I'm sure that none of you, when you were young kids, slept in your parents' bed if you woke up in the middle of the night becuase of a nightmare or anything like that. That's something almost every single kid does at least once in his/her life, as far as I know, and there's nothing wrong with it. Why do you have to associate a bed with sexual things? Just because that's where most sexual encounters take place, that doesn't mean that any time more than one person is in the same bedroom or even the same bed, something sexual will happen, okay?
I'm sorry but you cannot justify a 47 year old man sharing a bed with a child under any condition when he is not their parent or guardian. It is just plain wrong. It is inapropriate and had it been anybody who isn't famous, people would have gone batshit. And It is different than somebody blood related because he is not in the family. Would you HONESTLY let your child sleep go to a sleepover with one of your friends? Would you not be at all suspicious of their motives?
Too bad there was no evidence right like a childs fingerprints on a pornographic magazine found at the scene... wait.... Sure the evidence was not completely what it could have been but the defence was also a festering pile of shit. Lets face it, he has got something wrong with him and i'm amazed that he didn't even get ONE minor charge.
No, I wouldn't be suspicious of their motives... I trust my friends, and I highly doubt that my kids would know anything or enough about sex to want to do anything... and if they did, I don't think they'd want to do anything with another male unless they're gay. I probably wouldn't send my kid to a friend's house without me being there(just because I can't ever see any reason for that to happen. I don't know what I'd do if that situation actually came along, but there's nothing wrong with a kid and an adult sharing a bed unless they really are doing something other than sleeping). unless I was out of town and for some reason couldn't take the kid with me.
Fingerprints on a porn magazine aren't proof of pedophilia either. For all we know, if they had been found, the kids could have just been snooping around and happened to find the magazines themselves. It happened to me when I was younger... I found some of my dad's old porn in a closet when I was about 11 or 12, and just like any other kid at that age, I was intrigued and curious. The fact that I saw my dad's porn doesn't make him a pedophile or mean that he was showing them to me or trying to molest me or anything like that... The same can be said about two people who aren't related as well. Just because you're related, that doesn't mean foul play is impossible(I know you're not suggesting it's that way, I'm just stating that it isn't).
Even if he had shown them porn, I really don't see that as such a horrible thing(It's more likely that he had other things on his mind than simply sleeping with the kids if he had done that, but it's still not proof of guilt). I realize it's against the law, and because of that, I would never do it myself, but is there really any harm in anybody under the age of 18 years seeing the anatomy of the opposite sex? The only way it could cause a problem is if it's "treated" incorrectly. If you sit there and yell at your kid for looking at porn, he's going to be confused. He won't understand why certain feelings he's having that he can't control are bad, and then he'll think there's something wrong with him. That will hurt him much more than seeing a breast or vagina could ever hurt him(which is not at all).
Everything that anybody who wasn't actually there can tell us about what went on in the house is pure speculation. and it doesn't matter if he's weird or not. it doesn't matter if it's unusual for an adult and kid to share a bed... that's not proof of molestation.
In my opinion, innocent until proven guilty is a good policy. Just because someone is accused of committing a horrible crime doesn't mean they don't deserve to be defended against the accusition. Accusal is not proof of guilt. If he truly did molest anybody, then he's a sick bastard and should be in jail... but they couldn't find enough evidence... and no matter how much you believe he molested someone, that doesn't change the fact that they didn't have enough to convict him with... so he'd be one bad apple that fell thru the cracks... If that's the case, even though he never got convicted, this should still serve as a deterrent to keep him away from kids in the future... which means that if he did molest anybody, he probably won't put himself in a situation where he has the chance to do it again because he almost got caught.
