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

[SoCav]

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

I don't think you and others understand how Occam's razor work.

I am perfectly familiar with Occam's razor.

First there's a situation: Michael's vocals sound suspicious.

Second you explain why / how.

One explanation: Unfinished songs / guide vocals recorded in a home studio and processed for professional release sounds off.

(all that stuff you listed about food, london etc are irrelevant stuff. similarly hearsay and claims by others/fans isn't the point here) As you can see above isn't conditions / assumptions but facts. It's a home basement studio with no expert sound engineers/technicians. Eddie before and after Michael's death claimed they would continue to work on the songs, so did the Estate - hence unfinished. And songs get worked on for posthumous releases - hence additional work/processing being done on them.

The problem with your explanation is that the assumption that these are guide vocals is not well-supported. It does not matter how simple it is if it is not well-supported. Where's the proof? You say it is fact, but it is not at all. And it can easily be questioned. For instance, a. why are all vocals for these 12 songs fully recorded, when MJ generally recorded only the first verse and chorus first, b. why are there no traces of ad-libs? His complete recording history shows that MJ's demos are full with ad-libs, even more so than his final versions, c. why would he want the recordings destroyed because he was so happy with them, if they were only guide vocals. Etc. You have to make a lot of assumptions about MJ completely abandoning his usual recording habits in order to support your explanation. And then we did not even get to the processing argument yet, which can easily be debunked by anyone who has use the software they claim to have used before. If you do go with the guide vocal explanation, you still need to explain why/how MJ recorded guide vocals in a way that he never did before and that caused his voice to sound entirely different, just like how if a fraud is alleged it has to be explained how this was done.

The stuff you say that I mentioned is not irrelevant at all (except for the pasta mention which was of course just a joke), even more so because these are all things that have been used by the people involved to explain the odd sounding vocals - and a lot of them are contradictory.

Again, my point was that both the pro- and anti- side do not have simple explanations going for them. Of course the only exception are the people who think his voice does not sound any different than usual. Then yes, you do have a very simple explanation. But even Eddie and Teddy Riley have admitted his voice sounds different.

Now is it clear? I kinda wish you didn't make me to spell it out. I was deliberately talking about pyramids and moon landing and so on.

I didn't ask you to spell anything out. I even said specifically that I knew you were not talking about one specific explanation, and that I just developed this thought after reading your post. I don't appreciate the condescending tone either, btw.

My point is until we do not know what evidence each side has, many of these premises can actually be wrong.

You are right, but I think we do have a decent hunch of what the Cascio side has to offer, given the contradictory explanations and lack of proof they have provided thus far. Yes, it is a hunch, but I do think it says something.

 

[ivy]

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

My point is, we do not know yet what evidence each side has and some of the points Ivy raised in her post as an Occam's razor support for the Cascio 's case actually seem irrelevant to me. Like why does it matter what Roger Friedman personally thinks of these songs? But if his opinion does matter for some strange reason then certainly there will be a way to show his long-lasting relationship with the Cascios and thus bias for them. There will also be a way to show that many of his articles are factually wrong and tend to be biased for whoever his source is.

true and we can take Friedman off. The reason to adding him was as some fans claim he knows the "truth" but still supporting the songs.Some fans claim Dileo and Friedman contributed to the authenticity support argument. If that's the case how/why he/they supported the songs becomes a condition.

My point is until we do not know what evidence each side has, many of these premises can actually be wrong.

and I agree. first of all I never made any claims about which one is right and as I mentioned to Bumper, Occam's razor is only "most likely" so it's not definitive. The whole point was to talk about why some people might look to a situation and say "this is way too complex that it's improbable"

The problem with your explanation is that the assumption that these are guide vocals is not well-supported. It does not matter how simple it is if it is not well-supported. Where's the proof? You say it is fact, but it is not at all.

Perhaps we need to clarify what we see as assumption and fact in this situation. As I said here we have a situation concerning the vocals and two sides has given their explanations about it. One side is Estate/Cascio/Sony and the other side is fans/Jacksons.

so explanations for each theory should be limited to what that party said. Not hearsay (what third parties said they said) and not fan made assumptions about the other side.

To clarify Birchey a few pages ago posted a quote from Eddie which said they would work on the songs in London. Kreen just posted his exchange with the sound engineer who worked on songs "for michael" before Michael died. Estate's statement called the songs as "which were basically in demo format". So it is their explanation that they were demo / not finished/ would be worked on.

If it's not clear I'm not focused on proving or disproving any statement. So it's not really proper to ask me "why" because I'm not into speculation to prove any theory right or wrong. As far as this example goes : Estate / Cascio explained these songs as demos that would be worked on later - hence their explanation is they are demos. It's not about whether that is the truth or not. At least not for the purpose of what I'm trying to explain here.

So if you look to what Estate/ Cascio said was - MJ was in NJ, recorded some songs in a home basement studio, which were in demo format and processed/finished for the final release hence sound off/different.

then look to the Jackson/fan fraud theory - MJ was in NJ, recorded some T25 songs but did not record or had no interest about these songs, Porte sent these songs to a musician saying they are "for MJ" before his death, 2 days after his death the songs were registered by claiming involvement by MJ, Malachi and Brawley was brought in to help with the faking of the songs, other people have either been bought / in the conspiracy or was fooled to think the songs are legit hence their support, verification and release of the songs but fans cannot be fooled. While there's a lot of proof, there's no "hard evidence" and none of the people have slipped or came clean about it.

Again it's not about which of these statements/theories are truth or not. Just take every theory on the face value based on what the party themselves said. Which one has more steps / more conditions required?

I don't appreciate the condescending tone either, btw.

Well it wasn't condescending or personal. Like I said I deliberately trying to stay out of some topics because not only I'm pretty much tired and done with authenticity debate for a long time now and I don't enjoy the somewhat angry tone here. Like I pointed out I just wanted to point out Occam's razor and keep it nice and unrelated to the topic at hand.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

I still don't get this whole "a mastermind needed to be involved for this to happen." I think it's perfectly possible, being desperate for recent unreleased Michael material, simply overlooked the red flags with the hopes that everyone else would do the same and they'd profit off it.

I don't necessarily blame Branca & Co. For that as I understand they're running a business. It isn't such a complex theory, really.

That's why I said that labeling it Ocean's Eleven is an exaggeration.

 

[SoCav]

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

If you mean to explain why some people believe Eddie's explanation - because it's simpler - then I see your point. But it would be an incorrect use of Occam's razor, as the point of it is to pick the simplest possible explanation. As I said in my previous post, the guide vocal explanation does not suffice - at least not in that simple form. It'd be the incorrect use of a heuristic, imo.

As for the comparison you make above, I think you focus on details on the anti side but not the pro side. The anti side is really not that complex if you take it as face value in its simplest form, as you say. It's just: it doesn't sound like MJ, there is no evidence it is Michael, so it's not. Just like the pro-side in its simplest form says: these are processed demo recordings, which is why they sound off, but it's him.

I think what you are saying about how people might choose one explanation at face value over the other has more to do with what seems far-fetched to them, rather than because they apply a principle of parsimony. And I think that comes down to a number of things, including what they hear. If you think the vocals sound a bit off but not unrecognizably, then I guess it seems much more far-fetched that a fraud was committed rather than that some work on the vocals caused them to sound off. If you, like me, think this voice sounds nothing like MJ and everything like Malachi, and are given no proof and only contradictory, far-fetched or simply incorrect explanations, then it seems much more far-fetched that this is Michael than that someone screwed him over once again.

As for the condescension thing: when you ask me "now is it clear?" and say that you wish I didn't make you spell it out, that does come across as condescending. But it's no big deal.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

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

Again, we have a person, this engineer, who believes the vocals are Michaels simply because he was told so by Eddie & Porte. Nowhere in any of those supposed emails does he present or offer anything conclusive supporting it actually being Michael or not. He doesn't know how far along they got with Michael vocally, and flat out says he was told they were Michael and thus he believes it. If I was some unknown engineer contacted about working on MJ material, and then received shady vocals but was told they were Michael, I'd like to believe they were Michael too. The guy is obviously not a huge fan or in tune with a lot of Michaels catalog, due to him stating that the only WIP vocal he heard from Michael was from Thriller. He then says "but that was 25 years ago" to support his belief. Yet we have demo mixes leading all the way up to the 2000's in which Michaels usual habits are present in all of them.

Still there isn't an ounce of proof that supports the voice on those being Michaels. This individual unfortunately seems to believe the ill mannered articles written about Michael, and seems to think that Michael possibly may have been doing something leading up to this supposed recording session to all of sudden make him sound so different and forget about all his prior recording habits, along with "processing". The whole "processing" theory itself has been disputed and for great reason. On pretty much all of the pre-edits, the voice is the same. Those who gained access to the earliest mixes of these songs have said the voice is the same. Yet we should believe that what Eddie actually submitted, which was ad-lib and MJ habit free was actually jusy vocally altered by Eddie himself. Michael never needed to have his vocals processed, the man knew how to kill a song even on his worse day. And if he did indeed sound that bad, you respect your friends lifelong ethics and leave them shits alone in a vault somewhere, because they clearly werent up to the standard Michael always held for his music.

These aren't guide vocals, they're all out. Whoever it was Malachi or Porte (which if it was, his MJ impersonation skills have been greatly exaggerated), is going all out, singing fully, attempting his best to sound like Michael would on a completed song being recorded. Michaels guide vocals arent consistent with these, and even with his mumbling, and half efforts with specific notes, he still sounds great and like himself. Even this guy admits, these vocals werent great. Again, look at all of Michaels past works, NONE of it is consistent with this.

He also doesn't seem to have the knowledge of if Michael even heard these songs or not.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

@Arklove

Shut up!

 

[Condor9333]

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

He wrote one of the most amazing songs that Michael recorded. He wants the world to hear that masterpiece. It's not about the money for him at all. But if it was about the money, first it would be money for him, then money for Michael Jackson's 3 children, Michael Jackson's mother, various charities and then a small fraction of it (I think 5% to each) goes to executors for their hard word. I don't see a problem with that and I'm sure Cory doesn't see a problem with that either. Also McClain is a good guy here, you can see that his name is not in this lawsuit.

About what song are u talking about?

 

[kreen]

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

Kreen any chance I could have some screenshots of those emails please?

Err, well, the thing about that is, Angelo Montrone was so satisfied with our conversation that he asked me to delete all of the emails. So, yeah...

Sure, I'll PM you a couple of screenshots, but please tell me you don't think I actually made up that whole conversation, right? I'd have to be Eddie Cascio to be so devious!

 

[Condor9333]

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

I also agree that it definitely seems implausible. That's why I was like kreen when the songs were first released. Actually, I had my doubts on my first listen (I actually said, "This sounds exactly like Let Me Let Go!") to Breaking News, but as I thought about it, watched the Oprah special, and it seemed the Cascios were pretty good people, I definitely couldn't see how this was at all possible. So I went to supporting the songs, using arguments like kreen uses: that this is all so improbable.

But as I continued to listen to the songs repeatedly, paired next to authentic Michael Jackson songs, and hearing all of the well-done comparisons, I couldn't help but realize Michael Jackson never once sounded like this before. There is not one vocal in the Cascio songs that sounds anything remotely like what Michael sang before. His style is completely missing. You cannot pick out one moment from the Cascio songs and compare it to a similar vocal Michael did on his countless number of songs and demos.

While the conspiracy seems implausible, it's IMPOSSIBLE that everything about Michael Jackson's voice suddenly completely totally changed ONLY on these 12 songs.

Did it crossed your mind that Michael always wanted to sound modern and new (for instance Invicible in 2001 sounded like nothing out there.There wasnt any song that sound like you can compare it to Invicible songs-electronic beats,disorted voice,claps....)?

 

[HIStory]

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

Again, we have a person, this engineer, who believes the vocals are Michaels simply because he was told so by Eddie & Porte.

I'm grateful Kreen posted these e-mails because I have not seen them before. I'm not sure if they are supposed to prove something to him, but to me they only put an even bigger questionmark over these songs. Everything Angelo says in defense of these songs is just speculation on his part, but what he personally heard in May 2009 only had Porte's vocals. Which, according to his own admission sounded a lot like MJ and they even joked around about how Porte could make a living off being an MJ impersonator. Maybe that gave someone an idea. LOL.

When Angelo says that "his impression was" that rough vocals by MJ existed he says he bases that simply on the fact that it's the norm when people work on songs with an artist. But we do not know what exactly MJ and Eddie worked on and how involved MJ was in that work - we only have Eddie's word for this. Angelo himself never heard those supposed MJ rough vocals on these songs.

One addition to the "MJ was sick and old" theory: MJ was just as old on Hold My Hand and older on Best of Joy but he sounded his usual great self on those, unlike on the Cascio songs. As for the "he was sick" argument - just read the extract about the Cascios from the BGs book. They write that that was an exceptionally good period for him, he looked great, he was happy and even put on some weight during their stay. That does not sound like a sick man to me.

 

[Condor9333]

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

What you mention is actually the principle of Occam's razor - the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one.

For example Apollo moon landing conspiracy theories is a nice example of Occam's razor

Simple explanation: We sent people to the moon.

Long explanation that has too many conditions, too many ifs: For whatever reason US decides to fake moon landing, had money to spend on this faking moon landing attempt, had the ability and technology to fake the moon landing, did a convincing job but yet simultaneously stupidly left clues for the faking to be discovered, they were able to secure and probably pay off silence of everyone involved and even were able to get or buy cooperation from their main arch nemesis Soviets who were monitoring all the launch and space activities and confirmed the moon landing.

or think about Pyramids

simple explanation : Humans build Pyramids.

Long explanations: aliens exists, they can space travel, they found the world and humans, they came to the world, they are knowledgeable about stones and building stuff, they decided not to show themselves to anyone directly but also simultaneously built huge stone buildings in the desert, and left, did not build any other stone buildings then or did not come back to build other random stuff, also left enough fake proof to convince civilizations that buildings were human made.

As you can see the moon landing conspiracy or Pyramid conspiracy requires way too many conditions to happen for it to be real therefore according to Occam's razor principle the simple explanation is most likely the correct one.

This sais it all.
Recording fake Cascio songs would also demand huge work,money,trust etc to work out...

 

[OnirMJ]

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

About what song are u talking about?

Cory Rooney wrote Chicago. He and Taryll Jackson produced the song for 2010 Michael album, but they didn't allow it to be released on the same album with fake songs.

 

[OnirMJ]

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

Did it crossed your mind that Michael always wanted to sound modern and new (for instance Invicible in 2001 sounded like nothing out there.There wasnt any song that sound like you can compare it to Invicible songs-electronic beats,disorted voice,claps....)?

Something new in this case would be: new accent, new pronunciation, poor singing and goat like vibrato.

 

[Annita]

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

Cory Rooney wrote Chicago. He and Taryll Jackson produced the song for 2010 Michael album, but they didn't allow it to be released on the same album with fake songs.

Why did Taryll allow his voice on the same album with the "fake-songs" and added a spoken bridge to Hollywood Tonight?

 

[HIStory]

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

Why did Taryll allow his voice on the same album with the "fake-songs" and added a spoken bridge to Hollywood Tonight?

Maybe he signed a contract before he heard the Cascio songs?

 

[Annita]

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

Maybe, maybe not, it`s all speculation.

 

[HIStory]

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

Maybe, maybe not, it`s all speculation.

And your point is? With your question you asked for speculation, since there is no other way to tell why someone else did something. If you want a definite answer, ask Taryll.

 

[OnirMJ]

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

Why did Taryll allow his voice on the same album with the "fake-songs" and added a spoken bridge to Hollywood Tonight?

Because he already recorded it for Teddy Riley produced song. Cory Rooney wrote the song so he probably had the power to say no. Taryll didn't because it is not his song.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

Well what's the easiset and the simplest explanation for not giving the names of the official analysis by the "top forensics"?

A) There were no forensics
B) They labeled some people forensics although they aren't
C) They want to preserve the anonimity of the forensics.

If you opt for the answer C)

Ask yourself then:

Why? (Is their life threatened?)
Is it common to hide the names of the scientists/forensics issuing official analysis?
Is it credible to hide the name of the forensics without hinting any of their previous work?

well, ahem, the choice C) seems already too complex...

Imagine I want to become a forensic and I want to start a thesis on the Cascio songs. Well, I'd need credentials, but hey, there aren't any. Hum, why? Lol, dayum, what a fuss over a simple song analysis for my thesis...

 

[ivy]

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

Well what's the easiset and the simplest explanation for not giving the names of the official analysis by the "top forensics"?

C) They want to preserve the anonimity of the forensics.

If you opt for the answer C)

Ask yourself then:

Why? (Is their life threatened?)

well, ahem, the choice C) seems already too complex...

not really. simple answer - because they would be stalked/followed and harassed. Weren't and aren't Cascio's followed/stalked and harassed? Cursed? How many people sent curses to Frank on twitter? do you remember the debate we had about comments about Cascio's mother and how inappropriate it was to bring her into this mess?. and before you deny it, let me tell you that for 4 years a small group has even been cursing, stalking and harassing me - because of my opinion on these songs. Merely opinions, I had nothing to do with these songs. (I have hundreds of screenshots to prove it.) So it does happen. To be clear, I'm not saying you or majority would do it but it doesn't change the fact that there's a small group that would used such information badly. Even the plaintiff in this case has been the target of a group - which is surprisingly anti-cascio&anti-estate&anti-sony- with lies and slander.So from personal experience it makes all the sense in the world to preserve anonymity of the people - regardless of who they are.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

not really. simple answer - because they would be stalked/followed and harassed.
Weren't and aren't Cascio's followed/stalked and harassed? Cursed? How many people sent curses to Frank on twitter? do you remember the debate we had about comments about Cascio's mother and how inappropriate it was to bring her into this mess?. and before you deny it, let me tell you that for 4 years a small group has even been cursing, stalking and harassing me - because of my opinion on these songs. Merely opinions, I had nothing to do with these songs. (I have hundreds of screenshots to prove it.) So it does happen. To be clear, I'm not saying you or majority would do it but it doesn't change the fact that there's a small group that would used such information badly. Even the plaintiff in this case has been the target of a group - which is surprisingly anti-cascio&anti-estate&anti-sony- with lies and slander.So from personal experience it makes all the sense in the world to preserve anonymity of the people - regardless of who they are.

This is pure speculation. They would be stalked, harassed? They WOULD? As I said, if their life was threatened they could at least issue the pseudonyms and the official analysis.

Furthermore, if stalking happened, they could sue as it is clearly a crime.

People have published analyses under pseudonyms for much more serious and threatening things. Some have done it without even trying to hide their identity such as Salman Rushdie.

Talking about forensics' protection of identity does not excuse the decision not to publish their analysis. at least under anonymous names. I highly doubt that MJ's fans could be equalled with fatwa issuers and pose such a threat to those forensics. Believing that is very hard to me and already too complex as opposed to "there must be a problem with the analysis/forensics" argument.

Scientific results should remain transparent and available to the public.

 

[arnspecs]

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

My opinion is I hope the Cascio's et al are finally exposed for the disgusting frauds they are. The only Michael Jackson product I haven't purchased in my 30 years as a fan is that hot mess. My opinion is those songs are not Michael Jackson. And I'm always right. Ask anyone ..

The fact is even casual listeners don't believe it's him. JM and EC (alone) deserve all the twitter (or whatever) hate they get. As long as it's not threats to personal safety. As if the fans hadn't been through enough. Where is JM these days btw? Oh yeah ... living off the piles of cash he made from those joke songs.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

p.s. I forgot to add that if you look for the simplest answer to "why did some fans harass or stalk Eddie & co?"

A) Because the fans were fully informed and have seen the scientific analysis?
B) Because the fans have not been fully informed nor seen any official scientific analysis?


I honestly think it's the answer B). And if the fans had been properly informed with proper scientific analysis, would it:

A) trigger more harassment/stalking?
B) trigger less harassment/stalking?

knowing that in either case A) and B) is a crime, I would tend more logically for B) because I don't see why would any fan risk to be sued for harassment when he had been fully informed and seen the scientific analysis.

 

[Aniram]

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

Did it crossed your mind that Michael always wanted to sound modern and new (for instance Invicible in 2001 sounded like nothing out there.There wasnt any song that sound like you can compare it to Invicible songs-electronic beats,disorted voice,claps....)?

We're talking about the vocals so the electronic beats don't really have anything to do with it.

Vocally, yes I believe Michael's trademark vocals are all over Invincible and many comparisons can be made where he sounds like previous albums. He did do new things vocally but not 100% new, unique and different to the point that there's not ONE vocal that doesn't sound like a previous vocal.

That is the case with the Cascio songs. If it's him, he never once sounded like that before, he never slips back into a classic sounding vocal once like he does all throughout Invincible. It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

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

Did it crossed your mind that Michael always wanted to sound modern and new (for instance Invicible in 2001 sounded like nothing out there.There wasnt any song that sound like you can compare it to Invicible songs-electronic beats,disorted voice,claps....)?

Wait what? New and modern doesn't equate to sounding like a totally different person. Second, despite what you just said, if you tell me that Michael's voice doesn't sound the same as it does on his previous albums, I'm going to assume you to be a flat out liar. Michael simply sounds older on Invincible and thats not even in every case, for example, Threatened sounds like it was recorded in the mid-90's, yet we know that isn't the case. he still has all of the trademarks that makes his voice so special. Only thing he "changed" was that he left out the "hee-hee's". Even on 2000 Watts , after the first listen, if you weirdly had any doubts, you recognize thats Michael, from the vibrato, to the grit in his throat when he's belching ad-libs.

Michaels claps are present throughout ALL of his albums, so what exactly is new and modern about that?

This logic used in that post is simply ridiculous. Michael never once didn't sound like himself. Nor do I think that he believed new and modern meant, to change his pronounciation, the complete tone of his voice, and speaking pattern (the line "Mama say mama got you in a zig zag" is simply the person talking instead of singing).

 

[ivy]

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

This is pure speculation. They would be stalked, harassed? They WOULD?

to me it's not speculation, it's fact based on past and current examples. Even aside my personal experience, we have seen harassment Frank, Teddy Riley, Executors and even plaintiff of this case received. Vogel is still being harassed on twitter for being "pro-estate".And it's not limited to this situation, Ortega had been harassed, cursed and experienced death wishes. Examples are endless. It happened, it happens, it will happen.

Furthermore, if stalking happened, they could sue as it is clearly a crime.

I used not only stalking in criminal sense but also harassment and following as explanation. Those aren't necessarily crime or sue-able instances but unwanted and abusive and/or annoying. For example people for 4 years cursing me - definitely not something I want - hence harassment, definitely annoying and even affecting but not a crime to sue.

While I respect your difference of opinion in this regard, no one and nothing that can be said can convince me against the logic of preserving anonymity of the people. I hope you never experience it yourself, but if you do, you'll understand what I'm talking about.

 

[Chamife]

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

My o:

inion is I hope the Cascio's et al are finally exposed for the disgusting frauds they are. The only Michael Jackson product I haven't purchased in my 30 years as a fan is that hot mess. My opinion is those songs are not Michael Jackson. And I'm always right. Ask anyone ..

The fact is even casual listeners don't believe it's him. JM and EC (alone) deserve all the twitter (or whatever) hate they get. As long as it's not threats to personal safety. As if the fans hadn't been through enough. Where is JM these days btw? Oh yeah ... living off the piles of cash he made from those joke songs.

We can close this thread now

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

to me it's not speculation, it's fact based on past and current examples. Even aside my personal experience, we have seen harassment Frank, Teddy Riley, Executors and even plaintiff of this case received. Vogel is still being harassed on twitter for being "pro-estate".And it's not limited to this situation, Ortega had been harassed, cursed and experienced death wishes. Examples are endless. It happened, it happens, it will happen.



I used not only stalking in criminal sense but also harassment and following as explanation. Those aren't necessarily crime or sue-able instances but unwanted and abusive and/or annoying. For example people for 4 years cursing me - definitely not something I want - hence harassment, definitely annoying and even affecting but not a crime to sue.

While I respect your difference of opinion in this regard, no one and nothing that can be said can convince me against the logic of preserving anonymity of the people. I hope you never experience it yourself, but if you do, you'll understand what I'm talking about.

I am not trying to convince you. I am just saying that the harassment was triggered by the lack of info. It is unbeatable logic that when you have full info there is less harassment, unless some people have borderline behavior problems (which in either case wouldn't lessen nor increase harassment).

 

[Birchey]

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

Err, well, the thing about that is, Angelo Montrone was so satisfied with our conversation that he asked me to delete all of the emails. So, yeah...

Sure, I'll PM you a couple of screenshots, but please tell me you don't think I actually made up that whole conversation, right? I'd have to be Eddie Cascio to be so devious!

Nah I believe you, just would be nice to have source material, to add to the rest of the stuff, much appreciated.

 

[Birchey]

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

As for stalking and Harrassing, theres 2 sides to the coin. Angelikson, Porte and Frederic Todenhofer were on this forum and several others in Early 2011 remailing members under fake usernames and accounts asking them for the Cascio songs, even offering up money in exchange. James Porte went as far as calling me the "orchestrator of the bad tour leaks" whatever that means, to Sony music in an email. Sony were doing the right thing sending out cease and desists, but Angelikson were pushing them to close down members of various forums, who had no links with the tracks but were only speaking against them. You can bet your ass they have read this thread aswell.