Customer Reviews

Abuse of Innocence

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

With all the publicity surrounding the McMartin preschool trial, now over a decade removed, one would suppose that the definitive book on the subject-and this is certainly the definitive book, and a good one at that-would be a best seller, but it didn't happen. Why? Because the public wanted a villain, somebody to hate, and what they got were some innocent people wrongly accused. With that kind of result the public lost interest. The Jon Benet Ramsey case sold a lot better because the public had clear targets for its hate, John and Patsy Ramsey. Here, Ray Buckey was to be the designated fall guy with his creepy glasses and his nerdish style, but he wouldn't fall because he was clearly innocent of the sensational charges against him. So the public was stuck with no clear villain on whom to vent. The real villains, as graphically revealed in this book, were the press, the prosecutors and the social workers, especially Kee MacFarlane, who indoctrinated the children into describing perverted events that never took place.

This was written from the trenches on a daily basis when the overwhelming tide of public opinion was that of a lynch mob desperate to hang Buckey and his family from the nearest tree. The Eberles built a strong case in blaming the media for poisoning the public's understanding of the case, partially through incompetent reporters, and partially through a media lust to sensationalize. Part of what's interesting about this book is how it presages the O.J. trial, especially in the incompetence seen in the district attorney's office. Ira Reiner was D.A. at the time with Garcetti as a critical underling. It is scandalous that they would find the need to use a paid felonious informant to bolster their case against Buckey. He was a five-time loser, no less, who previously had falsely testified for the prosecution in exchange for favorable treatment. Also stupid was the prosecution's use of an incompetent and prejudicial child abuse "expert," Dr. Gordon, who said that he possessed "the largest collection of photographs of children's anuses in the state of California." [p. 106] The authors estimate that 97.5 percent of the people in L.A. thought Buckey was guilty. The sad truth is what he was really guilty of was being a young man who liked to work with preschool children. Now THAT ain't natural was what a large number of people thought. I hope we're getting over that prejudice because what our children need are role models and guides from both sexes.

The book is peppered with courtroom asides from an unidentified lawyer. Here's one of the most pertinent from page 105, a exchange between a friend of the Buckeys and the lawyer:

"They're putting on witnesses who they know are lying. They concealed exonerating evidence. Don't we have enough criminal conduct by the prosecutors to put them behind bars?"

"It doesn't work that way," the lawyer laughed. "The law is just for the little people. When we break the rules we go to jail. When they break the rules they go to lunch. And maybe get a promotion if they do it right."

"But what about the law?" the woman gasped. "What about the Constitution?"

"I'm afraid that's just one of those nice, comforting fantasies like the tooth fairy. There are only two classes of people. Those who hold power and those who do not. And in any dispute the guys who hold power will decide which way it's going to go. And if there's any problem the rules go out the window. I hope you understand that this is not about child abuse, just as McCarthyism was not about Communists." Amen.

The Eberles have shone a much-needed spotlight of analysis on one of the worst miscarriages of justice in U.S. history: the McMartin Preschool case. After a brief introductory section to tell of how the fiasco all began, they give a detailed, blow-by-blow accounting of the trial, often with lengthy, word-for-word quotes of the lawyers' questions and the witnesses' responses. This is a good journalistic technique if not overdone; I often used it in reporting on criminal trials during my 39 and one-half years as a daily newspaper reporter.

The couple also illuminates the "child molester" witchhunt which has preoccupied this country for a number of years now. The battle cry, "We must protect the children!" which any sane adult obviously wants to do, has been used to justify some hideously extra-legal investigations, arrests, and prison sentences for palpably innocent people. The Eberles tell us about this in some detail.

The flaws in their book come in the areas of attribution and of sources. Over and over the authors tell of "a lawyer in the cafeteria" or "a heavyset woman" approaching them to comment on the trial, with no names or other hints as to identity. While this is sometimes necessary in reporting, excessive use of it as is done here makes the reader suspicious about the authors' fairness. At any rate, it made THIS reader suspicious. Several instances are recounted in which someone approaches outside the courtroom and says words to the effect, "You don't REALLY think they're innocent, do you?" Then one or the other of the Eberles proceeds to make the person look like an ignorant fool with a brilliant interrogation as to what they really know about the trial (nothing, in each case.) Once again, it's a little too pat, especially with no names to pin the quotes to. Did the Eberles make up any of the anecdotes? I'm certainly not accusing them of that, since there is no way to know for sure. But they leave themselves open to such suspicions by the way they wrote their book.

In addition, there are no notes at the end of the book -- zero. Now the Eberles might say that this is because the "original sources" for this book were their own experiences. But again, a book that describes a major public event, and related events that they learned about somehow from all over the country (a witchhunt for "child molesters" in practically every county in the country, thousands of people imprisoned unjustly, the law and Constitution dragged through the mud, according to various overheated passages in the book) should have cited some news media sources, at the very least.

I agree with the Eberles' premise: That the McMartin Preschool case was a huge and hugely expensive farrago that wrecked the lives of a number of innocent people, and that never should have happened, and that it led to other, similar witchhunts across the country. But they have damaged their own credibility by the above careless practices in writing their book.

This book consists mostly of extremely lengthy excerpts from trial testimony as recorded by the husband and wife authors, who attended the McMartin trials.

The book does not follow the standard true crime formula and takes some diligence to read. There are hardly any breaks in the text or chapters in the trafitional sense, so stopping in a convenient place can be difficult.

The authors do a good job in showing how the overzealousness of the L.A. County D.A's office lead to the abuses suffered by the defendant's in the McMartin case.

However, at times the authors go off on what seem like paranoid tangents as they rail against what they perceive as the ritual child abuse industry.

If you saw the HBO movie about this case, the book is an interesting companion and goes into more detail.

At the time this book was written is seemed very biased but now, years after the trial and after the Satanic Ritual Abuse scandals, it is closer to the truth than most imagined.

The authors of The Abuse of Innocence is written by two authors who have a predisposition against child sexual abuse allegations. However, they clearly state this opinion and I simply skipped those sections. Normally, I would not rate a book highly when the authors show such bias, but history has showed that when it came to the McMartin case, they were in fact correct.

This book illustrates the faults of the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, problems with the testimony of the witnesses, and most important, the inaccuracies of confessions obtained on procedures similar to the Miami Method.

I LOVE THIS NOVEL!

The reason I think this novel is so great is because I completely agree with the author's view that it was the McMartins that were abused not the children. This family was wrongly accused of child molestation by a mentally disturbed woman. They had everything they owned in the world taken from them. They were thrown jail for years without bail. Yet this family kept their heads up high and they never gave up.

I also liked the author's up beat writting style and their bitter irony. They never talked down to the reader. Also they always kept an open mind as far as ideas that were different from their own beliefs.. That is probably what kept the reader reading.

BUCKEY RULES!

This information is TRUE!
I rate it one star because that is as low as you can go.

Paul and Shirley Eberle: A Strange Pair of Experts
by Maria Laurina

Paul and Shirley Eberle wrote The Politics of Child Abuse, a book that accuses mothers, mental health professionals, and prosecutors of feeding children stories about sexual abuse. Since the book was published by Lyle Stuart in l986, the Eberles have been cited as experts in sexual abuse trials. They were featured speakers at a conference of the Victims of Child Abuse Laws, a group formed to protect accused parents.
What is startling about the Eberles' reputation as ground-breaking experts in the field is that their dubious credentials have not been widely challenged. Paul and Shirley Eberle edit a soft-core magazine in California called the L.A. Star that contains a mixture of nude photos, celebrity gossip, telephone sex ads, and promos for The Politics of Child Abuse.
In the 1970's, however, the Eberles were also publishing hard-core pornography. Their publication, Finger, depicted scenes of bondage, S & M, and sexual activities involving urination and defecation. A young girl portrayed with a wide smile on her face sits on top of a man whose penis is inside of her; a woman has oral sex with a young boy in a drawing entitled "Memories of My Boyhood."
The Eberles were featured nude on one cover holding two life-size blow up dolls names "Love Girl" and "Play Guy." No dates appear on the issues and the Eberles rarely attach their names, referring to themselves as "The L.A. Star Family."
The Eberles were the distributors of Finger and several other underground magazines, says Donald Smith, a sergeant with the obscenity section of the Los Angeles Police Department's vice division who followed the couple for years. LAPD was never able to prosecute for child pornography: "There were a lot of photos of people who looked like they were under age but we could never prove it." The pictures of young children in Finger are illustrations, and child pornography laws were less rigid a decade ago than they are today.
"Sexpot at Five," "My First Rape, She Was Only Thirteen," and "What Happens When Niggers Adopt White Children" are some of the articles that appeared in Finger. One letter states: "I think it's really great that your mags have the courage to print articles & pixs [sic] on child sex...Too bad I didn't hear from more women who are into child sex...Since I'm single I'm not getting it on with my children, but I know of a few families that are. If I were married & my wife & kids approved--I'd be having sex with my daughters."
Another entry reads: "I'm a pedophile & I think its [sic] great a man is having sex with his daughter!...Since I didn't get Finger #3, I didn't get to see the stories & pics of family sex. Would like to see pics of nude girls making it with their daddy, but realize its too risky to print."
Lyle Stuart plans to print the Eberles' forthcoming book on the McMartins preschool trial. Carole Stuart, the publisher, describes the Eberles as "experts in the field," and family friends "for years."

(...)

Did any of the reviewers attend the McMartin Preschool? Are any of you related to someone that attended the school? All of the reviewers and the author must be related to Peggy or Buckey.
I guess none of the reviewers saw the aftermath of what that sick and demented school did to the children that attended.
If the school was still standing, would you send your child there?
I am disgusted!