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

[elusive moonwalker]

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

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.

 

[OnirMJ]

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

Well Brawley was working on the songs in at least January 2010, in his own words "It was my job to make Michael sound like Michael", he worked as part of Angelikson and not Sony, the same goes for Drew Harris, yet theres some denial from Harris' part about some mixes produced, unless the mixes for KYHU and Stay called "DREW MIX V1" were someone elses mixes, but its highly unlikely.

Isn't Brawely that news reporter in the beginning of BN? Is that intro in the demo also or it was added later?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

Double post

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

prob doesnt want to get added to the suit or brought into it in anyway so is dening involvement?

Well Brawley was working on the songs in at least January 2010, in his own words "It was my job to make Michael sound like Michael", he worked as part of Angelikson and not Sony, the same goes for Drew Harris, yet theres some denial from Harris' part about some mixes produced, unless the mixes for KYHU and Stay called "DREW MIX V1" were someone elses mixes, but its highly unlikely.

 

[serendipity]

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

Some of you might remember that I did also mentioned possibility of settlement - which just by mathematical calculation is that a rebate/refund offer is probably cheaper than to go to a trial that would take years. Only 5-25% of the people actually ask for refunds / rebates. In Milli Vanilli example the people asked for refunds was below 5% - which can be explained by the refund amounts being quite low $3, $2, $1 and $2.5 depending on the item and most probably mailing proof of purchase was costly when compared to what people would get.

With the highest estimate: 25% of 600,000 is 150,000 copies. Cost of 3 songs is $3.87 rounding it up to $4 it would make it around $600,000. If only 5% asks for refunds then this number would be $120,000. So yeah I do see a "we accept no wrongdoing but if you aren't happy with the songs we'll refund you your money no problem" type of offer pretty likely.

I have to note that there's also punitive damages being asked from Cascio - Porte only for fraud claim. Such punitive damages is normally 3 to 10 times of damages - with 3 times is most commonly used. So that might mean $12 for punitive damages (per person) from Cascio / Porte if this goes to trial and is won. In a settlement no one would offer or pay any punitive damages.

And with this said, I believe this case will either be dismissed or settled.

note edited to add: although I used Milli Vanilli as an example of a class action lawsuit, it's important to remember in that case the lack of authenticity was already proven / admitted by the parties involved. So that was easier lawsuit as it only was about if people can get damages and how much. This case/lawsuit would be harder as it would involve convincing judge / jury of a authenticity problem to start with.

And even despite the fact that the MV authenticity was proven and admitted, still a lot of the lawsuits got dismissed. So yea, this one is going to be harder.

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.

elusive moonwalker didn't say she has nothing to prove her case, in fact you said that for the defendants. They simply pointed out that it is up to the plaintiffs to prove their case as they are the ones making an accusation.

 

[Birchey]

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

prob doesnt want to get added to the suit or brought into it in anyway so is dening involvement?

Well its hard to deny involvement simply because he is in the album credits, but I think he might be sidestepping the fact he was working on the songs so early.

 

[Birchey]

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

Isn't Brawely that news reporter in the beginning of BN? Is that intro in the demo also or it was added later?

Brawleys voice is in the album version. But the original BN intro included real reporters from the news when MJ was alive, including some reports about the accusations I believe :/

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

yeah i agree it is hard to denie but u know ppl asking things on twitter its easy to say no it aint me

Well its hard to deny involvement simply because he is in the album credits, but I think he might be sidestepping the fact he was working on the songs so early.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

elusive moonwalker didn't say she has nothing to prove her case, in fact you said that for the defendants. They simply pointed out that it is up to the plaintiffs to prove their case as they are the ones making an accusation.

-------------------------

yeap. thanks.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

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.

Except I didn't. I simply said what will win this case is a lack of proof from those involved. What you're explaining isn't the way these type of court cases work. When this persons evidence is brought up in court, which it will be in order for her to prove her case, then yes, as you said, its up to the defense to disprove her. They cant jist disprove her without bringing up evidence of their own. You're making it sound as if they can simply disprove by saying "shes a liar, look at our statement". Thats not how it goes, they need to raise doubt using evidence of their own, unless they just opt for a slander campaign, which I doubt as it wouldn't make them look good.


Fact is, I believe if they had the evidence to support the authenticity of the voice on these songs, they would've already showed it. Simple as that, I'm not making anything a "guilty until proven innocent" thing. What I'm actually saying is, I dont think they have the proof to support their claims based on their prior actions. If you think I have no reason to feel this way, then I dont know what to tell you. Since as you said, you havent been looking into this situation, so you arent exposed to what some of us have been exposed to in regards to the Cascio tracks.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

Quote*Originally Posted by*WhoIsIt89*View Post
Nah whats gonna win this case the lack of proof by the accused.
----------------------+++

my comment was based on the above quote which u made further up. iam not taking sides on this issue so please dont get all defensive. i really dont care one way or the other about these tracks. but from what i have read in this thread if what ppl are saying is correct then yes something smells big time.. my point was that it is upto the plaintiffs to prove their case as they are the ones making the accusation nothing more. in making that statement iam not making any claims on what evidence there is or isnt on either side so why you have to start making false assertions about what im implying i dont know.

the bottom line as i and further up ivy said its upto the plaintif to prove their case. it cant and never should be about ppl been guilty until provern innocent. if the plaintifs have evidence to prove their case then great and if eddie comes out about making claims about broken hard drives and mj wanting tapes destroyed then yes of course it looks as dodgy as hell but at the end of the day its on the plaintifs to prove their case and it makes no difference to me. ill be intrested to see what is shown if it ever gets that far

 

[OnirMJ]

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

Brawleys voice is in the album version. But the original BN intro included real reporters from the news when MJ was alive, including some reports about the accusations I believe :/

That's what I was thinking. So he worked on the songs more after they were sold to Sony?

 

[Birchey]

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

That's what I was thinking. So he worked on the songs more after they were sold to Sony?

Well I believe the 12 Demos made and given to Sony, Eddie hoped would be the released ones. I don't know how much Brawley worked on the songs after their sale, I doubt much at all, as the songs were not changed a massive amount for release, just given overdubs and some sped up etc. Plus true multitracks were not given, something which I cant go into but to me is another red flag. Why would they only give for instance the acapellas which were Stuart Brawleys frankenstein jobs? Why not just give the full 2007 acapellas without the overdubs and spliced vocals?

 

[OnirMJ]

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

Well I believe the 12 Demos made and given to Sony, Eddie hoped would be the released ones. I don't know how much Brawley worked on the songs after their sale, I doubt much at all, as the songs were not changed a massive amount for release, just given overdubs and some sped up etc. Plus true multitracks were not given, something which I cant go into but to me is another red flag. Why would they only give for instance the acapellas which were Stuart Brawleys frankenstein jobs? Why not just give the full 2007 acapellas without the overdubs and spliced vocals?

So they sold to Sony 12 full a cappellas (1 track = leads, backgrounds and ad libs) and 12 full music tracks (also 1 track per song)?

If that's the case, where does the multiple leads, breath samples, 4 layers of background vocals... comes from? If not Sony servers?

 

[Birchey]

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

So they sold to Sony 12 full a cappellas (1 track = leads, backgrounds and ad libs) and 12 full music tracks (also 1 track per song)?

If that's the case, where does the multiple leads, breath samples, 4 layers of background vocals... comes from? If not Sony servers?

Well sort of, but not. Don't want to go into it so much now but we should hopefully know soon enough.

You see this is one of the head scratching things, someone claims to have these MJ songs. Then they source a producer/engineer/mixer to create 12 full songs before even letting anyone else hear them, during this process they absolutely frankenstein the hell out of the vocals using, the guy who did this is a specialist at recording, manipulating and editing vocals. These mixes they created were not just some slapdash mixes, some of the songs had hundreds of layers, I.E 8 kick drum tracks, 8 snare tracks, 5 different string sounds. All of which they would eventually use just one of each, but they were present in the mix, which shows you these mixes were serious stuff. The multiple leads and background vocals are present on Brawleys screenshots from ProTools, yet everything was given in one mixed down vocal file. Also on the screens there are tracks "MJoh" "MJdat" "MJaoww" etc, like 6 or 7 where they added in Michaels vocal ticks, and also his fingersnaps. Why would you have to add in Michaels trademark recording techniques in post production?

If there is a valid explanation for this then I would love to hear it, I am open for it, but knowing and studying how Michael works and also how music production works its a bit strange, well its extremely strange.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

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

Quote*Originally Posted by*WhoIsIt89*View Post
Nah whats gonna win this case the lack of proof by the accused.
----------------------+++

my comment was based on the above quote which u made further up. iam not taking sides on this issue so please dont get all defensive. i really dont care one way or the other about these tracks. but from what i have read in this thread if what ppl are saying is correct then yes something smells big time.. my point was that it is upto the plaintiffs to prove their case as they are the ones making the accusation nothing more. in making that statement iam not making any claims on what evidence there is or isnt on either side so why you have to start making false assertions about what im implying i dont know.

the bottom line as i and further up ivy said its upto the plaintif to prove their case. it cant and never should be about ppl been guilty until provern innocent. if the plaintifs have evidence to prove their case then great and if eddie comes out about making claims about broken hard drives and mj wanting tapes destroyed then yes of course it looks as dodgy as hell but at the end of the day its on the plaintifs to prove their case and it makes no difference to me. ill be intrested to see what is shown if it ever gets that far

I'm lost, as I didnt imply anything. Nor did I mention anything about you choosing sides. Again, what I said was legally, in order to disprove this person, they need to raise strong points and evidence of their own. They can't just say "theyre lying" and leave it at that. I never said it wasn't up to plantiffs to prove their case. I said the lack of proof by the defendants will be what wins the case. Which as I said, judging from prior actions, its a pretty fair and logical guess to think that they dont have the evidence they need to support the voice on these songs really being Michael.

 

[kreen]

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.

Wow, let me call the pope in Rome : Cory Rooney is a saint!

Come on. If the guy had ever said he believed it's MJ on Monster, you'd all hate his guts and call him a sell-out. The man wanted his song on Xscape, and now he'll probably think twice about accusing even Branca of being a liar.

 

[kreen]

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

Well sort of, but not. Don't want to go into it so much now but we should hopefully know soon enough.

You see this is one of the head scratching things, someone claims to have these MJ songs. Then they source a producer/engineer/mixer to create 12 full songs before even letting anyone else hear them, during this process they absolutely frankenstein the hell out of the vocals using, the guy who did this is a specialist at recording, manipulating and editing vocals. These mixes they created were not just some slapdash mixes, some of the songs had hundreds of layers, I.E 8 kick drum tracks, 8 snare tracks, 5 different string sounds. All of which they would eventually use just one of each, but they were present in the mix, which shows you these mixes were serious stuff. The multiple leads and background vocals are present on Brawleys screenshots from ProTools, yet everything was given in one mixed down vocal file. Also on the screens there are tracks "MJoh" "MJdat" "MJaoww" etc, like 6 or 7 where they added in Michaels vocal ticks, and also his fingersnaps. Why would you have to add in Michaels trademark recording techniques in post production?

If there is a valid explanation for this then I would love to hear it, I am open for it, but knowing and studying how Michael works and also how music production works its a bit strange, well its extremely strange.

But couldn't this be reconciled simply with the original, simple theory : Eddie had a bunch of guide vocals from MJ, and he set out to make presentable songs out of them. So the reason they sound the way they do is not because it's not MJ, but only because the original MJ in there has been "frankensteined" out of recognition.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

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

Wow, let me call the pope in Rome : Cory Rooney is a saint!

Come on. If the guy had ever said he believed it's MJ on Monster, you'd all hate his guts and call him a sell-out. The man wanted his song on Xscape, and now he'll probably think twice about accusing even Branca of being a liar.

Considering we havent called anyone involved outside of Eddie a sell out nor hated their guts. What are you basing this on?

 

[ivy]

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

Except I didn't. I simply said what will win this case is a lack of proof from those involved. What you're explaining isn't the way these type of court cases work. When this persons evidence is brought up in court, which it will be in order for her to prove her case, then yes, as you said, its up to the defense to disprove her. They cant jist disprove her without bringing up evidence of their own. You're making it sound as if they can simply disprove by saying "shes a liar, look at our statement".

not always though. first of all burden of proof is on the plaintiff but that burden is at "more likely true than not true" - which is 51%. There's no rule or requirement that says defense needs to counter all claims with counter evidence. For example imagine this scenario : plaintiff audio expert testifies that the vocals likely not Michael. Defense in turn attacks the experts report and creates just enough to make the jury question the methods used by the expert or make them feel such test cannot really determine if it's Michael's voice or not. So they might not need to respond with their own expert reports that say it's Michael. Questioning validity of the other report might be enough to make jurors feel they cannot determine authenticity either way.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

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

But couldn't this be reconciled simply with the original, simple theory : Eddie had a bunch of guide vocals from MJ, and he set out to make presentable songs out of them. So the reason they sound the way they do is not because it's not MJ, but only because the original MJ in there has been "frankensteined" out of recognition.

So what you're saying is, Michael simply recorded one liners with Eddie here and there. And out of those one liners, Eddie attempted to make 12 songs, ie. Nathan J "Take Me Away". And despite Michaels guide vocals always sounding like Michael, these put together verses are altered to sound like a known vocal impersonator, vibrato and all? But that despite all this, its still Michael?

 

[kreen]

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

If Stewart Brawley -- whom I know nothing about -- knew the songs were fake, why would he go along with it? What would be the motivation for all of those law-abiding people -- some of whom actually had a good shot at becoming part of the "MJ machine" through perfectly legal means -- why would they all agree to take part in such a complicated, far-fatched fraud?

The way the hoax theory works, we almost have to believe that it is like a serpent that swallowed up every person it came accross when it needed him. It never hit a wall where somebody said, "I don't know you guys, and your hare-brained scheme is crazy, and I'm calling the police". Like, 4 years later, there isn't anyone saying, "yeah, I remember that Eddie Cascio came to me in 2010, he wanted me to fake MJ's handwriting on a bunch of notes, I threw that bum out of my house".

You know what I mean? How could Eddie assemble this super-team of expert liars and fraudsters -- Porte, Malachi, and now Brawley, and maybe Friedman, and maybe Riley -- and no one ever told him "you're nuts man, I want no part in this, and I'm telling the world if you ever try to carry this out".

 

[WhoIsIt89]

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

not always though. first of all burden of proof is on the plaintiff but that burden is at "more likely true than not true" - which is 51%. There's no rule or requirement that says defense needs to counter all claims with counter evidence. For example imagine this scenario : plaintiff audio expert testifies that the vocals likely not Michael. Defense in turn attacks the experts report and creates just enough to make the jury question the methods used by the expert or make them feel such test cannot really determine if it's Michael's voice or not. So they might not need to respond with their own expert reports that say it's Michael. Questioning validity of the other report might be enough to make jurors feel they cannot determine authenticity either way.

Yea thats why I said unless they opt for a "slander campaign", which is similar to what you described.
Raise doubt by simply attacking the expert. I don't see a jury falling for that though, especially if things like comparisons between Michaels voice and the voice on the Cascio tracks are made in court.

 

[kreen]

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

Considering we havent called anyone involved outside of Eddie a sell out nor hated their guts. What are you basing this on?

Cory Rooney has said that the Estate's statement is a complete misrepresentation of what actually happened. But of course that was when his song wasn't on the latest MJ CD.

 

[Birchey]

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

But couldn't this be reconciled simply with the original, simple theory : Eddie had a bunch of guide vocals from MJ, and he set out to make presentable songs out of them. So the reason they sound the way they do is not because it's not MJ, but only because the original MJ in there has been "frankensteined" out of recognition.

Wouldn't make sense. Eddie was trying to cash in on these songs, what would be more important to The Estate and Sony, original untouched MJ studio takes which they could use how they please, including presenting to the public in case like this one or having the vocals cobbled together with whatever Brawley and Eddie could see fit? Eddie didn't need to do this, if anything would decrease the value of what he has as the material is less usable to those buying it. Thing is, these are not guide vocals, like I said mutiple takes, layers of backing vocals are not guide vocals. The vocals were recorded complete and then real MJ was chopped and spliced in, parts of his lead vocals from other songs, his adlibs from other songs, his vocal ticks and finger clicks.

 

[OnirMJ]

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

You know what I mean? How could Eddie assemble this super-team of expert liars and fraudsters -- Porte, Malachi, and now Brawley, and maybe Friedman, and maybe Riley -- and no one ever told him "you're nuts man, I want no part in this, and I'm telling the world if you ever try to carry this out".

Not Riley. He had nothing to do with those songs. He worked on what Sony gave him to work.

 

[ivy]

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

Yea thats why I said unless they opt for a "slander campaign", which is similar to what you described.
Raise doubt by simply attacking the expert. I don't see a jury falling for that though, especially if things like comparisons between Michaels voice and the voice on the Cascio tracks are made in court.

well that's not a slander campaign or an attack. Expert's credentials and their reports are always scrutinized because the fact is no expert and/or testing is perfect and as far as the law is concerned jury is supposed to determine the credibility of each witness including experts. Also the strength of such tests will matter as well.

 

[Birchey]

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

If Stewart Brawley -- whom I know nothing about -- knew the songs were fake, why would he go along with it? What would be the motivation for all of those law-abiding people -- some of whom actually had a good shot at becoming part of the "MJ machine" through perfectly legal means -- why would they all agree to take part in such a complicated, far-fatched fraud?

The way the hoax theory works, we almost have to believe that it is like a serpent that swallowed up every person it came accross when it needed him. It never hit a wall where somebody said, "I don't know you guys, and your hare-brained scheme is crazy, and I'm calling the police". Like, 4 years later, there isn't anyone saying, "yeah, I remember that Eddie Cascio came to me in 2010, he wanted me to fake MJ's handwriting on a bunch of notes, I threw that bum out of my house".

You know what I mean? How could Eddie assemble this super-team of expert liars and fraudsters -- Porte, Malachi, and now Brawley, and maybe Friedman, and maybe Riley -- and no one ever told him "you're nuts man, I want no part in this, and I'm telling the world if you ever try to carry this out".

Stewart Brawley, is the main contender for the leak of Xscape in 2002, he was on MJ boards that time and numerous sources have said he was the one who gave the song to 5 members of MJJSource, one leaked it. Also someone who was a close friend to Michael has said Michael knew about this and blacklisted Brawley. Eddie was with Michael alot during the recording of Invincible and also worked for Sony/Atv whilst Brawley was on projects. Brawley obviously kept copies of Michaels vocals for himself. Plus that with his knowledge of vocal manipulation he was the perfect candidate. Not to mention before these songs he was in need of cash and selling his studio equipment on forums xD

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Well there is no more to be said we just have to wait to see what will happen. I have reading alots of posts in this thread and alots of you have done your homework. What it will come down too is who can prove that this is Michael singing or not Michael singing and it will be hard to do. With that said i am going to listen Xscape which is all Michael.

 

[Willy]

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

Some say that Stewart Brawley was actually involved in recording those songs. We've seen theories saying that it all happened in his studio.