Define normal. This may shock you but not everyone sees the naked human form as inherently sexual. Without having seen the pictures I won't make a judgement as to their artistic or aesthetic values nor can I judge whether or not Jackson saw them as sexual. Many people have collections of artistic photographs which may depict nudity in some tasteful manner. While pedophiles might enjoy such a book, not everyone who enjoys such a book is necessarily a pedophile.
You are correct, not everyone sees the naked human form as inherently sexual but if I had to make a guess, I'd say 98 percent do. It's human nature.
My gut feeling is that MJ is guilty as sin. A 20 million settlement in '93, sleeping with little boys, some boys accurately describing Jackson's genitals, books with pics of naked little boys bending over, etc.
This case was all about who would be the most credible witness; a poor grifter or a wealthy pedophile.
It was not that long ago that nudity in boys was considered cute and a bit nostalgic. The summer camp that my son attended had a collection of old photo albums from the early days of the camp, and in some of them the boys were skinny dipping. Add to that the many excellent paintings of boys and men bathing from the 19th and early 20th centuries, and there is an argument to be made that many do NOT view this as sexualized.
Sure, if it's the same book, I knew an old queen that had a copy , but on the other hand I knew a married couple that were art photographers that had a copy too. I find it a bit too funky for my taste (not to mention too "posed"), but on the other hand this same married couple had a lovely and tasteful B&W photograph of their daughter, about four years old, climbing out of a bank of ferns with a seraphic smile on her face and (except for a crown of flowers) as naked as a jaybird.
If that (and all the other shots that were on the same roll of film but not selected) were introduced in evidence somewhere, would that be "proof" of anything?