There is so much information on this McMartin Preschool case, but I have decided to break this post up in a couple different parts/sections or articles. If you don’t know about this case, then you have some research to do, but I have included a lot of the interesting articles below or you can click here to get a list of results from our website… There is a ton of information below, don’t become overwhelmed with all the words and info. This is for archive/educational purposes!

The longest and most expensive criminal trial in United States history had a modest beginning. On May 12, 1983, 40-year-old Judy Johnson dropped her two-and-one-half-year-old son off at the front of the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, California without notice and drove away. The school’s teachers cared for the unknown “pre-verbal” boy in the hopes that his mother would return for him at the day’s end.1

Although temporarily deserted by his mother, the boy was surrounded by a wide range of play objects that would have appealed to any toddler’s imagination. The items of inspiration included child sized wooden animals, some of which had been shaped and painted — complete with mouths, eyes, and ears — by Charles Buckey, the husband of Peggy Buckey. The latter owned the preschool jointly with her mother, Virginia McMartin. The animals were placed in the play yard, turning it into a child’s fantasy menagerie that included a giraffe, several rocking horses, a camel, octopus, dinosaur, and ducks (that children could sit and rock on), and at least one rabbit’s face-on profile placed on the wall by the door of the front office.

Mixed in with the animals were other objects for children to play on, or play in. A commonplace slide stood next to a makeshift helicopter that children could sit in and pretend to fly. A wooden structure dubbed “Fort – Issimo,” resting upon a large wooden platform accessed by two wooden steps, could be driven by one of the two steel steering wheels placed on its opposite ends. A “jungle gym,” made of connecting steel pipes, was available for children to swing on. A wooden car allowed children to pretend they were driving (they could even fill up the tank with “gas” from a nearby wooden gas pump). A wooden playhouse with the door removed was available for playing house.

Perhaps the most imaginative play item invented and built by Charles Buckey for the preschool children was a set of above-ground “tunnels.” Formed by brightly colored connecting wooden boxes and extending about 18 feet in various horse shoe formations, the “tunnels,” as they were called by the children, provided a fun place for adventurous toddlers to crawl through.2

These so-called “tunnels” were the only tunnels that ever existed either above or below the premises of the McMartin schoolhouse and schoolyard — or above or beneath any property adjacent to the McMartin property.

Out of empathy for Johnson and her son, and unaware of the ensuing catastrophe that awaited her entire family and the school’s other teachers, Peggy Buckey signed the boy up for June classes. Buckey did not know that Johnson’s odd behavior on the day she left her son was the act of a woman who had a history of emotional problems serious enough to affect the judgment of any mother. Johnson had been out of money since separating from her husband for the second time two months earlier. On top of those problems she was despondent over her other (13-year-old) son’s inoperable brain cancer. Sometime during the summer, according to friends, Johnson began to drown her problems in alcohol.3

Prior to the time Johnson’s son was enrolled at McMartin, the preschool had been one of the most prestigious and respected businesses in Manhattan Beach. School founder and 76-year-old co-owner Virginia McMartin, Peggy Buckey’s mother, had earned four public citations for outstanding community service including the city’s highest honor — the Rose and Scroll award.4 The school was so popular that applicants usually had to wait six months before their children could begin classes.5

Satanic Trappings and the Search for The Secret Rooms and Tunnels

The formal charges were wrapped in a conspiracy theory that portrayed the defendants as satanists who used the preschool as headquarters for a vast kiddie porn/prostitution empire that produced millions of child sex photos. The children were allegedly drugged and forced to participate in satanic rituals and sex games with teachers and strangers at both on and off campus locations. During those episodes the children encountered turtles, rabbits, lions, a giraffe, a sexually abusive elephant, dead and burned babies, dead bodies in mortuaries and graveyards, goat men, flying witches, space mutants, a movie star, and local politicians.

The on campus rituals allegedly occurred in secret rooms, located above and below ground, that were accessed by trap doors and underground tunnels. Some of those tunnels led to the street or to the garage of a neighboring triplex; from there the teachers transported the children by automobile on various felonious field trips, sometimes to distant locations arrived at via train, airplane (with the children packed tightly in crates) and hot air balloons. The children had been sworn to silence by threats against their parents’ lives, illustrated by the killing and cutting up of small animals and a horse: “If you tell, this is what will happen to your parents!”

In March of 1985, a group of 40 to 50 McMartin parents led by Bob Currie arrived on the vacant lot next to the school to dig for animal remains and a secret underground room.40 Several days later, an archaeological firm hired by the District Attorney’s Office began its own excavation. DA’s investigators interviewed children on the school site and searched for trap doors. No evidence was found to support the children’s claims about underground tunnels or rooms.

The Missing Tunnel

Dr. E. D. Michael, a consulting geologist, was retained by MTP coordinator Ted Gunderson to help the project personnel validate the presumed existence of the parentally anticipated tunnels and secret rooms. He visited the site on several occasions as the alleged tunnels and rooms were being unearthed. Michael examined the trenches dug by the MTP throughout the preschool site and vacant lot and concluded that, “Generally, the results of my examinations were negative insofar as proving the existence of a tunnel.” Any such tunnel, he added, would “require shoring, i.e., some sort of support for the walls and ceiling, because the dune sand, even as well compacted as it is, would cave in if it became too damp.”165

Stickel makes a big issue of his use of Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) as opposed to the Terrain Conductivity Meter used by SRS to detect soil anomalies that might indicate underground tunnels or rooms. “The GPR was the most suitable instrument to use at the site in question because other instruments (e.g. the terrain conductivity meter and the electrical resistivity meter) in general would be too affected by the electromagnetic ‘noise’ echoing from the preschool structure due to the presence of iron reinforcing rods and other metallic objects. Such interference produces meaningless records.”166

The MTP team used GPR over vast portions of the McMartin preschool site and the adjacent vacant lot. Stickel concludes that the GPR successfully detected portions of the 50-foot tunnel in units on either side of classroom #4 and #3 (Stickel, pp. 37, 88; Fig. 12, p. 38). But the firm, Spectrum, that conducted the GPR survey of the properties reported that, in all areas, reading down to 8-10 feet, “No evidence was found to support the existence of filled-in, below-ground tunnels.”167

By contrast, the claim is made by Hobbs and Summit that Joanie (not her real name), a 13-year-old former McMartin student, guided the tunnel diggers and even anticipated discovery of underground artifacts or points of interest that Hobbs claims were actually excavated in the alleged tunnel.168 For example, Hobbs and Summit claim that Joanie anticipated an underground pipe that she said she would sometimes swing on as she passed through the tunnel. Hobbs stated when interviewed by this writer that Joanie’s prediction that diggers would find a pipe with steel bands on it was an important factor in convincing him that the tunnel had actually existed.

Summit states that Joanie “gave a meticulous description of every step along the way” and that the waste pipe was found “just as Joanie had described.” Summit also states that Joanie had “anticipated on the spot” and that “numerous [other] children” had similarly implied the existence of all that was discovered in the alleged tunnel by MTP excavators. The discoveries included the pipe, a supposed arch in the foundation between the two rooms, and the secret room with its accompanying tar paper and plywood (supposedly roofing material for the tunnel — this is discussed below).

But the account of Joanie’s revelations given by Summit and Hobbs is, at best, wishful thinking. In fact, Joanie’s description of the tunnel was anything but meticulous, as Hobbs confirmed when I interviewed him. According to Hobbs:

There was also one girl who described grabbing a hold of this pipe in the tunnel and swinging and seeing these silver bands. When I asked her to create — we recreated the direction she went and everything. But she didn’t remember right from left. We found where the tunnel turned where she said — because I asked her how far. She was about 11 years old — and she said, “well far, but not too far.” I mean, you know, she was only like 4 when this happened. It was hard for her to determine, especially underground — distance. So she said she turned this way, and she pointed to the right, and we followed down there . . .[and came to] the profile of a turn. We followed that about 10 feet. We came across two stainless steel bands that were like new. They were the bands that they had described.

But Hobbs also admits that the girl did not actually describe steel bands. Nor is there any record presently available, other than the claim of Hobbs and Summit, that any children ever described steel pipes or bands. The one-page preliminary MTP report summary does not say anything about pipes or pipe bands. Nor is there any other record corroborating the location of the room supposedly found by Stickel’s crew or even mentioning the room’s alleged roofing contents. In fact, Joanie’s original “recollection,” recorded by the DA’s investigator on site in 1985, is succinct and substantially different from her most recent recollection as recorded by Hobbs and Summit. She said simply that there was a trap door on the northwest wall of the northeast classroom. No door was found there.

But Joanie isn’t the only one who has changed her story. During his lecture on the day of the second McMartin verdicts (July 27, 1990), Summit gave the following account of Joanie’s participation in the MTP excavation:

One of the children, never a witness in the case, but someone who had told her mother all kinds of hair raising stories about her victimization as a child, as this dig was proceeding, and when she saw the pipe she said, “Oh, that’s the pipe,” and I’m paraphrasing. I didn’t hear her say this, “that’s the pipe that I would reach up and swing on. . . .” Okay, that’s when the dig was just as deep as the pipe and only that far. Subsequently the trench was dug further to the west and you see this huge hunk of concrete [pointing to a slide projection]. . . . it’s also true that whereas foundations are ordinarily poured into dirt at the bottom of the wooden forming and they pick up a surface of dirt debris, this [hunk of concrete] had been chipped clean and had even been chipped into kind of an arch shape, it wasn’t typical of the rest of the concrete footing (emphasis added).

It’s clear from the above passage that Joanie did not anticipate the pipe. But in 1993, the Joanie of Summit’s tunnel story is depicted as directing the dig after admonishing workers that, “You’re not digging in the right place. That’s not where they were . . . Somewhere under here, under these two classrooms . . . and then you make a turn this way, and you know, sometimes it was fun to try and get your mind off this stuff, but there was this pipe overhead, and you could reach up and just swing on the pipe.”169

Summit’s arch also changes from “chipped” in 1990 and 1993 to “worn smooth, in contrast to the adjacent ragged contours and texture assumed by concrete poured into an earth bottomed trench.”170 The “arch” is discussed below.

One of the many weathered or poorly molded portions of the school’s concrete foundation that Dr. Roland Summit says, erroneously (as this photo proves), was inconsistent with another foundation section that he imagines to be “an arch.” (From court documents)

The Secret Room

Referring to the cavity under classroom #4 that “may have been” the secret room,171 Stickel claims that 4 x 4 “beams” were found in the room along with a “layer of plywood roofing material with tar paper and roofing nails.”172 However, the beams are referred to merely as “2” x 2″ and 2″ x 4″ wooden posts” in Stickel’s preliminary report. No photographic evidence is presented of these wooden posts. In any case, the presence of such posts, if they actually existed, would be much more consistent with historical recollections of outhouses and horse stables, than with tales of secret “devil” rooms solicited by therapists using “devil” puppets.

Stickel told hundreds of child abuse professionals at the San Diego CRCM conference that he believed that the tar paper served as a roof for what may have been the secret room.173 But the tar paper roofing material probably came from the former green house, described in the SRS report, that once sat on the roof of the neighboring house (on the adjacent lot). The house had stood for 24 years prior to the time the McMartin Preschool was built in 1966. The fact that the SRS report indirectly associated the discovered tar paper with the tar-paper roof of the neighbor’s green house but that this association went unmentioned by Stickel, who should have been aware of its contents, suggests either a poor memory or deliberate misrepresentation.

The secret room, according to Stickel, was up to 9 feet wide and, unlike the height of the hypothetical tunnel, its 6’8″ height offered enough space for an adult to stand upright.174 But Dr. Michael and Hobbs, both of whom could, and did, crawl in the cavity — it was Hobbs who actually found it — give much lower height measurements. Michael reported, in the appendix to Stickel’s report, that the maximum depth of the room was 44 inches, or 3’8″. Hobbs claimed that at the most it was 4’6″. In reality it proved to be a trash pit. In our interview, Hobbs described it as follows:

But I would say that it couldn’t have been more than 4½ feet. And it was about 8 foot wide, 7-8 feet wide as I remember, which a full sized couch wouldn’t have fit in. This was what the girls described. They didn’t describe a full sized couch. They described a couch big enough for two adults and a child to sit on. [One boy said the room had chairs, a wooden table and a sofa.]

Michael pointed out in an interview that in his report he purposely used the word “cavity” to describe the space in order to differentiate it from a room. “I didn’t think anyone thought it was a room.”175 And in a letter to Stickel, Michael listed the possible causes for the cavity’s formation:



(a) it could have been excavated, i.e., created by the removal of material that previously occupied the volume of the cavity; (b) it could have been left as a result of the incomplete filling [of] a previous, larger cavity such as a tunnel excavation; (c) it could have formed as the result of the caving of an underlying cavity.176

The known history of the land area, plus the “abundance of bottles, wood, and other debris,” including the tar paper and plywood, suggests the cavity was once a trash dumping cite, not a secret underground room.177

The “mysterious” concrete slabs (found on the vacant lot)?

Stickel, however, sticks to the least likely interpretation that the cavity is a remnant of a man made tunnel. He concludes that the northern trench extending south and then east across classroom #4 and into classroom #3 meets the nine test criteria for determining the existence of a tunnel. His reasons for arriving at this conclusion follow:

1) The alleged entrance, under the foundation footing about 128″ south of the northwest corner of the northwest classroom (Ray’s room) was large enough, according to Stickel, for adult human passage.

Large enough for which adults to pass through? Certainly not for at least some of the McMartin defendants. Peggy McMartin Buckey, the school’s owner, was 60 and very heavy when the case broke. She also suffered from claustrophobia.178 Former McMartin teacher Betty Raider was 67, large and no more mobile than a typical person of her age. She also had poor eyesight.179 Mary Ann Jackson was 60.

All of these former adult defendants, as well as three younger ones, were alleged to have traveled through the tunnels with their toddler charges. How did all of the teachers and school children manage to fit through the supposed entrance and tunnel passage and into the “secret room” that contained a table, several chairs, a couch and two lions and was, at most, 4½ feet high? How did they breathe in compact underground cavities and why didn’t a visiting parent ever notice any of the alleged trap doors?

2) The 50′ tunnel was both linear and slightly curvilinear (i.e. an elongated passageway leading in a definable direction(s).

As described in the MTP report, the alleged tunnel follows an unlikely path, taking a sharp turn to the right just after the alleged entrance, instead of continuing in a straight line to the hypothetical underground room (i.e., the cavity for trash described above) by the shortest distance between two points.

3) The tunnels were “large enough for adult human passage,” although, admittedly, adults would have to bend over. This plausibility was already discussed in (1).

4) “Characteristic scars indicating that it (the tunnel) had been dug by hand were noted in the large (room-like) sector of the feature in Classroom #4.”

The mere presence of shovel marks may prove that someone dug the cavity but it does not offer a clue as to how the shallow cavity was used. Also, these marks are not visible in the photographic documentation. In fact they are not visible at all in the photo. There is also no record that these marks exist in other areas of the “tunnel.”

It is also difficult to understand how the shovel marks of the excavators could be distinguished from previous shovel marks, given the fact that shoveling was a necessary part of the excavation. The evidence, as discussed above, is that this cavity was used to store trash. It may be assumed that whoever dumped the trash first dug a cavity to place it in — a perfectly normal and expected event.

5) “The feature had a compacted dirt floor (especially noted in the room-like sector) which was distinguishable from the non-compacted soil matrix found in immediately adjacent, but non tunnel, areas.”

No photographic documentation of this has been provided. In light of Dr. Michael’s report to Stickel that the dune sands, which makes up the area’s soil formation, were “very well compacted” it seems unlikely that Stickel’s observation that the surrounding area was “non-compacted” is accurate.180

6) “The tunnel was not found open.”

7) “In contrast, the tunnel was found to have been completely, artificially filled in with soil. The fill soil had been very tightly compacted so as to leave no small openings. The soil used for fill was distinguishable on the basis of color, texture and compaction from the original soil deposit at the site.”

The presence of artificial fill, compacted or not, does not prove that a tunnel existed. There is no logical explanation how the tunnels could have been filled in after 1983, as theorized.181 The defendants, if not under surveillance or incarcerated pending bail for periods of months to years, could not have performed the job of filling in a 30-inch wide, 50-foot long tunnel by themselves.

A work crew hauling in wheel barrels full of dirt and pre-1940s’ trash deposits (where would this trash be obtained in 1983?) in and out of the school grounds (which were highly visible from busy Manhattan Beach Blvd.) would have been easily noticed by passers by or neighbors in the day or night.182 McGauley’s claim that one neighbor did witness “workers with wheel barrels at night” is offered without corroboration, as is her analysis that other neighbors did not report tunnel refilling activities because they were “apparently all involved [with the alleged perpetrators].”183

Stickel admits the task of refilling the tunnel would have required “a great deal of dirt,” but the most scientific hypothesis he has presented so far is that the tunnels would have been filled in “very carefully.”184

It is also unlikely that the alleged tunnel could have been tightly compacted without detection. According to SRS geophysicist Bob Beers, “If you have a large tunnel, big enough for a person to crawl through, no matter how much you throw dirt in it, and you’re talking about trying to fill it to the brim, and compact it given one or two rainy seasons, that dirt is going to compact and you’re going to end up with a little air gap between the natural soil between the top of the tunnel . . . You would visually see it.”

Detectable mud deposited by ground water in between the top of the fill and the ground level might also be present, according to Beers.185 There is no mention or documentation of the above phenomenon in Stickel’s report.

8) The tunnel fill contained large inclusions of artifacts (1603), especially in the possible room area, including “four large containers found upright in the tunnel’s passage under the dividing wall between Classrooms #3 and #4.”

The presence of trash artifacts proves the existence of trash artifact, not tunnels. The containers are discussed below.

Estimating Dates of “Tunnel” Artifacts

Stickel lists seven methods of “probabilistic dating” for establishing the alleged tunnel was filled in after the construction of the school — thus giving added credibility to stories told by children.

1) Pipe straps for a waste pipe under classroom #3 are thought to have been attached after the school was constructed, thus helping to prove that the “tunnel” was filled in after the construction of the school. The conclusion is based upon the February 1966 patent date of the straps (vs. the September 1966 construction date for the building) and the fact that the bands appear new (very little corrosion or patina) compared to other pipe bands found under the property. “In the opinion of the Historic Artifact Analyst and the archaeological team, the date of the placement of the straps is much more recent than the construction date of the preschool of 1966.”

In his 1993 appearance at the CRCM conference in San Diego, Stickel claimed, incorrectly, that the pipe connectors found on the pipe would not have been available until two years after the issuance of the patent. The Historical Analyst’s report did not state that the straps were placed on the pipe much more recently than the construction of the school. In fact, the historical analyst interviewed the pipe band’s manufacturer: “When asked if this could have been installed by September, 1966, he thought that was ‘unlikely’.” However, “He did not believe Ideal [company’s name] would have records going back to the mid-sixties that would provide further data on the marketing of this exact piece.” The analyst thus concludes that, “It is possible, but unlikely, that the pipe joint clamp was installed at that site between the item’s manufacture date and the school’s construction.”186

In any case, the bands had to have been in place at least 6 years (since 6 years had elapsed from the supposed 1983-84 tunnel refilling and the excavation of the clamps). The in situ appearance of the clamps after at least 6 years underground should not be bright. However, slides of the in situ find show shiny pipe clamps, as if they had been freshly polished.

There was, in fact, some corrosion on the clamps. But, according to Dr. Michael, the apparent difference could be explained in other ways:1) The two sets of pipe clamps found under the school may not have been processed at the same level of quality; 2) by differences in soil acidity; and 3) by differences in water permeation in the soil area.187 These possibilities were not considered in Stickel’s report.

Thus, Stickel’s conclusion amounts to speculation based on insufficient and possibly tainted data. On balance, the theory that the pipe bands were in fact released for sale in time to appear under the McMartin school by construction time must be considered much more probable than the existence of troglodytes.

2) The discovery under room #4 of a mailbox that was once used by the owners of the neighboring house (in the vacant side lot). The house was torn down in 1972, causing Stickel to speculate that the mailbox [and thus the “tunnel” fill] “most probably” dates to after the demolition of the house.

Once again, Stickel reacts to the data with speculation instead of sober analysis. There is no established date for the mailbox. The house was occupied for 30 years prior to its destruction and 24 years prior to the construction of the McMartin preschool — more than enough time to discard old or unwanted mailboxes or any other items related to the house.

Ted Gunderson, project coordinator for the MTP, apparently sought out the former owners of the house to ask them when the mailbox was discarded. A handwritten note (on a copy of the one page preliminary tunnel report) to “Rico & Nancy,” apparently with his signature attached, states: “I need to locate Mark [son of the deceased former owner] an (sic) find out the date the mailbox was taken down. This will give us an idea when the tunnel was filled in.” The query and its possible results are not mentioned in Stickel’s report, suggesting that the research was not completed or that its results were unacceptable.

3) A “Mickey Mouse” sandwich bag that says “Disney Class 82/83,” copyrighted 1982, and was allegedly found in the “fill matrix” under room #4 “probably indicates that the tunnel fill (or at least some of it) dates to that time or thereafter.”

Stickel (p. 84) supports his conclusion with Michael’s analysis of the find: “Therefore the cavity could be no older than 1983, assuming the Disney Corporation did not manufacture a wrapper prior to the time of the copyright date appearing on it. Even if it did, it probably would not have done so much before 1983 and certainly not as early as 1966 when the McMartin School building was constructed.”

But Michael was assuming that the artifact had not been introduced into the fill in a clandestine manner. In fact, the cavity or “tunnel” area could have existed prior to the manufacture of the Disney bag or wrapper, which could have been introduced at any time after its manufacture. Michael acknowledges that it could have been placed with the intent of creating false evidence. No photograph clearly showing the bag in situ has been made public. When asked if the bag constituted scientific evidence of the existence of a secret room, he replied, “Not at all.”188

There was ample opportunity for the bag to have been covertly placed. The McMartin parents dug in the same area of the alleged tunnel entrance on three separate occasions, two of which are not mentioned in Stickel’s report. The first two times parents dug holes at random near Ray Buckey’s room; although the exact location is not known it is clear that the holes could easily have been at or near the location in which the Disney bag was allegedly found in 1990. In the third dig, conducted by parents with a backhoe, one trench was dug right up next to the spot where the Disney bag was reportedly found by Hobbs. Considering the lack of site integrity, (see above) it is also conceivable that the bag was introduced between April 21 and May 8, 1990.

4) The “arch” under the foundation between rooms 3 and 4 and over the alleged tunnel between the two rooms, is “obviously a feature made to accommodate the tunnel and there is no other conceivable scenario to account for it if it were created before the preschool was constructed.”

The feature is clearly not an arch. If it was formed by human beings they must have used their feet to sculpt it because it is clearly irregular and rough in shape. Its shape is so slight that it serves no useful purpose anyway. Even if there had been a tunnel at that location, there would have been no need to construct an arch; it would have been much easier and less time consuming to simply dig a little deeper if more height were needed. The combined photographic evidence from Stickel and from SRS of the school’s concrete foundation — and the most cursory look at concrete foundations of houses, buildings, and curbside etc. — shows that the formation of the “arch” is entirely consistent with the natural process of erosion.189

5) “Four large containers (1 ceramic and 3 metal pots)” found under the supposed “arch,” standing upright and full of intact glass artifacts (coke bottles and jars), allegedly hand placed at a shallow level from which they certainly would have fallen during original (1966) landscaping for the property, thus breaking the glass contents within.

The pots, whatever their purpose or origin, fall within the same category of evidence as the above artifacts also misused for “probabilistic dating.” The issue was already examined above (see Photographic Documentation).

6) The tunnel’s dirt ceiling was too weak to have supported human foot traffic from above; it would have required significant shoring up. That requirement was met, however, by the school’s concrete foundation which served as a “de facto roof.”

It’s hard to understand how this theory helps date the alleged “tunnel” other than by assuming a priori that it was originally constructed at the same time or after as the school. The theory is inadequate compensation for the fact that essential support beams for the walls and the ceiling of the alleged tunnel were not found during the excavation (see #7 below).

7) Soil was redeposited on the E/W axis of the school building (prior to construction) and compacted to level the property. “Therefore any holes or openings found in that area extending up to or near the surface would necessarily date to a time after 1966.”

The ceiling of the alleged tunnel, according to Stickel’s preliminary report, was 30 inches below the school’s concrete floor. The fill used to level the property was two feet thick.190 There is no evidence that soil intrusions below that depth were made for the purpose of constructing a tunnel. The evidence shows only that trash pits were present on the property and that, subsequent intrusions into the top soil were made by excavators searching for tunnels.

Stickel’s Conclusions About the Evidence He Claims to Have Obtained from the Archeological MTP Project

In Section 1.4 of his report, Stickel says that a tunnel on the McMartin site could have been dug out as a trench and then roofed with wood or it may have been dug out from under an existing foundation. In the latter case, the tunnel could have had wood covering in place to protect tunnel travelers from falling dust or to help hold up the ceiling. “In either scenario such a tunnel may have had posts of wood and/or other materials (e.g. iron) to serve as shoring reinforcement and as a support system.” Stickel lays out nine test expectations that he believes should be met if tunnel(s) existed under the McMartin preschool:

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 by 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 in the tunnel should have “signatures” or 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 traffic) distinguishable from surrounding non-tunnel soil which should not be that compacted.

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

7) The tunnel may be naturally (i.e. natural process 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. fill would be less compact than soil forming the tunnel’s walls, floor and ceiling).

8) Tunnel fill may have inclusions of:

A) Natural stones and/or other natural items or;

B) Artifacts and/or ecofacts (e.g. butchered animal bones).

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 artifacts contained within it if any are present.

A secret room, according to Stickel, would have to meet essentially the same expectations, in addition to being large enough for possibly restricted but “face-to-face” interaction among “a number of people.” Since people tend to spend more time in rooms than in tunnels, one would expect to find artifacts such as “chairs, couches, tables, a lighting system, etc. . . .”

Stickel then discusses the application of remote sensing instrumentation, reviewing his experience with “various kinds” of remote sensing, noting that he and a colleague published the “most extensive underwater remote sensing survey (which utilized multiple types of instruments) ever conducted in European Archaeology.”163 That experience convinced him that Ground Penetrating Radar was appropriate for the McMartin Tunnel Project.

Stickel concludes that he found one possible tunnel, one definite tunnel and one possible underground secret room.164 The “definite” tunnel ran from an entrance/exit from under Ray’s room (classroom #4); and followed a sharp right (south) to the southwest corner under Ray’s room where the “possible” secret room was located. Then it traveled east under the wall foundation that divided Ray’s room from room #3, then over to the east wall and up to the entrance/exit in the room’s northeast corner. The actual excavation ended about ¾ of the way through the room towards its east wall.

Read A Ton More Here