk of telling the children that if they don’t say something they are not smart, they are not like the other, older kids, and they are not helping out the younger children. All of that could be subsumed under the implication of stage-setting: ‘This is what everybody else did. Who is not bright? Who is older? Who is helping?’ ”

“Could this kind of pressure change the behavior of children in terms of responding correctly?”

“Yes it could….”

“What is the next area of the script that you’ve isolated?”

“It’s an area called ‘Secret Policeman.’ ”

“Generally, what does that area involve?”

“It involves a fairly specific description that Ray Buckey is being surveilled. . . . It identifies him as a bad person.”

“How does it do that?”

“Some of the things were quite direct in that area: ‘He needs to be watched.’ ‘He needs to be put in jail.’ . . .
It identifies him as a bad person who needs watching. There’s no other explanation.”

“But the mere fact that that kind of communication is communicated to the child, can you say thereby that it might have an effect on the child’s behavior or responses?”

“Certainly. . . . If the child believes that something happened at the school, that hundreds of kids have said it. A ‘yucky’ thing, they’ve been presented with issues of sex. . . and now Ray is introduced as a person who needs police surveillance. I don’t think it takes a great leap to identify him as a person who is involved in all those things and he has already been placed on the stage.”

“The next area, please.”

“…. ‘Naming of Dolls.’ It deals with an interaction between the interviewer and the child where they are looking at these dolls. I believe in almost all cases the dolls were unclothed. And they are saying who played the game and they want to identify these dolls as various players. The players have been identified by the pictures. That’s generally this part of the script.”

“What’s wrong with that?”

“They now take these dolls and use them as a personification of these people. In almost all the cases that we have here, Peggy is identified as the fattest one. They use that kind of terminology and the kids call her ‘Miss Piggy.’ So the dolls are derogatory. Then they use the introduction of these people as derogatory as well.”

“And your next area, doctor?”

“This is ‘Names Introduced.’ This is a general category that involves the examiner presenting to the child some idea that certain games were played at the school. The games are typically referred to as ‘sneaky’ or ‘tricky’ or ‘naked.’ It presents the child with that information. They’re essentially telling them that this is what happened. If you have a child
[who] did not have that experience, the impact may be that within the context of the interview the child may say yes, that something happened. . . . It’s an information-giving technique.”

“And the final category?”

“The final category I have titled ‘Stuff Out Of Ray’s Penis.’ It involves a series of quite direct questions about Ray ejaculating and certainly the implication is made to the kids of oral copulation. I don’t recall any child saying that Ray ejaculated before this was brought up. . . . The children simply didn’t say anything about it. The second thing about it was to me the most ridiculous set of questions in the whole interview because they start off and they use, with the majority of the children, the same terms. ‘Did it taste like candy?’ ‘Did it taste like strawberry?’ ‘Did it taste like pizza?’ ‘Did it taste like chocolate?’ This has already been identified with the penis area of the Ray doll. Children of that age. . . think of that as an area of excretion.”

“If you would take these scripts that you have isolated or identified here, how would you characterize them in terms of the propriety of the interview?”

“. . . With that many things wrong, with that significant amount of negative influence, I would say that these were very inappropriate interviews for this purpose.”

“If we were to take the various aspects of this script that you have isolated, and put those together, is there a joint conclusion that you can reach in terms of the propriety of the interviews?”

“I think the risk that you run, very strongly in this case, is getting kids to acquiesce in saying things, or point to things that we are not sure of at all. There’s a great deal of pressure on them to do that. . . . In evaluation for sexual abuse, this would be an inappropriate way to proceed for all the reasons I have given. . . in summary, it presents information to the children that we don’t know if they had or did not have before. It tells them that things happened at the school. It gives the general nature of the things. It presents the players in the situation and, essentially, presents all the pieces to a puzzle. And there was very strong motivation for the children to solve the puzzle. The motivation comes out of things like, ‘Are you smart or dumb?’

‘Are you a good detective?’ ‘Are you going to please your mother and father?’ And then, finally, it gives a vehicle for solution, which are these puppets, these dolls. So what you’re doing is presenting a situation that you could take with any children, and not know why you got the results you got out of it, no matter what their experience was before that.”

“And is it your view that these nine CII interviews are worse than just plain useless?”

“Objection. ”

“Sustained. ”

“Would it be fair to say, doctor, that the only end result of these interviews is that they can’t be relied upon because of the techniques that were utilized?”

“Objection… ”

“Are there, or could there be, factors occurring to a child before a CII interview, that might affect the child’s response, both in the CII interview and later?”

“Sure.”

“Hypothetically, what factors might affect a child’s report at a CII interview?”

“Any interaction with other persons that dealt with the same type of material. Multiple interviews, or any interviews. Now, it’s presented to them by other persons. Siblings, family members, police officers, any information. . . .”

“If you could. . . hypothetically again, assume that the child loves and respects his or her parents. And assume that the parent believes that the interviewer is qualified to do a child sexual abuse evaluation. Then assume, if you would, that after the CII interview, the interviewer goes in and tells the parents that his or her child was molested. Could that have an impact on the child’s later behavior?”

“Objection. Speculative.”

“Sustained. ”

“Doctor Maloney, are there psychological factors that might affect a child’s behavior after the CII interview?”

“There’s many possibilities….”

“Doctor, are you aware of any recognized body of experts in the field of interview methodology who espouse the interview techniques that you’ve isolated in this particular case?”

“No.”

“Thank you. No further questions.”

Charles Buckey

Re-Direct Examination by Defense Attorney Dean Gits:

“How long before he taught at the school was it that you knew he didn’t wear underwear?”

“About the time he got out of high school, so probably two or three years. ”

Re-Cross Examination by Prosecutor Roger Gunson:

“Before Raymond Buckey started working at the preschool, did Mrs. Buckey talk to you about whether it would be appropriate for Raymond Buckey to work at the preschool?”

“Yes.”

“And in that conversation did you talk about Mr. [Raymond] Buckey’s viewing these Playboy and Penthouse magazines?”

“That was never discussed.”

“Did you talk with Mrs. Buckey about Raymond Buckey looking at this more explicit material and also working at the preschool?”

“No.”

“Did you discuss with Mrs. Peggy Buckey the appropriateness of Mr. Raymond Buckey working at the preschool without wearing underpants?”

“It was discussed.”

“And did that conversation take place before Raymond Buckey was arrested?”

“Yes.”

“And did you decide that it was okay for Mr. Raymond Buckey to not wear underwear?”

“Considering the times, I did not approve but I did not disapprove.”

“And did you discuss your not approving to Mrs. Peggy Buckey?”

“Yes. ”

“Did Mrs. Peggy Buckey tell you about Raymond Buckey exposing himself at the preschool?”

“She never told me that.”

“Did Mrs. Peggy Buckey tell you about Raymond Buckey exposing himself at the soccer team practice?”

“When you say ‘exposing himself’ I think you have the wrong connotation. The answer to that would be ‘no.’ ”

“Is there some understanding that you had with Raymond Buckey that his genitals were viewed by girls on the soccer team?”

“Never.”

“Did you hear any other complaints by other persons that Mr. Raymond Buckey’s genitals were observed?”

“No.”

“Was there a complaint about someone seeing Mr. Raymond Buckey’s genitals in a private setting?”

“I never heard it, no.”

“Does that refresh your memory?”

“No, it does not! I don’t know when that was published, and I don’t know who published it.”

“Did anyone complain to you about anything related to that?”

“No. ”

“Did you have a feeling that he should not be at the school without underwear?”

“No, I did not have that feeling.”

“Did you disapprove of him being at the school without underwear?”

“No.”

“I have no further questions.”

Re-Direct Examination by Defense Attorney Daniel Davis:

“Mr. Buckey, did you ever talk to Raymond Buckey about why it is that he wasn’t wearing underwear?”

“Yes. ”

“And after you talked to Ray about why he wasn’t wearing underwear, did you instruct him that he probably should wear underwear?”

“No, I did not.”

“How was it that you came to determine that your son wasn’t wearing underwear?”

“I think it became a topic of conversation that he and many of his friends did not, and he sided with his friends.”

Re-Cross Examination by Roger Gunson:

“Mr. Buckey, did you have any concern about Raymond Buckey being in the preschool not wearing underwear?”

“No.”

“Did you have a concern that the children may see his genitals?”

“No.”

“Did you have a concern that children were sitting on Raymond Buckey’s lap while he did not have underwear on?”

“Not my concern.”

“Did you tell Mrs. Buckey that you disapproved of Mr. Buckey’s not wearing underwear while children were sitting on his lap?”

“I never made that comment.”

“Did you have a concern that preschoolers at McMartin Preschool would see Mr. Raymond Buckey’s genitals because his shorts were shorter than his legs?”

“Never entered my mind.”

“Did you have a concern that children would be moving in front of Raymond Buckey and they would see his genitals?”

“It never entered my mind.”

“In conversation did you explore the possible effect upon the children if they were to see the genitals of Mr. Raymond Buckey?”

“No. ”

“Did Raymond Buckey tell you the reasons why he didn’t wear underwear?”

“Yes. ”

“And was one of those reasons comfort?”

“The word was ‘constricting,’ so comfort would be the answer, yes.”

“So Raymond Buckey told you that he wanted to be able to wear loose-fitting clothing?”

“Yes.”

“Did you at any time go into the bedroom and see him lying without his clothing on?”

“Never. ”

“Did you ever see him lying on the bed with pornographic pictures surrounding him?”

“No.”

“And when Raymond Buckey started teaching at the preschool you had no concern about him wearing loose-fitting clothing at the preschool?”

“Objection. Asked and answered.”

“Sustained. ”

“I have no further questions. ”

Betty Raidor

Direct Examination by Defense Attorney Dean Gits:

“How long have you known Ray Buckey?”

“Ever since Peggy brought him home from the hospital.”

“Was there a reason why he was in the hospital?”

“He was born….”

“Did you ever see dead animals at the preschool?”

“If you call a bird an animal, yes.”

“Did you see the bird die?”

“And what was done with the bird after it died [having been accidentally crushed in a door]?”

“Peggy went out and buried it.”

“Objection. ”

“Sustained. ”

“She told me she was going to bury it.”

“Objection. Hearsay.”

“Sustained. The answer is stricken.”

“She went into her offIce in tears.”
.
“What was done with the bird?”

“She was holding the bird….”

“Did you ever see Peggy Buckey naked?”

“Never! ”

“Did you ever see naked children?”

“No.”

“Did you ever see Ray Buckey naked?”

“No…”

Cross-examination by Prosecutor Lael Rubin:

“On several occasions, you told [a mother] that you didn’t like to leave Raymond Buckey alone with kids, correct?”

“That is not correct.”

“Did you say that you told Mrs. B- that Raymond Buckey was not a qualified teacher?”

“That is different from behaving improperly.”

“Mrs. Raidor, please answer my question! The question was ‘Did you tell Mrs. B- that Raymond Buckey was not a qualified teacher?’ ”

“Yes.”

“My question was, Mrs. Raidor, what caused you to say Raymond Buckey was not a qualified teacher?”

“His lack of experience and not having a very definite program, but then that was my opinion….”

Peggy Buckey

Direct Examination by Defense Attorney Dean Gits:

“Did you ever molest any of those children?”
“Never. ”
“Did you ever touch them on any part of their bodies for the purpose of sexual gratification either of yourself or of anybody else?”
“No.”
“Were you ever naked in front of any of these children?”
“Was I ever what?”
“Were you ever naked in front of these children?”
“No.”
“Did you ever make any of these children get naked?”
“No.”
“Did you ever make any of these children get partially naked?”
“No.”
“Did you ever transport any of these children off the school grounds for the purpose of molesting them?”
“Never. ”
“Did you ever transport any of these children off the school grounds for the purpose of permitting other adults to touch them?”
“No.”
“Did you ever transport any of these children off the school grounds for the purpose of engaging in satanic acts at a church?”
“Never. ”
“Did you ever threaten these children in any manner?”
“No.”
“Did you ever see any person molest these children while you were at the preschool?”
“Never. ”
“Did you see any other person any place in the world molest these children?”
“No.”
“Did you ever see these children naked with any other teacher at the preschool?”
“No.”
“With any other adult at the preschool?”
“No.”
“Did you ever see anything at the preschool that ever once gave you the slightest suspicion that any of those children were being molested in any manner whatsoever?”
“Never. ”
“Are you aware of the other complaining witnesses in this case?”
“Yes.”
“Did you ever see any person molest those children?”
“Never. ”
“Did you ever see those children naked with any other adult?”
“Never. ”
“Did you ever see anything at the school that gave you the slightest suspicion that those children were being molested or mistreated in any manner?”
“Never.”
“Did you ever conspire or agree with anyone to molest any children at the preschool?”
“No,”
“Did you ever conspire or agree to permit others to molest any of those children?”
“No.”
“Any other children at the preschool?”
“No…..”

“Mrs. Buckey, why was it that you hired your son, Raymond, as an aide at the preschool?”
“He was my son, and he was interested in working with children. And I felt he had the potential of being a good teacher.”
“Was there a particular teacher that was assigned to be present with Raymond in the afternoon hours?”
“Yes, it would have been Betty [Raidor]….”
“When did you first become aware that you were a suspect?”
“I never did find out until I was arrested.”
“When were you arrested?”
“March 22, 1984.”
“Do you recognize the person in that photograph?” [Gits shows a photo of a woman.]
“Yes.”
“Who is that?”
“Me. Peggy Buckey.”
“Do you know when that photograph was taken?”
“Yes.”
“When?”
“When I was arrested. In jail.”
“Do you know who it was that took that photograph?”
“Yes. One of the deputies.”
“And where was that photograph taken?”
“Sybil Brand.”
“And what is Sybil Brand?”
“Well, it’s a jail.”

Cross-examination by Lael Rubin:

“You told the court that, as director of the preschool, you were interested in having your son work at the preschool because he had some interest in working with children and that he had the potential to be a good teacher, correct?”
“Yes.”
“What was it at the time that caused you to believe that he had an interest in working with children?”
“He had a very gentle, loving way with children, which you need when you work with children.”
“Your honor, I move to strike the answer as nonresponsive.”
“Overruled. The answer will stand.”
“What was it that was communicated to you by your son that explained his having an interest in working with children, and I guess my question is, did he tell you that he had an interest in working with children?”
“Yes. He did some volunteer work in San Diego.”
“Objection, the answer is nonresponsive. Move that it be stricken.”
“Sustained. ”
“Did your son specifically tell you that he had an interest in working with children?”
“He enjoyed working with children.”
“And how was it that the subject came up, that your son told you he was interested in working with children?”
“As I just mentioned, he did volunteer work in San Diego and. . .”
“Your honor that is not responsive. Move to strike.”
“Sustained. ”
“How is it that the subject came up, that your son wanted to work with children?”
“He was at the school one morning and. . . we were out to lunch, and he just told me how he enjoyed working with children, and he would like to come and work at our school.”
“And were you surprised when your son. . . offered to work at the McMartin Preschool?”
“Yes.”
“And why were you surprised?”
“Because he had never been interested before.”
“Did you ask him how it came to be that he was interested in working with children?”
“Yes.”
“And what did he say?”
“That he had volunteered in San Diego. . . and he got a certificate. . .”
“Objection. Move to strike. . .”
“Mrs. Buckey, did your son tell you that part of his duties were cleaning up?”
“Yes. He worked out in the yard, supervising the children.”
“And was the award specifically for this?”
“I don’t remember.”
“And what is it he said?”
“He said he would like to come home and work at the school.”
“Did you ask him about his qualifications?”
“No.”
“Is there a reason you didn’t ask him about his qualifications to work with children?”
“Yes.”
“And what was that?”
“If you employ someone and you feel they have the potential to be a good teacher, they take certain courses, and that is what I told him he would have to do.”
“And from the time your son became employed at the preschool, was he taking courses?”
“Yes. ”
“Do you know where it was he was taking courses?”
“EI Camino College. . . some of my parents were in the same classes.”
“Now, you told us there are requirements essential for working with children. . . how would you define that?”
“First, you have to care for children. You have to love children. Ray was very gentle. He had a wonderful rapport with children.”
“Now, you told us that you never saw anything that gave you the slightest suspicion that children were being molested at the preschool. Were you aware that your son didn’t wear underwear? Isn’t that right?”
“And you were aware that his penis was seen, correct?”
“No.”
“And you had the belief that it was okay for Raymond Buckey to be in the preschool and not wear underwear?”
“I do not remember that.”
“You heard your husband testify that you said that women don’t wear bras, so it’s no big deal. Do you remember that?”
“Yes.”
“And what did you say?”
“I see nothing wrong with not wearing underwear.”
“Why not?”
“Many of the young men who came to our house did not wear underwear. Kids at the beach did not wear underwear. Lots of them. ”
“And did you. . . see their genitals?”
“I never saw anybody’s genitals. ”
“Your honor I move to have the answer stricken.”
“Overruled.”
“Now, Mrs. Buckey. . . did you recognize that there may be a difference between not wearing underwear at the beach and not wearing underwear at the preschool?”
“Never gave it a thought.”
“Now, did you make statements in the past that some women don’t wear bras so it’s no big deal?”
“I don’t remember that.”
“Now, with a child sitting on his lap and his not wearing underwear, might that make it easier for a child to touch his genitals?”
“No….”
“Now one of the differences might be that having a child sitting on your son’s lap and his not wearing underwear might make it easier for him to get aroused, correct?”
“No.”
“Are you aware that —– grabbed your son in his penis or had you heard that she grabbed your son in his penis?”
“I certainly did. ”
“Was that something that you observed?”
“No.”
“How was it that you heard that?”
“My son told me.”
“And how was it that your son told you that?”
“I asked my son if anything happened at the school. . . so I could tell the parents.”
“And after asking if anything happened, what were you told?”
“That —— grabbed him in the genitals through his clothes.”
“And what did your son say?”
“He told me that he told her she shouldn’t do that…..”
“Now at the time your son told you about —– grabbing his genitals, did he tell you that —– was sitting on his lap?”
“All I remember is that he just told her not to do that again. He did not make a big thing of it to the child.”
“Did you ask your son where it happened?”
“All I know is he was sitting.”
“Did you ask your son how long she had her hand on his genitals?”
“She just grabbed him and let go….”
“When you checked, that one time, you saw he did have a hard on, correct?”
“He certainly did not!”
“Would you agree it is an unusual event when the director of a preschool checks her son for an erection?”
“I told you I did it one time and one time only. It’s such a dumb question!….It had to do with his being male.”
“Have you ever seen your son with an erection on any other occasion?”
“Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence….”
“Was she [amother who made accusations against Ray] lying?”
“Yes, she was lying.”
“Why would she lie?”
“Why did everybody lie in this case?”
“Do you have a reason to lie in this courtroom?”
“I don’t lie. . . . I’m telling the truth. I’ve heard the word, ‘lie,’ so much in this case I’ve learned to say ‘lie’
like the rest of you. . . .”
“Are you accusing me of lying?”
“No, I’m not….”

“It’s true, Mrs. Buckey, that as time went on, there were more and more complaints about your son, Raymond Buckey, correct?”
“No.”
“Mrs. Buckey, when Mrs. —– first informed you that she had been notified by the police, did she tell you during the conversation that she was informed as to when the molestation was supposed to have taken place?”
“No….”
“Now, when you talked to Det. Hoag, whether it be the thirtieth or the thirty-first of August 1983, you in fact told Det. Hoag that the parent should have come to you first before going to the police, correct?”
“I don’t remember saying that.”
“That’s something you believe, isn’t it?”
“No, I think that’s up to the parents to make their decision. I’ve said that I think it would be nice if they would come to me, but that was up to the parents to do what they thought was the right thing, not for me to tell them what to do.”
“Now, from the thirtieth or thirty-first of August, within the next few days after that, on the second of September, that was when your residence was searched, correct?”
“Yes.”
“And before the search actually began, you told one of the police officers that ‘You can’t believe little kids. They’ll llie.’ Correct?”
“I do not recall saying that.”
“Mrs. Buckey, showing you this document, I would ask you to read the end of the first paragraph. . . . And doesn’t that refresh your recollection that, shortly after Det. Hoag arrived at your residence, you remarked that ‘You
can’t believe little kids. They all lie. ‘?”
“I do not remember saying that.”
“Mrs. Buckey, if Det. Hoag put that in her police report, would that be untrue?”
“It certainly would be. She lied about a lot of things….”

Ray Buckey

Direct Examination by Defense Attorney Daniel Davis:

“When you dropped out of class, did you. . . drop by the preschool?”
“No. I didn’t want my parents to know that I wasn’t attending classes.”
“During the time that you were at the McMartin Preschool, did you ever reach an agreement of any kind with other teachers. . . that you would attempt to conceal children being molested at the preschool?”
“No.”
“You heard Arthur describe your mother as being in her bra at the preschool. . . . Did you ever see anything like that at the preschool?”
“No.”
“From what you know of your mother, is she the type of person who would do that at the preschool?”
“She would not even do it at home.”.
“Objection. ”
“Sustained. The answer is stricken.”
“You heard suggestions that your mother was naked at the preschool. Is that something you ever saw at the preschool?”
“No.”
“Have you ever been in St. Cross Church?”
“Never in my life.”
“Have you ever touched a child to arouse or obtain sexual gratification?”
“No.”
“Have you ever knowingly exposed your penis to a child?”
“No.”
“Did you ever hurt [name of alleged victim]?”
“No.”
“Did you ever molest —— in any way?”
“No.”
“Did you ever sodomize ——-?”
“No.”
“Did you ever sodomize anybody?”
“No…..”
“Have you ever been a member of any type of network of child molesters or involved in the sale or production of kiddie porn?”
“No.”
“Have you ever seen kiddie porn?”
“No.”
“Did you ever put your finger into the vaginal opening of a child?”
“No.”
“Did you ever kill a horse with a baseball bat?”
“No.”
“Were you ever there when [one of the child witnesses] was at the preschool?”
“No.”
“Have you ever been in the men’s room at the Red Carpet Car Wash?”
“No.”
“Have you ever been inside the women’s room at the Red Carpet Car Wash?”
“No….”
“Did George Freeman ever talk to you about sex?”
“His sex. He told me about his ex-wives. He told me about the women he had sex with and the men he had sex with….”

Cross-examination by Lael Rubin:

“Did you tell George Freeman that you screwed Peter in the ass?”
“No, and I don’t use your kind of language, Miss Rubin….”
“Did you have sexual intercourse with Barbara?”
“Yes, we did.”
“Mr. Buckey, did you see that portion of a [D.A.] report that states that Barbara said that she did not have sexual intercourse with you that night?”
“Yes.”
“Would you describe your sexual relationship with Barbara?”
“In which location?”
“The Fantasy Motel.”
“Sexual intercourse.”
“Is there any reason that Barbara would say that you did not have sexual intercourse with her?”
“I’m sure she has her reasons. I’d like to hear them.”
“Now, you’re aware of the fact that Barbara told the district attorney investigator that she. . .”
“Objection! Hearsay.”
“Overruled. It’s not offered for the truth of the matter.”
“Are you aware of the fact, Mr. Buckey, that Barbara has told district attorney investigators that she tried to seduce you but that you wouldn’t be seduced?”
“I believe the report says that. I don’t know her reasons….”
“Did you and Barbara sleep under your pyramid?”
“Yes….”
“Mr. Buckey, have you talked with any of your friends about your relationship with Barbara?”
“Objection. Vague as to time. Otherwise irrelevant.”
“Sustained…. ”
“Did Barbara get along with your mother?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Mr. Buckey, isn’t it true that your mother told you to get rid of Barbara?”
“I know she wasn’t happy that I had a woman living in my apartment with me. The whole family wasn’t too happy about it.”
“Why is that?”
“Objection. Calls for speculation.”
“Overruled. ”
“It was their morals. I didn’t think it was immoral….I was very much in love with Barbara. ” “Mr. Buckey,” Rubin asked. “Do you have a belief that child molesters do not have relationships with adult females?”
“It’s common sense. If you have a perversion for children you wouldn’t have a desire for female adults.”
“Is that your belief based on your experience?”
“What experience?”
“Having a perverted interest in children and therefore not having an interest in women?”
“. . . I can’t imagine it. . . . It’s like mixing apples and oranges. It’s like homosexuality. You wouldn’t have an interest in females.”
“Have you met or heard about individuals who are bisexual?”
“I’ve heard of it but I can’t imagine it.”
“Now, isn’t it true, Mr. Buckey, that in order to counter a claim that you had a sexual interest in children, you came up with and fabricated this account of sexual intercourse with Barbara?”
“I have no sexual desire for children, never had and never will….”

Source