One thing, it does not pass the eye test. Too many coming out against publicly versus the anonymous supporting. Then we have the ages of the girls, the side door, and the lack of a neutral witness at the hall.
Too many stories were things have played out in the court of public opinion that have turned out to be the exact opposite. We've only really heard from one side so far.
The McMartin Preschool case was played out in the public before it went to court. At the end, the case was dismissed. Damage was done and the McMartins were broke and demoralized.
Media coverage
The media coverage was generally skewed towards an uncritical acceptance of the prosecution's viewpoint.
[4] David Shaw of the
Los Angeles Times wrote a series of articles, which later won the
Pulitzer Prize, discussing the flawed and skewed coverage presented by his own paper on the trial.
[31] It was only after the trial that coverage of the flaws in the evidence and events presented by witnesses and the prosecution were discussed.
[4]
Wayne Satz, at the time a reporter for the Los Angeles ABC affiliate television station
KABC, reported on the case and the children's allegations. He presented an unchallenged view of the children's and parents' claims.
[32] Satz later entered into a romantic relationship with
Kee MacFarlane, the social worker at the
Children's Institute International, who was interviewing the children.
[32] Another instance of media conflict of interest occurred when David Rosenzweig, the editor at the
Los Angeles Times overseeing the coverage, became engaged to marry Lael Rubin, the prosecutor.
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
I'll wait to see what UofL and McGee have to say in their defense.
