And there was also a book titled 'the boy-a photographic essay which exclusively contained nude pics of young boys. Again not illegal by any measure but don't you think that a reasonable assumption can be drawn here? There is such thing as legitimising illegal behaviour with legal content. YouTube is a known hotspot for this kind of thing. Also the whole Chandler fiasco which ended in a large sum of payments was a highly questionable case which included accurate details when Jordan was asked to describe MJs private body parts. No charges laid because this case culminates to large sums of money money being paid. It all adds up in the end. Lucky for him he had shit loads of money and lawyers that could fight off these claims. It all reminds of the OJ case. Technically innocent but guilty as all fuck. Add to this that all the accusations had similar themes of getting to know the child, befriend the family, invite them over to Neverland and even have the entire family relocate so that countless nights could be spent sharing a bed with the child. Now all this does not come out looking incredibly strange??? I think it's very damning. But hey that's just an opinion.
Assumptions to be made from a book that isn't illegal? Not really unless you're grasping for straws. Keep in mind, just because Jackson settled didn't mean criminal charges couldn't have been filed as well. Once the Chandlers got what they wanted ($20 million), they had no interest in pursuing a criminal case. It's also speculated that Jackson was too sick at the time to have undergone a civil trial. It's known he was battling an addiction to pain medication at the time and his advisors at the time didn't want him to go through with it. As regards to Jordan accurately describing Jackson's genitals, that's a bit of revisionist history. There are conflicting accounts on how accurately he described them, one account stating Jordan claimed Jackson was circumcised when he in fact was not. A grand jury felt there was no clear match with Jordan's descriptions.