McMartin: Digging below the Surface

As confidence in the evidence aginst Ray Buckey eroded, concerned parents began to focus more on proving the existence of the tunnels. Had the problems with expert testimony and prosecutorial misconduct (specifically, the leaking of confidential information by former Deputy DA Glenn Stevens) not occurred, the tunnels’ existence wouldn’t be all that big of an issue. After all, most of the kids did not mention them. And you don’t really need tunnels to abuse small children. If the remaining evidence were strong, but you could not prove the tunnels’ existence, then there would still be proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard that the allegations against Buckey et al were true. But after a lengthy, contentious preliminary hearing, and acquittals on the bulk of the charges during the first trial, you could understand if the parents of former McMartin pupils had waning faith that conventional evidence alone would gain a conviction in the second.

Thus, proving the tunnels’ existence became paramount for those convinced of Buckey's guilt. Despite what a jury might think of the other evidence, clear, unambiguous proof of a tunnel complex below McMartin Preschool could not simply be dismissed as childish fantasy, or parental/expert/prosecution hysteria, provided that you could prove the tunnel‘s construction after the building of the school (1966) and used up until the time of Judy Johnson‘s allegations in 1983. In a case where the prosecution was down a few runs in the bottom of the ninth, establishing the tunnels as fact would have been a grand slam.

In a report submitted to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office, Dr. Gary Stickel began by stipulating nine criteria necessary for establishing whether or not there were tunnels under McMartin:

If a tunnel(s) were present at the McMartin Preschool site, then the following test expectations should be present:

1. An opening(s) (entrance and/or exit) large enough for human passage should be present permitting access from the surface down into a tunnel feature.

2. Tunnel architecture should be linear or curvilinear (i.e. an elongated passageway leading in a definable direction(s).

3. Tunnel architecture (especially depth or height and width) should be large enough to accommodate adult human passage.

4. The walls and/or uncovered soil ceiling of the tunnel should have "signatures" of markings indicating whether the tunnel had been dug by hand and/or by a machine (e.g. a backhoe).

5. There should be a compacted dirt floor (compacted by human foot traffic) distinguishable from surrounding non-tunnel soil which should not be compacted.

6. The tunnel could be open (i.e. traversable and unfilled).

7. The tunnel may be naturally (i.e. natural processes of erosion and soil redeposition) or artificially (by human action) filled in with soil. Such fill should be distinguishable from the natural soil matrix of the site in terms of color and/or by texture, and compaction (i.e. would be less compact than the soil forming the tunnel's walls, floor and ceiling).

8. The tunnel fill may have inclusions of: (A) Natural stones and/or other natural items or: (B) Artifacts and/or ecofacts.

9. Although a tunnel of the type sought in this project may not be directly datable (e.g. in contrast to a construction date molded into the concrete of a railroad tunnel), the tunnel may be dated indirectly by the dates on artifatcs contained within it if any are present.

Figure 1. Diagram of McMartin Preschool

In subsequently summarizing the case, Dr. Stickel announced his finding that all nine criteria were met. First off, on the western wall of classroom #4, there was an entrance characterized by:

...loose, disturbed soil and the artifacts contained within it. The outside margins had an inverted bell-shaped curve profile. The tunnel signature was established both by the sharp demarcation of soil color and texture, as well as by the exclusive presence within the cavity fill of assorted historic debris such as old cans and bottles, various metal fragments and small household items. The roof at that point was provided by the bottom of the concrete foundation. Inside the foundation a roof of soil was evident.

Loose soil became an issue because a geologist earlier confirmed that the earth below the property was compacted before the school's construction. Thus, loose soil would imply fill dirt, especially if it were of a different quality or color of the compacted earth.

Moreover, a tree surgeon, Jerry Hobbs, noted that someone had cut a tree root underneath classroom #4, and in the process peeled back a little of its bark. Also, he saw among the debris a sandwich bag embossed with the Disney logo and bearing a copyright date of 1982. While Hobbs felt certain that this indicated someone had used this underground space recently, Dr. Stickel wondered if the condition of the root, as well as the bag, could have been placed there during earlier excavations by either the parents or the DA’s office. Stickel concluded that this could not have been the case because both prior digs occurred elsewhere on the grounds.

Ground penetrating radar (GPR) indicated another anomaly in the western part of classroom #3. On inspection, Dr. Stickel found a piece of pig-iron waste pipe, which he thought too large to have been carried in by burrowing rodents, and different colored soil, which he characterized as filling in a mechanically created hole (due to the markings). He also found stainless steel clamps on part of the waste pipe, the significance of which he describes as follows:

These two clamps were notable in that they appeared to be brand new, with a very shiny silver color, lacking the patina expected of objects buried long underground. That apparent disparity of age or use became more apparent as other clamps were unearthed elsewhere, all of which were considerably etched and discolored. There was no opening through the concrete floor which could have allowed for access to these clamps after the floor was poured, and there was no explanation for their like-new appearance if they had remained buried for the life of the structure.

From classroom #1 Dr. Stickel noted discolored and compacted soil indicating fill, and thus another tunnel. Hobbs explained the significance of this:

The children stated that they had entered a tunnel from the south east corner of room 1. We dug down along the east wall of room one and the bathroom. As we followed the disturbed area south, it went under the wall into the now existing bathroom, after about 6 feet it made an abrupt right turn to the east and headed for the neighboring property. The children had told two different stories about this tunnel prior to the dig. One, that they had gone through the tunnel and come up in the house next door and two, they had come up in the garage, which blocked the house from the street. At any rate the tunnel went in that direction. I went to the house next door and followed the walk between the school and the house which were only about 4 1/2" apart. I went under the house and bellied my way toward the southwest corner of the house. After going about 20' I found an area inside the west wall of the house where the floor was cut out. If I remember correctly the area of the floor that was missing was 36" by 38" or 41", you could reach up and touch the bath tub which was exposed. The plumbing in that area appeared to be quite new. I went back to the school and continued to dig. The tunnel I had been following was now headed toward the corner of the house where I had found the hole cut in the floor. I was very close to the foundation of the house, I was sure, so I poked a hole up through to the surface. The hole I punched through was about 2' beyond the west wall of the house and about 1 1/2' outside the south wall of the house. This tunnel was in direct line with the cut out opening under the house.

In other words, the anomaly observed by Dr. Stickel, and the trail and cut-out floor noted by Hobbs corresponded precisely with children’s reports that they came out either to the house next door or its garage.

After looking at several sites in the adjacent lot, Dr. Stickel turned his attention back to classroom #4, where he found “an apparent tunnel signature” towards the south. This anomalous reading began to widen until it took on more the appearance of a room, which extended south beyond the sidewalk. Tar and roofing tiles continued eastward past trench unit 1. The passageway leading to the room area had a clearance of approximately five feet, eleven inches, with the room’s ceiling six feet eight inches from the floor.

They found myriad artifacts, among them a number of cookery, and floor tiles of the same type as the school‘s. Dr. Stickel also found bone fragments from seventy-seven different animals, among them a rabbit, some dogs, tortoises, cattle and chickens. Additionally, the Stickel dig unearthed a mailbox bearing the address of a house that once sat on the lot next door, and the name of its owner, Morris. The house was torn down in 1972 (according to some sources as late as 1975), thus implying that the box found its way underground sometime after that. But of deeper significance were “intriguing remains of wood posts.” In his examination, Dr. Stickel noted a number of times where they found ceilings made of compacted “overburdened” soil. These posts could have been used to shore up, or provide support for these ceilings. According to him, the poured concrete slab that served as the building’s foundation provided additional support as a roof, especially in the secret room that runs under the school. That also means that someone had to have hollowed the tunnels after the school’s construction. Dr. Roland Summit, who visited the dig on 29 May 1990 along with a representative of the DA’s office, also wondered why the rickety McMartin building required a twenty-nine inch foundation, when, in his estimation, a four-inch foundation would have been “[building] code-sufficient.”

In addition to Hobbs and Dr. Stickel, one of the former McMartin pupils, a twelve-year-old identified only as Joanie, pointed out where the tunnels were, and her description matched perfectly. As Dr. Roland Summit, who visited the dig on 29 May 1990 along with a representative of the DA’s office, wrote in a paper for the Journal of Psychology titled “The Dark Tunnels of McMartin”:

Dr. Stickel asked her,‘Can you tell us where it was that you entered the tunnels and which way you turned?’ Joanie gave a meticulous description of every step along the way. Starting from the parents’ dig in the northeast corner of classroom #3, she described being lifted down a hole, turning right, going straight past the roots that brushed your face, turning right again where you were hurried through the long tunnel. ‘I liked to stop where the pipe was and swing on it. There was a little boy who couldn’t reach the pipe, and sometimes I’d lift him up so he could touch it. But right after that you had to duck down so you wouldn’t hit your head on the cement, then you had to run again to get to the secret room.’

Dr. Stickel concluded his report, writing, “If the stories of the children were bogus fantasies, there is no excuse for the tunnels discovered under the school. If there really were tunnels, there is no excuse for the glib dismissal of any and all of the complaints of the children or their parents.”

Most people would agree that if there were tunnels under McMartin Preschool, then any glib dismissal of children or their parents would be almost unforgivable. But, as I wrote earlier, the Los Angeles DA’s office declined to introduce this evidence into the third trial, even though they could have done so. The reasoning behind that lay in the contention of many others that despite what Dr. Stickel, Hobbs, Joanie or anyone else reported, the tunnels simply did not exist.