Granted, there's a lot of assumptions going on here with a few facts mixed in. We can assume that if there happened to be a parent on site at Neverland during one of these "sleep overs" they were paying attention to what was going on in Jackson's bedroom. What of they weren't paying attention - or what if they didn't care what happened? That scenario is not out of the realm of possibility considering the cases of irresponsible parents reported in the press every day.
Absolutely. But whether the parents were paying attention or not, or were paying attention and didn't care, that doesn't mean anything. But, let's say the parents, in every case, weren't paying attention at all. What can we conclude from that? Well, we can conclude the parents weren't paying attention. Beyond that, I'm not sure. I can speculate, tho. Maybe they were playing Scrabble.
There were actually several accusations of inappropriate behavior by Jackson, and he had paid a settlement of about $2 million to one other family (that we know about) several years before his trial.
I'm not sure what constitutes "several", but it shouldn't be surprising. One person floats an accusation out there, others jump on the Easy Money Bandwagon.
Easy money if you ask me, and he kept setting himself up as vulnerable in these situations by repeatedly bringing these kids in. Glaring examples of his lack of impulse control and continuing to ignore the advice of his handlers.
Two more assumptions. More than that, really. A "lack of impulse control" not only assumes he was bringing kids in on impulse, but that he knew it was bad to do so and therefore should have controlled the impulse to have them there. In his mind he may have seen nothing wrong with what he was doing, and there might have been, in fact, nothing wrong going on. It also assumes he was acting contrary to the adivce of his handlers. One, his handlers may have been inept and failed to give the proper advice. Two, his handlers may have known full well that nothing bad was going on, so saw no need to give him the advice you suggest. Three, his handlers may have known all along about everything and were well paid to enable him to the lifestyle. The third one is unlikely, though, considering he overwhelming lack of evidence to the contrary.
One other factor that hasn't been mentioned in this discussion is the library of kiddie porn and stock of alcholic beverages discovered in Jacko's bedroom when the sheriff's dept. raided Neverland Ranch in November of 2003.
<GASP!> OMG! Alcohol in the bedroom of a 45 year old man?!?! I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!
If the sheriff's department found child pornography in his house, you would think they would have noted that in the nine-page inventory of siezed evidentiary items. But they didn't. They noted everything else, though, and in great detail. There was no library of kiddie porn. They cataloged some regular porn, tho, and all of it legal. They also found two coffee table art books that contained pictures of nude boys and women. One book,
"The Chop Suey Club" contained nude photographs of boys, and is a book by the famed fashion photographer Bruce Weber. The other book, the famous 1964 work of Georges St Martin and Ronald Nelson entitled
"The Boy: A photographic Essay", features pictures of the boys who took part in the 1963 film adaptation of the
Lord of the Flies, and if you can find it in a rare book store it'll run you anywhere from $200 to $1000. The first book was inscribed as being a gift from a fan, the second book was inscribed by Michael Jackson as being a gift to someone else. The inscription read,
"Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys' faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children."
There were no other pictures of nude children, and his computer was also clean.
More circumstancial evidence - but the entire picture is not a pretty one.
Yeah, especially when the circumstantial evidence contains things like non-existent kiddie porn.
When it comes down to the core issue, only the people directly involved with these events really know what happened - and they ain't talkin'.
Sure they know something, tho. Let's waterboard 'em. That'll make 'em talk. Or, perish the thought, that they're not talking becuase there's nothing to talk about? No, that can't be it. Let's waterboard 'em.
Getting back to the main point, IMHO there's enough circumstantial evidence for one to conclude that anyone who allowed their son to spend the night with MJ was placing their kid at considerable risk. Even if they weren't sexually abused by him, the kids were under the influence of a really strange guy at an impressionable age.
Considerable risk of what? The possible worst fears that someone may have? I don't know, but I would imagine that there were a number of parents who decided not to let their kids stay over. Others obviously satisfied their own questions enough to allow it. I'll give you the "really strange guy at an impressionable age" thing, tho. That's for sure. I would't want kids hanging around with anyone who is that far out there for very long. There's a point where a fun visit to the amusement park with a Bozo-esque character for a nice memory becomes just creepy.
