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

[AlwaysThere]

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.

I just don't see how this makes sense.

Being forced to "Frankenstein" an incomplete Michael Jackson song would not cause the vocals to sound any different. The album cut of "Hollywood Tonight," for example, was put together using a song that was only about seventy percent finished: the bridge and third verse were never recorded, and there weren't many usable ad-libs. There were many instances were Teddy Riley was forced to chop things together to make the vocals sound more complete than they really were. Lo and behold, that song, even with some sort of odd vocal filter, still sounds undoubtedly like Michael Jackson. It was unnecessary to add vocal ticks, shouts, yelps or any of Michael's trademarks, simply because they were already present on the original vocal track.

If Eddie had guide vocals from Michael (even though every Cascio song has two full verses, numerous choruses, a full bridge section and many usable ad libs, a milestone that most unissued songs do NOT have), certain attributes would have been present on the original vocal tracks (headphone bleed, foot stomps, et al). The fact that they weren't, and they had to be edited in afterwards, is suspicious.

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".

Money. That's all it is. In 1994, one of Michael's ex-housekeepers agreed to claim that she walked in on Michael molesting a child to Hard Copy; the actual logistics of the story would change depending on how much she was paid. (I believe it was $500,000 for her to say Michael's hands were in the boy's pants.) If a woman is willing to make a claim on CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, how is it difficult to believe that three guys would attempt to pass off four Jason Malachi songs as Michael Jackson?

The only parties that would have anything to do with the lie would be Malachi, Porte and Cascio, which really isn't that hard to believe. Especially when you consider that, of everyone involved with the recordings, Porte has said absolutely nothing publicly. Malachi was likely paid a hefty sum of hush money, which is very plausible to believe. Stuart Brawley was, according to Birchey, blacklisted by Michael, so that's called revenge. (People have sought out revenge on Michael many times in the past, as we surely all know.) Teddy Riley made some suggestive comments on his Twitter that imply that he thinks the songs are fake. Roger Friedman is just a prick who likes to downgrade anything and everything Michael Jackson; anything he says is essentially discredited immediately.

There is no ACTUAL PROOF (recorded evidence) to say that Michael isn't on these songs; you are right about that. But there is enough reasonable doubt for fans to believe that he isn't.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

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

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.

Whatever the case, like I said, I don't see a jury falling for a defense that hasn't put forth their own evidence to back up their claim. Regardless of testing being perfect or not.

 

[Tygger]

Whatever the case, like I said, I don't see a jury falling for a defense that hasn't put forth their own evidence to back up their claim. Regardless of testing being perfect or not.

Whoisit89, I do not know if you followed the AEG civil trial however; some defense experts simply disagreed with plaintiffs’ experts without providing any evidence; Erk being the most infamous and highest paid of those witnesses. Some defense witnesses, such as Michael's former doctors, testified solely to attempt to besmirch Michael’s character not to add evidence against the plaintiffs' claim. Many defense witnesses, particularly AEG employees, simply responded that they did not recall events instead of the defense bringing evidence forward to contradict the plaintiffs’ evidence.

The defense can bring little to no evidence to defend themselves in a civil trial and they can receive a favorable verdict particularly when the defense is a successful, well known company. In the AEG trial and this potential trial, there may be jurors who do not wish to go against such a defendant. If this trial is to go before a jury, that jury may very well dismiss the evidence provided by the plaintiff’s legal team.

I'm going to speculate and say that the purpose is actually the discovery phase and not the money - I can't see $4 to $16 being a motivation for anyone. Some might argue it is to make sure these songs aren't used as well - but that was already promised by Executors multiple times so I don't think that warrants a lawsuit. milli Vanilli lawsuit / settlement also include MV albums deleted from the catalog so these songs removal from MJ's catalog could be a purpose as well. The discovery phase equals = Getting to see the reported expert reports, listening to raw demos, deposing people and so on. So again I think that's the purpose. We'll have to wait and see if it would come to that and even if such discovery could be shared with the rest of the fans or if it'll be protected and sealed.

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.

Ivy, I appreciate your reasoning for the narrowness of the class and class subset.

In the case of Milli Vanilli however, Arista removed their music from their catalog willingly before any lawsuit.

Despite Branca’s comment at the Bad25 event (that we would not have known about unless a fan(s) posted the comment on a fan forum(s)), Monster still appears in the Immortal show and everyone who has seen Immortal and/or has the cd has heard this Cascio track. The Cascio tracks also appear on the Ultimate collection of Michael’s catalog on Itunes. It remains to be seen if U.S. Immortal concertgoers, U.S. Immortal cd holders, and/or Ultimate collection of Michael’s catalog on Itunes (U.S.) would be eligible under a settlement.

As for discovery, as you said, it may be protected which means no fan will have access and that will defeat the purpose. If it is not sealed, fans may not receive access to all of the documents. Regardless, fans will be the only public members made aware of what is available in those documents, not the public at large where reports were publicized that these songs are controversial. This again defeats the purpose.

Regardless of discovery results, provided the discovery phase is reached, those songs would remain in Michael’s catalog and there will be no admittance of wrongdoing by any defendant so Michael is not the victor. If Michael is not the victor, as he is the one who was the primary victim in this base act, then what is the true purpose of this lawsuit?

I understand we may not know the true purpose of this lawsuit as we are not the plaintiff and do not know what the plaintiff’s reasoning was in launching the lawsuit. From my view however, with no fraud charges against Estate and/or Sony and no scenario where the songs will be removed from Michael's catalog and a public apology issued, I see no scenario where Michael is the victor as there is very little accountability by the offending parties. Thus, the lawsuit leaves me skeptical.

If Michael is not the victor in any scenario, this can simply be a method to result in fans’ silence on this issue and the offending parties can continue to enjoy receiving little to no accountability.

I do not know this plaintiff personally and I am not accusing her of anything. She may not understand how her lawsuit can be used and how offensive the results can be to Michael's musical legacy.

 

[Calisto]

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

Birchey, are you positive Stuart Brawley was working on these songs in January 2010? Did he have access to any of the lead vocals during this time?

 

[Birchey]

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

Birchey, are you positive Stuart Brawley was working on these songs in January 2010? Did he have access to any of the lead vocals during this time?

I am positive he was working on them in January 2010, he was working on the intro to breaking news around Jan-Feb 2010 100% as for lead vocals, I don't know to be exact.

 

[Calisto]

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

I am positive he was working on them in January 2010, he was working on the intro to breaking news around Jan-Feb 2010 100% as for lead vocals, I don't know to be exact.

Thanks. It would be interesting to find out if Stuart Brawley had heard any lead vocals in January, since Jason Cupeta's vacation was just a month later.

 

[kreen]

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

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.

Well, I would imagine that Eddie, seeing himself as the author and producer of those songs, would want to sell to Sony, well, sellable songs, that were usable for a new album, and not just a bunch of disorganized bits and pieces. But of course, in that scenario, he would still have all of those bits and pieces in a safe somewhere. He wouldn't have thrown them out.

You say there are multiple takes and layers of backing vocals. I certainly hear those layers on some of the uptempo numbers, and especially on the choruses, but it seems to me it's just one "MJ" and a bunch of other voices, which could be the same "MJ" overdubbed over and over, or other people such as Porte.

On other songs, especially the slow ones, I don't hear those "layers and layers".

 

[analogue]

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

Thanks. It would be interesting to find out if Stuart Brawley had heard any lead vocals in January, since Jason Cupeta's vacation was just a month later.

He had to take a vacation. Recording all them songs must have been hard work

 

[kreen]

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

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

Yeah, but... talk about circumstancial evidence. -- at best. Do you realize the incredible complexity of trying to organize and then bring to fruition -- and then protect from all revelations for 4 years now -- such an jaw-dropping act of fraud, that would necessarily be put up for the whole world to scrutinize, and run the risk of incurring the wrath of some of the most powerful lawyers in the United Stated?

I'm not saying this conspiracy is by itself impossible. But MAN, I don't know if you guys realize how far-fetched it is to believe that all the pieces could somehow fit into place like that : this isn't Ocean's Eleven with freakin' George Clooney. This isn't a Hollywood script : this is just a bunch of regular guys with no experience, no criminal past, no nothing. How could they all have the balls of steel to carry out such a thing, how could none of them crack or make a single mistake -- ever? It just defies belief -- not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE, but it would be one for the ages.

 

[kreen]

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

Thanks. It would be interesting to find out if Stuart Brawley had heard any lead vocals in January, since Jason Cupeta's vacation was just a month later.

What's your source on Jason Cupeta's vacation?

 

[OnirMJ]

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

Well, I would imagine that Eddie, seeing himself as the author and producer of those songs, would want to sell to Sony, well, sellable songs, that were usable for a new album, and not just a bunch of disorganized bits and pieces.

It was not "bunch of disorganized bits and pieces", but the whole vocal takes.

 

[Calisto]

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

Yeah, again : what's your source on Jason Cupeta's vacation?

Jason Malachi's official Facebook page:

 

[WhoIsIt89]

Whoisit89, I do not know if you followed the AEG civil trial however; some defense experts simply disagreed with plaintiffs’ experts without providing any evidence; Erk being the most infamous and highest paid of those witnesses. Some defense witnesses, such as Michael's former doctors, testified solely to attempt to besmirch Michael’s character not to add evidence against the plaintiffs' claim. Many defense witnesses, particularly AEG employees, simply responded that they did not recall events instead of the defense bringing evidence forward to contradict the plaintiffs’ evidence.

The defense can bring little to no evidence to defend themselves in a civil trial and they can receive a favorable verdict particularly when the defense is a successful, well known company. In the AEG trial and this potential trial, there may be jurors who do not wish to go against such a defendant. If this trial is to go before a jury, that jury may very well dismiss the evidence provided by the plaintiff’s legal team.




Ivy, I appreciate your reasoning for the narrowness of the class and class subset.

In the case of Milli Vanilli however, Arista removed their music from their catalog willingly before any lawsuit.

Despite Branca’s comment at the Bad25 event (that we would not have known about unless a fan(s) posted the comment on a fan forum(s)), Monster still appears in the Immortal show and everyone who has seen Immortal and/or has the cd has heard this Cascio track. The Cascio tracks also appear on the Ultimate collection of Michael’s catalog on Itunes. It remains to be seen if U.S. Immortal concertgoers, U.S. Immortal cd holders, and/or Ultimate collection of Michael’s catalog on Itunes (U.S.) would be eligible under a settlement.

As for discovery, as you said, it may be protected which means no fan will have access and that will defeat the purpose. If it is not sealed, fans may not receive access to all of the documents. Regardless, fans will be the only public members made aware of what is available in those documents, not the public at large where reports were publicized that these songs are controversial. This again defeats the purpose.

Regardless of discovery results, provided the discovery phase is reached, those songs would remain in Michael’s catalog and there will be no admittance of wrongdoing by any defendant so Michael is not the victor. If Michael is not the victor, as he is the one who was the primary victim in this base act, then what is the true purpose of this lawsuit?

I understand we may not know the true purpose of this lawsuit as we are not the plaintiff and do not know what the plaintiff’s reasoning was in launching the lawsuit. From my view however, with no fraud charges against Estate and/or Sony and no scenario where the songs will be removed from Michael's catalog and a public apology issued, I see no scenario where Michael is the victor as there is very little accountability by the offending parties. Thus, the lawsuit leaves me skeptical.

If Michael is not the victor in any scenario, this can simply be a method to result in fans’ silence on this issue and the offending parties can continue to enjoy receiving little to no accountability.

I do not know this plaintiff personally and I am not accusing her of anything. She may not understand how her lawsuit can be used and how offensive the results can be to Michael's musical legacy.

First, I think using that defense against a money claim would be totally different for someone who's trying to prove the vocals on tjese songs arent Michaels. I find it highly unlikely that once vocal comparisons among other things are introduced in court. That the defense will be countering that by calling anyone a drug addict. Its easy to use that type of defense against someone claiming a company was responsible for the death of her child. Not so much in this case.

So yeah, like I said, once the plaintiffs evidence is introduced, I find it unlikely that a judge or jury would just rule in the defenses favor after providing no evidence at all. You can learn this by simply watching peoples court, a judges responsibility is to go in their skeptical of both parties, they then have to come to a conclusion based on the evidence of the plaintiff, proving things happened the way they're claiming they did or based on the evidence provided by the defense that disproves the plaintiffs claims. This is according to the judges own words.


Rarely do things go down the way the AEG trial did. Simple fact being, with all she provided, Katherine never had anything sufficient that proved AEG was responsible for Michael and his death. Thats most likely why that defense was able to disprove her that easy, because she never proved it herself.

 

[SmoothCriminal1995]

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

Had these songs been leaked by a fan I wouldn't believe they were real. Too much Monkey Business going down !

 

[WhoIsIt89]

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

Yeah, but... talk about circumstancial evidence. -- at best. Do you realize the incredible complexity of trying to organize and then bring to fruition -- and then protect from all revelations for 4 years now -- such an jaw-dropping act of fraud, that would necessarily be put up for the whole world to scrutinize, and run the risk of incurring the wrath of some of the most powerful lawyers in the United Stated?

I'm not saying this conspiracy is by itself impossible. But MAN, I don't know if you guys realize how far-fetched it is to believe that all the pieces could somehow fit into place like that : this isn't Ocean's Eleven with freakin' George Clooney. This isn't a Hollywood script : this is just a bunch of regular guys with no experience, no criminal past, no nothing. How could they all have the balls of steel to carry out such a thing, how could none of them crack or make a single mistake -- ever? It just defies belief -- not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE, but it would be one for the ages.

#1. None of the three guys were inexperienced in studio work.

#2. Stuart Brawley specifically is very skilled in vocal manipulation.

#3. Jason Malachi had been fooling people for years (not deliberately), into thinking he was simply Michael making new songs under an alias.

With that said, how is it so "far-fetched" again?

 

[kreen]

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

Money. That's all it is.

Ok, let's assume they're all money-hungry bastards, even though MJ himself, up to the minute before his death, would have scolded us for saying that about the Cascios. And even though they don't NEED the money, but certainly could do away with the specter of unending lawsuits and maybe ruin, which is what the fraud would entail for them if it failed.

So they want money. As this story with the maid demonstrates, there are many easy ways to make money off your connection to MJ if you don't let morals get in the way. But instead of doing the easy thing -- sell off some stories to the tabloids, auction off the toothbrush MJ left in your house back in 1994, or EVEN try to extort some money from the Estate by threatening them with revelations about "that time MJ touched me when I was 12" -- instead of doing all of that, which would have been quick and easy and of relatively no risk for them, they chose to embark instead on a large-scale fraud that involved :

1- the participation of a least several other third parties, none of whom could be trusted not to rat you out;
2- an ENORMOUS amount of work, which Birchey has described, work that would be entirely wasted if any piece of the puzzle failed to fall perfectly into place;
3- ENORMOUS risks to nothing less than your life and liberty, as it is a CRIMINAL endeavour,
4- IF IT ALL WORKED OUT, which was a remote possibility, an amount of money that may not be THAT high, compared to the amounts that could have been made through all of the other, simpler, quicker possibilities.

It's all so incredible. In order for this theory to work, you have to believe that all of the guilty parties are both amazingly cunning (they came up with the scheme and made it work beautifully) and incredibly dumb (they produced not 3 perfectly realized fakes but 12 of them, which raised the risks of them being considered suspicious). Incredibly loyal (they stick together, mum is the word) and incredibly untrustworthy (they're fraudsters and liars). Incredibly "ordinary" (just regular guys with no connection, no special skills) and incredibly genius (they've carried out the single greatest hoax in the history of pop music -- bigger than Milli Vanilli, in some way).

Can I at least get an admission from you guys that, yes, it seems implausible, even though it's true?

 

[kreen]

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

Jason Malachi's official Facebook page:

So, he said he was out of the US. And to you that implies he was in New Jersey recording fake MJ songs?

You guys know Jason Malachi is married, right? But we're just to assume that his wife is perfectly fine with every aspect of this situation. If I went home to my wife and exposed my plan to steal the identity of the most famous person in the world, in cahoots with two guys we've both never heard of, and make illegal, dirty money that she would never be allowed to explain the origin of, and risk the ruin of our plans and future and possibly send to jail the father of our future children -- well, my wife would raise a few objections. I guess Jason's the lucky one.

 

[Tygger]

Whoisit89, civil trials – whether televised as entertainment or not, whether a wrongful death trial or not – have in common that the plaintiff has the burden of truth. The defense may very well attempt to besmirch Michael’s character if this lawsuit is allowed and can indeed be successful in that defense. The defense may also besmirch the character of the plaintiff’s experts as well as the plaintiff herself. Trust her photo with defendant Branca will be discussed if this indeed goes to trial and not to her benefit.

As for the AEG trial, the plaintiffs proved successfully AEG hired the doctor who killed Michael. I believe the remaining decision by the jurors – or lack thereof - is currently being appealed.

Can I at least get an admission from you guys that, yes, it seems implausible, even though it's true?

Kreen, I agree with you that it is unlikely that Porte, Cascio, etc. could successfully complete this hoax without appropriate and powerful assistance. The third party would most likely be a very powerful duo which means anything is possible. Estate/Sony interestingly enough were not charged with fraud by this plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s legal team.

 

[Aniram]

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.

 

[Lisha]

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

...But MAN, I don't know if you guys realize how far-fetched it is to believe that all the pieces could somehow fit into place like that : this isn't Ocean's Eleven with freakin' George Clooney. This isn't a Hollywood script : this is just a bunch of regular guys with no experience, no criminal past, no nothing. How could they all have the balls of steel to carry out such a thing, how could none of them crack or make a single mistake -- ever? It just defies belief -- not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE, but it would be one for the ages.

The bolded part made me laugh. lol.

 

[serendipity]

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

Ok, let's assume they're all money-hungry bastards, even though MJ himself, up to the minute before his death, would have scolded us for saying that about the Cascios. And even though they don't NEED the money, but certainly could do away with the specter of unending lawsuits and maybe ruin, which is what the fraud would entail for them if it failed.

So they want money. As this story with the maid demonstrates, there are many easy ways to make money off your connection to MJ if you don't let morals get in the way. But instead of doing the easy thing -- sell off some stories to the tabloids, auction off the toothbrush MJ left in your house back in 1994, or EVEN try to extort some money from the Estate by threatening them with revelations about "that time MJ touched me when I was 12" -- instead of doing all of that, which would have been quick and easy and of relatively no risk for them, they chose to embark instead on a large-scale fraud that involved :

1- the participation of a least several other third parties, none of whom could be trusted not to rat you out;
2- an ENORMOUS amount of work, which Birchey has described, work that would be entirely wasted if any piece of the puzzle failed to fall perfectly into place;
3- ENORMOUS risks to nothing less than your life and liberty, as it is a CRIMINAL endeavour,
4- IF IT ALL WORKED OUT, which was a remote possibility, an amount of money that may not be THAT high, compared to the amounts that could have been made through all of the other, simpler, quicker possibilities.

It's all so incredible. In order for this theory to work, you have to believe that all of the guilty parties are both amazingly cunning (they came up with the scheme and made it work beautifully) and incredibly dumb (they produced not 3 perfectly realized fakes but 12 of them, which raised the risks of them being considered suspicious). Incredibly loyal (they stick together, mum is the word) and incredibly untrustworthy (they're fraudsters and liars). Incredibly "ordinary" (just regular guys with no connection, no special skills) and incredibly genius (they've carried out the single greatest hoax in the history of pop music -- bigger than Milli Vanilli, in some way).

Can I at least get an admission from you guys that, yes, it seems implausible, even though it's true?

this is one f the reasns why i'm still on the fence about this whole thing. It's just so out there.

 

[Birchey]

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

Kreen without going into a long winded post. We have put fourth evidence, alot of it that slots in place and create a massive web of stuff thats works, you can keep dismissing each piece individually but the bigger piece is harder to crack. Just because you dont think 3 men would do such a high risk fraud doesn't mean they wouldn't, men have done much madder things. Plus how else were they to fail with the we have no evidence/Hard drive broke/Michael asked us to delete everything, whichever you choose, the story MJ recorded these in my basement without every telling anybody and nothing survived except these vocals plan is almost bulletproof, almost perfect crime, no hard evidence, no witnesses

 

[WhoIsIt89]

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

Just to clear a few things up..Not everyone agrees that Eddies motive was Money. Plenty of us feel he simply did it to add to his songwriting credentials in hopes of actually writing for bigger stars, in which he's actually credited. Instead of writing articles about himself personally listing his accomplishments.

2. The AEG trial was simply Katherine attempting to prove AEG was responsible and played part in Michaels passing. It says it right there in the court documents. I get the specifics but they dont matter. Everyone knew prior to the trial that AEG hired Murray, that was never disputed. What was disputed is if they did it without Michaels knowing or under his orders. Fact is, Katherine couldnt prove anything she was claiming. The defense didnt need to produce anything to say otherwise, she was doing that herself. I'm pretty sure things will be a lot more complicated when the plaintiff, as I've been saying all along, introduces her evidence in court. And the defense has to respond to it. I'm confident enough a jury and judge would keep that in mind and see through a defense which may possibly fail to produce any testimony from those they claimed said it was Michaels voice. And any past instances of Michael sounding like he supposedly does on the Cascio songs, or anything else to support their claim of it really being Michael..And its neither here nor there about the AEG trial stuff, but the appeal is being carried out by Katherine Jackson, and we know why, because she failed to get her money. Not because the court system made a mistake.

I too thought for a long time that this was impossible, but the comparisons became too much, the lack of Michael sounding anything like that voice on the Cascio songs became too much. The shitty Malachi vocals and vibrato on the rest of the songs finally made me realize that it simply isn't him.


There isnt much more to say in regards to this issue, people will continue making things up to prove us wrong, we'll keep going back to all the research we've done over the years. People will continue to say "they dont have to present any evidence", I'll continue to extremely doubt that claim. And so on and so on. I'm confident this will go a lot farther than people are assuming and that it'll be proved in a court of law that it isnt Michael Jackson on these songs.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

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

this is one f the reasns why i'm still on the fence about this whole thing. It's just so out there.

Wanna know what else is just "so out there". The fact that Michael had a list of all the songs he planned on working on in the immediate future, including those he planned for London. And NONE OF THE 12 Cascio songs is included on that list.

 

[Calisto]

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

So, he said he was out of the US. And to you that implies he was in New Jersey recording fake MJ songs?

I didn't say when or where the songs were recorded; however, Jason Cupeta's vacation is certainly something of interest.

 

[Birchey]

Eddie Cascio: “The plan was to continue the recording process over in London, and on the days off or the weeks off that he had, you know, we would be, you know, working at a studio that he was gonna have put in at his home in London…He had made it clear that, you know, that he wanted-- he wanted me to be out there and to-- to continue working on the music…You know, he had every intention to entertain his fans once again through his music.”

Seems Legit.

 

[Tygger]

Whoitis89, your second point is simply not true. This is not the thread to discuss the AEG trial however; I responded to you with that trial as an example that the defense does not have to provide evidence to defend itself and still receive a successful verdict. The onus is on the plaintiff(s) in a civil trial.

In regards to the AEG trial, it was indeed disputed if AEG hired the doctor, AEG showed no proof that they did not, and the plaintiffs indeed proved that AEG did indeed hire the doctor. The remainder of the jurors’ decisions – or lack thereof (retention, supervision) – is the reason for the appeal. You can suggest what you feel is the reason for the appeal but, it does not make it fact. All of this is public record, not my opinion.

Again, the defense in this case does not have to show any evidence whatsoever to defend themselves provided this goes to trial. If fans are looking for that evidence, they may find themselves disappointed. The defense can simply respond by besmirching the characters of Michael, the plaintiff’s experts, and the plaintiff herself as I gave previous examples from the AEG trial.

I would also like this to go to trial however; I see no purpose or gain as the claims and remedies are weak. All parties are not held accountable, there will be no demand for a public apology, and Cascio tracks can remain in Michael's catalog so long as they are not placed in positions to be sold. That is not a victory for Michael in my view and I do not see reason for Michael to not be victorious as he is the true victim here.

 

[WildStyle]

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

All of this could be avoided if the estate would just do the right thing. For some reason (maybe fear of being overthrown as executors?) they stubbornly refuse to do so.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

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

Was Katherine rewarded any of the money she sought out for damages? No. Because she lost her case and couldnt prove what she was attempting to prove. Simple as that. You can dispute my reasoning for her filing an appeal all you want, I don't agree with you.


Just like the whole "they wont have to show any evidence" theory. I simply find it highly unlikely. My opinion is supported by the statement of an actual judge, who said in order to disprove whatever the plaintiff is saying, they have to combat that with evidence of their own.

Simple as that.

 

[ivy]

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

Just like the whole "they wont have to show any evidence" theory. I simply find it highly unlikely. My opinion is supported by the statement of an actual judge, who said in order to disprove whatever the plaintiff is saying, they have to combat that with evidence of their own.

if I might - true but for example it doesn't mean they need to fight an expert report with their expert report. Questioning credibility and methodology of plaintiff's expert could be enough to disprove whatever plaintiff is saying.

Personally I want people to have realistic expectations about this case. In a time when we don't even know if this trial will see inside the courtroom discussing who can win based on evidence /lack of evidence seems to be pretty premature.