Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

I bought the album, and I don't want a refund. I don't care about the ten bucks, it was a long time ago.
What bothers me is how Eddie betrayed his friend-- that's whats wrong here. Jason (or whoever sang the songs) betrayed their idol... Isn't that wrong? To make some bucks off of the guy that died because you can? Michael trusted Eddie. They watched his kids. And as soon as he's gone, the fake songs are made... It's not right. Time won't change that.

Yet people have no problem with the book Frank wrote exposing all of the things Michael told him in confidence. Ironic
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

My concern is who is behind this fan pushing the lawsuit forward. I don't believe for a moment it's just an independent fan working without an agenda to harm the estate. JMO.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

I was always curious as to why the estate never released any information stemming from what they claim (at the time, from their lengthy official statement on the matter) were "forensic" audio tests done to the raw vocal track from all Cascio tracks.

Why did they never state who the tests were conducted by?

Why did they not provide any kind of explanation as to why his voice clearly sounded different? (Not once did the estate provide a reason, only Eddie and Teddy did apparently)

Why would they allow the issue to escalate so largely that it was a main topic of discussion (and promotional point) on the most watched daytime talk show in the world at the time?

I choose to believe that the estate had well intentions. I don't believe for a second that they conspired with any other party to knowingly fabricate songs and pass them off as legit tracks sang by MJ.

I believe they did conduct some sort of tests and analysis of the tracks in question, but I feel like they dropped the ball by releasing these tracks even AFTER the insane uproar it caused once BN was posted. I don't think they had any idea how serious people were being about this, and probably just assumed it was only a small minority of fans complaining and would eventually blow over. I'm sure they prepared for some sort of backlash regardless, but probably more related to the album's release in general since it is a posthumous album after all.

I also think it's very telling that Branca had stated more than once that they will never release any other Cascio tracks again.

Don't get me wrong, I do love the estate and just about every other project they've put out:

-the other tracks on "Michael"
-MJ: the experience
-Cirque shows
-Bad 25 (album and especially the doc!)
-Xscape (love love LOVE!!)

...but basically if this lawsuit is the only way that will compel the estate (and anyone else involved) to finally release what they fully know about these tracks, then so be it.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

I'm glad someone finally got the ball rolling. Could have filed this suit sooner though. I never thought I'd say I look forward to a lawsuit against the Estate (although I'm more concerned with the Cascios, Porte, Jason Malachi, ect. I put the main blame on them.) going to trial, if it does. It's time to put this to rest.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

At the end of the day the Estate is NOT Michael. They should not be given a free pass for this. Forget about us, they did the wrong thing by MICHAEL. They created this mess, now it's time to try and right some of those wrongs.
 
Koopa Troopa;4019804 said:
"As the Michael album was being put together, it was decided to bring Teddy Riley on board to work on several songs, including “Breaking News,” a song Michael recorded with Eddie Cascio and James Porte in late 2007 while living at the Cascio family home with his children. Riley produced and submitted “Breaking News” to Sony for inclusion on the album. At that time, no one ever mentioned that the vocals we heard on the Cascio songs, which were basically in demo format, might not be Michael. It was known, however, that the background vocals were a combination of Michael and James Porte.

After the tracks were submitted to Sony, three of these Cascio songs were selected to be on the album, and “Breaking News” was one of the three. The day after the submission and selection of the album tracks, for the very first time, the authenticity of Michael's vocals on the Cascio tracks was questioned.

Because of these questions, I was immediately asked by co-Executors John Branca and John McClain to conduct an investigation regarding the authenticity of the lead vocals on the Cascio tracks.

Six of Michael’s former producers and engineers who had worked with Michael over the past 30 years – Bruce Swedien, Matt Forger, Stewart Brawley, Michael Prince, Dr. Freeze and Teddy Riley – were all invited to a listening session to hear the raw vocals of the Cascio tracks in question. All of these persons listened to the a cappella versions of the vocals on the Cascio tracks being considered for inclusion on the album, so they could give an opinion as to whether or not the lead vocals were sung by Michael. They all confirmed that the vocal was definitely Michael.

Michael’s musical director and piano player on many of his records over a 20-year period, Greg Phillinganes, played on a Cascio track being produced for the album, and said the voice was definitely Michael’s. Dorian Holley, who was Michael’s vocal director for his solo tours for 20 plus years (including the O2 Concert Tour) and is seen in the This Is It film, listened to the Cascio tracks and told me the lead vocal was Michael Jackson.

These are all engineers, producers and musicians who worked on tours and/or in the studio with Michael when he was recording Bad, Thriller, Off The Wall, Dangerous, Invincible, HIStory and Blood On The Dance Floor, and they all reconfirmed their belief that the lead vocals were Michael’s voice on the Cascio tracks.

The Estate then retained one of the best-known forensic musicologists in the nation to listen to the vocals without any instrumental accompaniment (“a cappella”), and to compare them with a cappella vocals from previous Michael songs. This expert performed waveform analysis, an objective scientific test used to determine audio authenticity, on the Cascio tracks, as well as previously released tracks with Michael’s voice, and reported that ALL of the lead vocals analyzed (which included Cascio tracks) were the voice of Michael Jackson.

Sony Music conducted their own investigation by hiring yet a second well-respected forensic musicologist who also compared the a cappella lead vocals from Cascio tracks against previously released vocals of Michael’s, and found that Michael’s voice was the on all sets of the raw vocals. The Cascio tracks were also played for two very prominent persons in the music industry who played crucial roles in Michael’s career. Both of these individuals believed that the lead vocals were Michael’s.

Just to be absolutely certain, I also contacted Jason Malachi, a young singer who some persons had wrongfully alleged was a “soundalike” singer that was hired to sing on the Cascio tracks, and I confirmed that he had no involvement with this project whatsoever.

Sony decided that, given the overwhelming objective evidence resulting from the exhaustive investigations outlined above, they wanted to release a record that included three of the Cascio-Porte tracks – because they believed, without reservation, that the lead vocal on all of those tracks were sung by Michael Jackson."

To be honest, I rely more on people like Bruce Swedien, Teddy Riley and Greh Phillinganes over what appears to rabid MJ-fans. Just my opinion.



Only John Branca name is mentioned in the suit, so it will be interesting to see how the decision was made if it ever going to trial.
 
I hope this goes to trial and I hope it is televised! Regardless, I will enjoy every moment. In lieu of reimbursement, I would prefer a public apology from each of the offending parties (I would prefer more defendants) and, most importantly, the removal of those faux songs from Michael’s catalog.

Please correct me if I am incorrect: McClain oversaw Bad25 and now Xscape and Branca oversaw the Michael cd. This could be why Branca is a defendant and not McClain.

This lawsuit has no effect on Xscape’s sales; promotion does. Sales of Xscape diminished before this lawsuit became public so this lawsuit cannot be blamed for the lack of sales Xscape has been experiencing.

IvoDT;4019740 said:
I'm extremely curious to see what finally comes out as the result of all this. They will have to deliver proof now, imo. Glad this finally happened. =)

IvoDT, it is a civil trial so, there is no need for the defense to prove anything. They can decide to deflect from their own accountability and attempt to besmirch the character of the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s experts/witness, and, do not be surprised if an attempt is made to besmirch Michael’s character if all else fails in their attempt to defend themselves.

If the defense is somehow found not liable in this case, it does not mean Michael sang these songs he clearly did NOT sing. It will only mean that the plaintiff's legal team failed somehow in proving the case to the select jurors, not the world at large.

ivy;4019862 said:
For the first 2 actions legal fees, reimbursement of money spent on the songs is being asked from Estate / sony/ Cascio / Porte. So partial damages is being asked from Estate and in the end Estate might be required to pay something. So the claim "Estate is not being sued for damages" is wrong. The correct thing would be : Estate isn't being sued for the fraud part but they are being sued for other parts and possible damages.

Ivy, provided this lawsuit indeed goes to trial (I truly hope it does), is not settled (as per some on this forum, defendants who have a strong case do not settle) and a jury has decided to award damages, the damages may very well be symbolic. If this becomes a class action suit, many may not want to claim monies from the Estate.

For any that decide to make a claim, it is a nominal amount as you previously posted with figures in the settlement scenario. This should prevent any irrational fear, i.e., the Estate should not be sued in this matter as monies may be removed from Michael's children. The children are currently receiving allowances and I do not foresee those allowances being decreased any time soon or at the very least, not due to this lawsuit.

Fortunately in this matter, the Michael cd was only mildly successful (2.5M copies or so worldwide) although it is the highest sold posthumous cd for Michael.

krikzil;4019909 said:
Plaintiff states she purchased CD between June 18-28, 2011 in CA -- so she's up against the Statute of Limitations for Fraud. 3 years in CA I believe. The controversy was well known before her purchase though from the album's release in Dec 2010.

The plaintiff filed in time.
 
Last edited:
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

I fully support this, whatever the outcome. We need closure and the accused parties have failed to answer our questions. We don't need unproven conspiracy theories though.


I have been in contact with the plaintiff. Hopefully wild conspiracy theories will come to an end we'll get clear FACTS that everyone can live with.
As the Estate and Sony have preferred trying to sweep the issue under the table, they can blame themselves if this trial will harm them.
But the trial is mainly about Eddie Cascio and James Porte, with the former particularly being simply arrogant and hoity-toity who also deserves this trial due to his unprofessional demeanor regarding the accusations.
Fans however should stop making war against each other for their (differing) opinions.


This fan-war-causing issue needs to to be put to rest and only a due court case will do so.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

I think"likely" is a commonly used term in test like these, like in a DNA test where they'd say a person is 99.999999 percent likely the father or not. Even if they hadn't used the term itself, that .1 percent represents the "likely". Just saying.

Very likely isn`t the same definition than 99,9999 percent likley. In my opinion it is vague.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

I would love a difinitive result one way or another. If it is proved to be michael then I will embrace that however I am currently sceptical that it is. This is based mainly on the lack of evidence provided by the estate. No hand written notes from michael mentioning song titles. No outtakes. Nothing. But if evidence is produced I will happily hold my hands up and say I was wrong. I hope that whatever happens and whatever your views we all treat each other with respect. After all we have to stay together as there are still a lot of haters out there.

I love this post.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

If the Estate were to fess up and admit that they weren't 100% convinced that the vocals were Michael - or at least now they are not so sure. What would be the next steps?

To apologise to fans for being duped by the family and re-release the Michael album without the tracks? What would make people happy?
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

I fully support this, whatever the outcome. We need closure and the accused parties have failed to answer our questions. We don't need unproven conspiracy theories though.


I have been in contact with the plaintiff. Hopefully wild conspiracy theories will come to an end we'll get clear FACTS that everyone can live with.
As the Estate and Sony have preferred trying to sweep the issue under the table, they can blame themselves if this trial will harm them.
But the trial is mainly about Eddie Cascio and James Porte, with the former particularly being simply arrogant and hoity-toity who also deserves this trial due to his unprofessional demeanor regarding the accusations.
Fans however should stop making war against each other for their (differing) opinions.


This fan-war-causing issue needs to to be put to rest and only a due court case will do so.

In all honesty reading this thread doesn't make me confident that this court case will finally put it to rest, the impression I'm getting is that unless this is a slam dunk win for the plaintiff it will never end, even worse this court case could raise even more aspects to argue about.

If this case doesn't make it to trial will we get to see all this definitive evidence that has been claimed here? Will it be shared with the rest of us?
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

I would love a difinitive result one way or another. If it is proved to be michael then I will embrace that however I am currently sceptical that it is. This is based mainly on the lack of evidence provided by the estate. No hand written notes from michael mentioning song titles. No outtakes. Nothing. But if evidence is produced I will happily hold my hands up and say I was wrong. I hope that whatever happens and whatever your views we all treat each other with respect. After all we have to stay together as there are still a lot of haters out there.

Yes, I agree with this as well. Hopefully one way or another it would bring closure. I'm too secptical of the songs as of now, but I'm willing to admit I was wrong if there is proof provided otherwise.

If the Estate were to fess up and admit that they weren't 100% convinced that the vocals were Michael - or at least now they are not so sure. What would be the next steps?

To apologise to fans for being duped by the family and re-release the Michael album without the tracks? What would make people happy?

In case it turns out it's not Michael I would be satisfied with a public apology from the Estate and Sony and the removal of those songs from Michael's official catalogue. Latter does not have to mean a re-release of the Michael album, it wasn't such a big seller that a re-release would be worth it, but all future pressings should definitely be without those songs plus it should be officially acknowledged that those are not Michael Jackson songs.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Why would his children lie? At the time they said this, both Paris & Prince were wise enough to point out that they knew that they're father did actually record songs at the Cascio home, which he did with the songs for Thriller 25.

If I correct remember Paris has made a tweet to that time Hollywood Tonight is not her father.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

If I correct remember Paris has made a tweet to that time Hollywood Tonight is not her father.

Just because they are his children they do not know everything. Paris was very much wrong about HT.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

What I find weird is how he sounds like himself on Thriller 25 (new vocals) yet on them 12 c***** tracks he sounds like a different man, and it was the same studio apparently.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Just because they are his children they do not know everything. Paris was very much wrong about HT.

Yes of course she was wrong.
 
Petrarose;4019975 said:
^^The bolded is just what I had expected--they will say experts told them it was Michael and therefore they made decisions based on that.

I think John Branca & Sony believed what Frank DiLeo and Eddie Cascio told them. Frank used Roger Friedman. Frank DiLeo was also the manager of James Porte. Porte was working with Eddie Cascio for his new álbum, never released, "The Slideshow". It´s clear Dileo had so much influence to make believe John Branca it was MJ.
 
Last edited:
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

What if they show a clear video of Michael singing the songs in the studio at the court? Would you then believe that it was Michael's voice? Just a queston. I don't personally have an opinion on this subject. I'm just not sure.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

What if they show a clear video of Michael singing the songs in the studio at the court? Would you then believe that it was Michael's voice? Just a queston. I don't personally have an opinion on this subject. I'm just not sure.
Depends if they use the hologram or not :D
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

^^^^^ Lol Next lawsuit?
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

In all honesty reading this thread doesn't make me confident that this court case will finally put it to rest, the impression I'm getting is that unless this is a slam dunk win for the plaintiff it will never end, even worse this court case could raise even more aspects to argue about.

If this case doesn't make it to trial will we get to see all this definitive evidence that has been claimed here? Will it be shared with the rest of us?

Tbh, this was a quick copy-paste from my posting over at MaxJax as my ISP did not refresh the DNS for MJJC in time yesterday. At that time, there were no other responses yet.
After reading through this thread, I also realized that the usual suspects who are not actually involved in the lawsuit, yet claim to have so much evidence, already know "the truth" and the same old "those other fans are plain stupid and need their ears washed" mentality has returned. Apparently reducing other fans' intelligence helps to reinforce their own beliefs.


It is my understanding that this trial will at least expose those who have been constantly claiming to have "(definite) evidence" either way:

  • scenario 1:
    if the case does make it to trial..
    ...and they don't come up with their alleged "(definite) evidence" to support the plaintiff's case, such "(definite) evidence" does not exist. Why? Because these people are obsessed with the issue - see their constant noise making about it - and they can't let it rest, in other words: they have no reason to hold back any alleged "(definite) evidence" as they know this is their only chance to prove they are not making up things about having alleged "(definite) evidence".
    Anything they consider to be "(definite) evidence" right now will be disclosed. Will it live up to their claims?



  • scenario 2:
    if the case does NOT make it to trial
    ... and they don't come up with their alleged "(definite) evidence" the way they want to make noise about it, such "(definite) evidence" does not exist. Why? Because these people are obsessed with the issue - see their constant noise making about it - and they can't let it rest, in other words: they have no reason to tell themselves endlessly how great it must be to know "the truth", having all this "(definite) evidence" that noone else knows about. This way they can never prove they are not making up things about having alleged "(definite) evidence".




The plantiff never talked the talk but she did walk the walk. I salute her for this. I hope these people do not let her down with their "(definite) evidence".


Anyway, I recommend the majority of us not to interfere with these people, they don't listen to us, they don't discuss with us. They now have their 15 minutes ... or 15-30 months.
I will sit back and let those with the "(definite) evidence" take the stage and make their hundreds of postings, demonstrating their superior knowledge and comprehensive research. No opinions, "the truth" that we will get to know from them first hand.

Let the journey begin.
 
Galactus123;4020046 said:
What if they show a clear video of Michael singing the songs in the studio at the court? Would you then believe that it was Michael's voice? Just a queston. I don't personally have an opinion on this subject. I'm just not sure.
That´s imposible because Jason Malachi it´s not Michael Jackson. They can show us a video of Edward Cupeta singing multiples takes of "Keep your head up", nothing more.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

I thnk the estate shld ve not put those tracks on. The controverses about these song was already known bfor album came out.
And for sueing the family too: they didnt choose the songs so tht seem so wrong.
and does this fan even realise that if she loose she will get slander thrown and pays all trial costs and damages? ??
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

It would be absolutely great. I can't wait for his court depositions. It definitely would be very interesting... Before this I think there are more important subjects to talk about today and during this this time in June 2014. Do you have any idea why there is no discussion about June 13? Oh I know. It's better to forget about this day in MJ history book.

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/129611-Vindication-Day-June-13/page4

And sorry for being OT, but you seem to question how long people have been on this forum, sorry if I misunderstood, but I think I saw something like that. So why are you doing that when you joined a month ago? Or are you a returning member?
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

What if they show a clear video of Michael singing the songs in the studio at the court? Would you then believe that it was Michael's voice? Just a queston. I don't personally have an opinion on this subject. I'm just not sure.

I think if they had a footage like that they would have shown it by now.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Why would his children lie? At the time they said this, both Paris & Prince were wise enough to point out that they knew that they're father did actually record songs at the Cascio home, which he did with the songs for Thriller 25. But that what Sony & The Estate actually ended up releasing, where NOT the songs they heard being recorded. So you can't just use the "silly kids" argument with them, now again, why would they lie?

I have never called Paris and Prince for "silly kids." If they actually said that, it doesn't mean they lied. Teddy Riley acknowledged that the songs were processed. Add Porte's background vocals and I understand the kids scepticism. Now, let the court decide "the truth." ;)
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

2 un-named Musicologists, with absolutely nothing to say they even exist VS..................

"Dr. Papcun has completed projects for the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the United States Secret Service. He was the Team Leader of the Los Alamos National Laboratory team that was awarded the prestigious R&D-100 Award for one of the 100 most significant technologies of 1992. Expertise includes Audio evidence, Audio recording analysis and restoration, Speaker identification, Memory for voices, Voice lineups, Effects of intoxication on speech. Forensics cases include Rodney King v. City of Los Angeles et al (for Mr. King) (See Dr. Papcun's report on the Rodney King case in the book "Letters of the Century", Dial Press, 1999.), Paula Abdul recording (for Ms. Abdul), California v. O.J. Simpson (analysis for Associated Press), Homicide of Jon Benet Ramsey (for City of Boulder, Colorado), Alaska v. Exxon [Valdez] (for Exxon), Queen v. Kashani-Malaki (Australia), CBS 48 Hours Mystery The Murder and the Mortgage. Teaching includes courses to IBM, Siemens, U.S. State Department."

I don't see the harm in naming the experts involved in authenticating this material.

So you are suggesting that the Estate makes up fantasy figures to fool the fans? Some will go far to nail the Estate, it appears...
 
Back
Top