elusive moonwalker
Guests
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"
you said it in the quote of yours i quoted in my post. as ivy said your turning it into a case of guilty until provern innocent.when its upto the plaintifs to prove the songs are probably fake by a civil margin of 51% (if its the same as other civil cases?)inorder to win their case.legally speaking a defendent doesnt have to prove their innocence just create enough doubt in the plaintifs case.
i dont assume anything interms of who has what evidence. i havnt followed this case so have no knowledge other than what i have read in this thread. my point was that you seem to making it a case of the defence must prove they arent fake songs when its the plaintifs job to prove they are as they are the ones making the accusation.
And where'd I say otherwise? I didn't. You're assuming this person has nothing to prove their case. Once she uses whatever "evidence" she has in court, it's then up to the defendants to disprove her by presenting their own "evidence". Thats the way the law works.
you said it in the quote of yours i quoted in my post. as ivy said your turning it into a case of guilty until provern innocent.when its upto the plaintifs to prove the songs are probably fake by a civil margin of 51% (if its the same as other civil cases?)inorder to win their case.legally speaking a defendent doesnt have to prove their innocence just create enough doubt in the plaintifs case.
i dont assume anything interms of who has what evidence. i havnt followed this case so have no knowledge other than what i have read in this thread. my point was that you seem to making it a case of the defence must prove they arent fake songs when its the plaintifs job to prove they are as they are the ones making the accusation.