One of the frustrating paradoxes in all this is the way that any unusual measure can be read, depending on what you have concluded beforehand.
If, for example, you presume Jackson was a molester, then the alarm system is rather damning. It's just the kind of thing one would have installed to prevent being caught red handed.
But if you presume he was not a molester, and especially if you consider him an odd person with huge amounts of money, and a bunch of issues, there are other valid reasons why such a thing might have been installed.
I'm reminded of a long ago incident I read about, in which a person got himself committed to a mental institution to see how people were treated there. One of the things mentioned was the way in which presumption colored every observation made. So, for example, when he wrote in his notebook, his record showed that he had been "exhibiting note-taking behavior." It's true, and yet it's damning when put that way. You get the same thing when police arrest someone: protestations of innocence and surprise are automatically registered as aggression. And, of course, when the arrest is justified, the police are likely right.
Evidence is always clearer in hindsight, but you can get badly trapped if you go at it backwards.
