Photographic Documentation of the MTP Archeological Procedures

Unlike the SRS final report, Stickel's report lacks any indication that each step of the excavation process was sequentially photographed. The nearly total absence of this critical documentation makes it difficult or impossible to examine purportedly important and supposedly in situ (found as is) artifactual evidence to validate its authenticity. The few photographs of alleged artifacts that now exist are of such poor quality that their value as evidence vanishes.¹⁵⁹

¥ A purportedly in situ photograph of a sandwich wrapper with Walt Disney character on it, dated 1982/83, offered by Stickel as proof that a tunnel once existed under Ray Buckey's room and was later filled in after the McMartin case broke, does not actually show the wrapper in situ.

¥ An old rural mail box, allegedly found under classroom #4 by Stickel's excavators, and which purportedly came from a neighboring house that was demolished in 1972, is also offered as strong evidence that the supposed "secret room" area was filled in by unknown persons after the construction of the school.¹⁶⁰ No photograph of this item in situ is presented in Stickel's report.

¥ Four large pots full of artifacts dating long before the school was built, one of which Stickel refers to as like a "cauldron" and a "good Halloween prop," are not shown photographed in situ.¹⁶¹

¥ A set of photos (Stickel, Fig. 32a, 32b) offered to illustrate soil variations (supposedly evidence of a filled in tunnel leading in the past to a hypothetical cavern under Ray's room) are too dark to pass as meaningful documentation. Stickel admitted to his APSAC conference audience in San Diego that the photos are too dark to show any soil variation but he uses them as evidence anyway.

¥ Another photo of the soil underneath a supposed concrete tunnel "arch," said to have been found beneath a wall foundation dividing classroom #4 from classroom #3, is also too dark for clear viewing. Yet Stickel states, "I wish you could see it better," and proceeds to offer it as evidence of incriminating soil variations.

¥ A set of photos (Stickel, Fig. 34a, 34b), taken at the end of one of the alleged, but purely hypothetical, tunnels under the classroom #3 next to Buckey's (Room 3, Trench 1S4) is presented to show soil differences. But no soil differences are apparent in the photos; one dark photo (Stickel, Fig. 34a) does contain apparent shadow intrusions, but the other (Stickel, 34b) is pitch dark.

¥ Another photo (Stickel, Fig. 35), of a supposed tunnel support post, is nothing but a large black space — nothing is visible where the post allegedly sat except pitch black. Stickel introduced this photo to his APSAC audience as evidence, stating "Boy, this one [photo] looks like a UFO photograph. . . . If you could see it a little bit better, and hopefully in the report — there is a post here. And this post was found precisely at this location (points to a map). . . . I think it was a support system for a crossways tunnel."¹⁶²