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

[OnirMJ]

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 2010 emailing 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.

You mean early 2011?

Also, who is Frederic Todenhofer? And what would be the purpose for them to buy their own songs. I don't understand. Please explain.

 

[Birchey]

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

You mean early 2011?

Also, who is Frederic Todenhofer? And what would be the purpose for them to buy their own songs. I don't understand. Please explain.

Yeah 2011, you know I even re-read that part to make sure it was correct, all this talk about early 2010 is trying me brain, I will correct it thanks.

They were fishing to find out who had their songs, so they could contact Sony music, didn't stop them anyhow as alot of people who didn't have them, or ever comment about having them receive cease and desists and even phone calls from Sony. Frederic Todenhofer is a family friend of the Cascios, his father knew MJ in similar fashion to the cascios, MJ would visit there when in Germany I believe, Todenhoefer had entered into a music venture with Frank Cascio too.

Basically Eddie getting his mates to hussle MJ fans who didn't even have but spoke out about the tracks (Myself not included, I had the tracks and spoke freely about it, cant keep me mouth shut)

 

[ivy]

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

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.

My past interest about Occam's razor was in relation to the moon landing. There was a 2009 survey that showed 25% of the surveyed did not believe moon landing actually happened. In that case the simplest explanation is :Nasa sent humans to the moon. It's self explanatory in itself that it includes that space craft flying and landing to the moon and humans walking on the moon. So that statement itself explains how the moon landing happened. Similarly "processed demo recordings, which is why they sound off, but it's him." is also enough to explain how/why the vocals sound off.

The counter explanation is not it doesn't look like real, NASA didn't provide sufficient proof therefore it isn't real ( your : it doesn't sound like MJ, there is no evidence it is Michael, so it's not.). Because that explanation doesn't include how the moon landing didn't happen but looked like it happened. You gotta add that part as well. Similarly your short explanation doesn't include why it doesn't sound like Michael. It's not like vocals on Cascio songs magically appeared out of thin air. so the question becomes how do you explain these sounding like Michael but not Michael vocals came to life and found their way on the songs and the album? Forget my list, what is your required conditions list for that to happen? I believe you need to add how part of it.

The counter example in Moon landing case is NASA decides to fake moon landing for whatever reason (popular reason being wanting to be first to walk on moon), spends money, creates a fake landing video in a studio, achieves cooperation of multiple people (astronauts, cameraman, engineers and so on and on) involved in the conspiracy (for decades) and even USA's biggest competition at that time for the first moon landing Soviets doesn't deny USA's moon landing hence the biggest competitor is also in on this conspiracy.

As you can see from the above example you need to add how the moon landing did not occur to your explanation.

So going back to what I asked - Forget my list, what is your required conditions list for this vocals to happen?

Wouldn't that at least require multiple people - including an impersonator- willing to part take in creating fake vocals, maintaining that secret after 4 years, multiple other people either being on it or being fooled to think the vocals are real and deliberate lying (as your statement was there's no evidence which I assume means you think Weitzman statement is a lie)

 

[WhoIsIt89]

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

I wonder what is your "Occum Theory" for certain reliable fans and members of this forum and others, stating that they were told personally by those in charge that they'd no longer be releasing any Cascio songs?


What are the conditions for why the Estate decided to jump to this conclusion if the "simple explanation" is that "its Michael, just processed to hell". Why would they feel the need to back off of these tracks if they are so sure and confident that it's really Michael on these songs?



Since the beginning people have spoke on and offered many "conditions" as to how these songs came about. Plenty of times people have mentioned names of those they expect to be involved. They mentioned and some have even proven various connections between the suspected culprits. They've posted timelines of a specific person who decided to take a hiatus for a certain amount of time and have even brought up reasonable and valid suspicions as to how that hiatus was connected with the creation of these songs. They've been doing it for what, about four years now? The problem plenty simply decide to write these things off as "crazy conspiracy theories", instead of considering everything to be a major possibility, or even looking into it yourselves and raising reasonable doubt other than "this is just too crazy to happen".


Multiple people needed not to be Iinvolved for this to happen, all they needed was four. Eddie, Porte, Malachi (?), and Staurt Brawley. Everyone else were unknowing victims of the scheme. And people have also spoken on numerous "conditions" as to why these people were involved.


Early on it may have been, "It doesnt sound like Michael, so it isnt him". Until people actually started to research the issue and ever since numerous "conditions" have been brought about as to why it isn't Michael on these records.

 

[ivy]

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

^^
fan reaction.

obvious just from reading this thread. why would they keep releasing stuff that angers fans and hurt their sales? what's the logic in that?

Multiple people needed not to be Iinvolved for this to happen, all they needed was four. Eddie, Porte, Malachi (?), and Staurt Brawley. Everyone else were unknowing victims of the scheme. And people have also spoken on numerous "conditions" as to why these people were involved.

well 4 people is still multiple people. Single is opposite of multiple and more than one means multiple people. and I already said almost exactly what you said

Wouldn't that at least require multiple people (meaning more than one) - including an impersonator- willing to part take in creating fake vocals, maintaining that secret after 4 years, multiple other people (meaning more than one) either being on it or being fooled to think the vocals are real and deliberate lying (as your statement was there's no evidence which I assume means you think Weitzman statement is a lie)

and yeah the "numerous conditions" is the whole point here.

so your explanation still requires
- Eddie a person who stood by and defended Michael to turn against him / attempting to benefit from him so soon after his death
- an impersonator
- a musician with questionable past actions, issues with Michael and skills in voice manipulation
- an end result that can fool all the other people
- but cannot fool fans
- and Estate although being a fooled party/ unknowing victim releasing a statement that's lie

and actually the last point is logically confusing me. If Estate is a unknowing victim why would they release a statement that you all seem to believe is all lies ? I don't get it.

 

[PriceOfFame]

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

It seems (just skimming some pages) that there are 'radicals' on both sides of the argument. In my honest opinion, it is very clear that the cascio songs were not sung by Michael. But, as ridiculous as it may sound, proof needs to exist in order for this lawsuit to really advance. However, most of us know that if somebody slapped Michael Jackson's name again on "Let Me Let Go" or "Mamacita", the same people who believe the cascio tracks are MJ's would think that those two Jason songs were sung by Michael as well. It's all right; some people just automatically consider it Michael. But when you look at the lack of evidence that it is Michael, there is no doubt that the doubters have better ground.

I've noticed that many (not all) 'believers' are also fans of Jason's. Does this not prove that the select people enjoy music sung by sound-alikes? Let's be honest-- If Jason didn't sound like Michael, nobody would give a crap about his music. But, although seemingly tone-deaf, Jason does sound like Michael. TMZ and some other sites posted about Jason in... 2008? I was well aware of his music before the cascio songs were even 'unveiled'. Eddie knew about Jason, too. It's possible that Michael also knew who he was. I personally think that Eddie had maybe produced instrumentals for Michael to listen to, and Michael never got to them, so Eddie viewed his death as an opportunity to make some cash. My ears really don't believe that these songs are by Michael. In my mind, it is concrete, but I respect the opinions of those who believe the songs are Michael's, as long as they respect facts and evidence.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

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

Because they're potentially the biggest money makers they have. Along with the few completely fresh songs they may possess, they have a chance to capitalize on them by releasing an entirely new album full of never before heard songs. Surely if they have what they believe is the ultimate proof to prove their case, fan reaction wouldn't bother a major company like that.


Fan reaction and family outrage didn't keep Jimi Hendrix posthumous label from creating full songs made up of various jam sessions and releasing an album out of it. Because they felt justified in what they were doing.


This isnt the NFL where one of your athletes makes a homophobic tweet and the franchise releases him and erases him from their existence.


Sony and the Estate combined are billion dollar companies. Screw fan reaction, prove us wrong with your supposed forensic analysis and go on and release what they believed to be potential hit records that would put Michael back on top.


I honestly don't think "Fan reaction" is a valid counterpoint.

 

[8701girl]

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

What about returning the damn CD and asked for your money back...THREE YEARS AGO.

Yes that would be the smartest thing for her to go

 

[WhoIsIt89]

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

I still find it incredibly arrogant that when people were talking about this, the reaction was always "well take it to court"..Now someone has finally actually taken it to court and people are now criticizing this person for it and have the nerve to imply that they actually know what would be this persons "best" option, which strangely enough is no longer "prove it in court".

 

[ivy]

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

prove us wrong with your supposed forensic analysis

I don't get why anyone (not limited to you) acts like any forensic analysis would change your minds.

Imagine this : Imagine that what they wrote turns out to be true and they produce forensic reports from two top experts in the field that is better than any counter report. Would that change what you hear? How many of people here would be able to say "It is Michael and I was wrong". How many will say "I don't care what the report says, that ain't Michael."?

and another question : how many people here believe that they are absolutely correct in this regard and cannot be wrong? How many people believe even though they have strong opinions in this regard that they could be wrong?

 

[HIStory]

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

The harrassment argument is an argument haters offen use for why alleged victims of Michael do not come forward, but when you look at this argument the danger MJ fans allegedly pose is greatly exaggerated. I'm not saying fans cannot send mean messages on Twitter or FB to some of Michael's enemies, but the effect of those on these people's life is greatly exaggerated. I mean look at Wade Robson! He's still on FB (actually became more active on FB since his allegations), he plasters the photos of his son all over for sympathy points - that should tell you that he does not feel real threat from MJ fans and that MJ fans aren't really a serious threat for anyone. Same for the Arvizos, who are on FB as well.

So to me that argument about the experts hiding because of fear from fans is not too convincing. Then find experts who aren't that chicken and aren't afraid of a couple of mean messages on Twitter (or who are not on social media) and can stand by their opinion even in the face of a little criticism.

 

[Aniram]

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

I don't get why anyone (not limited to you) acts like any forensic analysis would change your minds.

Imagine this : Imagine that what they wrote turns out to be true and they produce forensic reports from two top experts in the field that is better than any counter report. Would that change what you hear? How many of people here would be able to say "It is Michael and I was wrong". How many will say "I don't care what the report says, that ain't Michael."?

and another question : how many people here believe that they are absolutely correct in this regard and cannot be wrong? How many people believe even though they have strong opinions in this regard that they could be wrong?

If they released anything at all it would sure help a whole lot more than what they have now: nothing.

 

[Tygger]

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

I still find it incredibly arrogant that when people were talking about this, the reaction was always "well take it to court"..Now someone has finally actually taken it to court and people are now criticizing this person for it and have the nerve to imply that they actually know what would be this persons "best" option, which strangely enough is no longer "prove it in court".

Agreed.

My concern however is the lawsuit's somewhat weak claims and more importantly, the remedies that are not being discussed.

If anyone can explain why no scenario allows for Michael to be the victor and that is somehow acceptable, I would like to hear it. No matter what the outcome, there is no demand for a public apology and/or the removal of those songs from Michael's catalog.

What is gained if the lawsuit goes to trial and is successful if the songs remain in Michael's catalog and only some offending parties (the less financially stable and the less powerful ones) are held accountable? I prefer Michael be the true victor than I and others who know these tracks are not authentic simply holding bragging rights.

It is very interesting Estate/Sony was not included in the fraud claim. I truly hope the plaintiff's legal team does not foolishly believe by excusing Estate/Sony from the fraud claim that these entities would be helpful to their case. They will not as they were parties to the fraud. Does not matter when they became involved in the rouse, they are still partners to it and they will protect themselves (cue Weitzman's statement).

 

[WhoIsIt89]

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

I don't get why anyone (not limited to you) acts like any forensic analysis would change your minds.

Imagine this : Imagine that what they wrote turns out to be true and they produce forensic reports from two top experts in the field that is better than any counter report. Would that change what you hear? How many of people here would be able to say "It is Michael and I was wrong". How many will say "I don't care what the report says, that ain't Michael."?

and another question : how many people here believe that they are absolutely correct in this regard and cannot be wrong? How many people believe even though they have strong opinions in this regard that they could be wrong?

I don't get why so many of you assume to know how people are, some half way across the world. Stating "you wouldn't believe them anyway" is a majorly false accusation. As proven in the past if there is something with numerous proofs to support it, then its believed by the majority, the extremists ie. Justice4Michael during TII, will be the only ones continuing to carry the issue, and they, as proven in the past, don't leave much of a mark on a products success. Even with all the Anti-Estate/Sony people claiming things like, "it's an impersonator, they're showing Michael at his worse, its exploitation", TII was still the highest grossing film of it's kind.

I know for a fact if the Estate actually presented proof to back up what they say, I'd believe it. Seeing as I had put up with that bs statement for as long as I did. Again, as proven in the past, if good evidence and proofs were brought up to support their claim, the majority, more often than not, would believe them. So again, I dont believe fan reaction is a good counterpoint.


And please, I never got the indication that the "multiple people" theory, was actually in reference to solely the four people we actually mentioned. So save the condesending remarks as if I don't know what the term multiple means.


And as far as the "conditions" argument, its been countlessly explained why Eddie may have done what he did, why Brawley decided to be an accomplice, why Malachi (?) decided to join the party of the mystery vocalists. And why the Estate purchased them and were initially willing to lie for them. But again, those explanations are simply written off by the minority who continue to defend these songs, because it's just "too crazy to happen".

And I don't know who believes they're correct and won't accept being wrong. I don't believe there to be many. I for one wouldn't be ashamed to admit I was wrong, if thats proven to be the case. As I did it in the Xscape chart thread after claiming the album will continue to drop out of the Billboards, only to be proven wrong, when it rose back up into the top ten. So again, lets stop assuming we actually know people outside of a profile name.

And there isn't any evidence to support Weitzman's statement, zero. Unless you know something we don't U'd gladly accept being wrong if you can present such proofs. Until then, yes, the statement was a lie.

 

[analogue]

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

I've seen some people say that it's pointless taking this to court, or we should just forget it because the songs are obviously Michael.

I have a question. If you think the songs are obviously Michael then why not take it to court? What are you afraid of? If you're so confident that these songs are really Michael then you'd be happy to take this to court to prove all doubters wrong

 

[ivy]

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

condesending remarks

condescending? no just tired of explaining the same thing over and over and frustrated. it was merely to explain why people - even jurors- might go for a simple explanation but we can act like that's not a possibility.

and why do you take it personal? I did say that it wasn't limited to you or personal. Whether you like it or not there are extremists out there in regards to Cascio songs who would never ever accept anything but what they hear and what they believe and they say so. I don't get why we keep acting like everyone out there are reasonable or decent people. They aren't.

 

[czechstar]

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

Michael is not on those songs. Period.

I for one am glad that someone is putting their money where their mouth is and trying to prove this is the case.

Now, I'd be delighted if the opposing side can give a shred of evidence that it IS Michael singing on those tracks. Oh, wait...

 

[OnirMJ]

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

I would accept that it is Michael Jackson singing the lead vocals if:
1. Michael Jackson or Jesus Christ comes and tell me that
2. Cascio brothers show video footage of Michael singing those leads.

In any other scenario I would not accept that Michael Jackson is singing lead vocals on those 12 songs. And I wouldn't call that extremism or myself an extremist.

 

[LastTear]

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

I would accept that it is Michael Jackson singing the lead vocals if:
1. Michael Jackson or Jesus Christ comes and tell me that
2. Cascio brothers show video footage of Michael singing those leads.

In any other scenario I would not accept that Michael Jackson is singing lead vocals on those 12 songs. And I wouldn't call that extremism or myself an extremist.

So really this fan in your opinion is wasting her money as I doubt Michael was filmed. Extremist? request number 1 is somewhat extreme!

I have even had somebody tell me that they are waiting to see what evidence this fan presents before they decide whether it's all a plot from the estate.

So the more I read this thread and the more I hear people elsewhere the more convinced I am that this issue will never end, the only chance if it's a slam dunk win for the plantiff.

ETA And even if the plantiff does win then forever more after that every time the estate so much as breathes they will have constant name calling and put downs. So from that point of view I don't know how,with either outcome, could we possibly move forward.

 

[OnirMJ]

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

So really this fan in your opinion is wasting her money as I doubt Michael was filmed. Extremist? request number 1 is somewhat extreme!

I have even had somebody tell me that they are waiting to see what evidence this fan presents before they decide whether it's all a plot from the estate.

So the more I read this thread and the more I hear people elsewhere the more convinced I am that this issue will never end, the only chance if it's a slam dunk win for the plantiff.

ETA And even if the plantiff does win then forever more after that every time the estate so much as breathes they will have constant name calling and put downs. So from that point of view I don't know how,with either outcome, could we possibly move forward.

??? That fan is a true hero. She will always be a hero among MJ fans, no matter what court decides. I respect her and I appreciate everything she's been doing. I just say that if she don't win that would change nothing because Cascios don't have evidence to prove that Michael is singing the lead vocals on those tracks and neither Michael or Jesus is coming back to tell us the truth.

Also "whether it's all a plot from the estate." Plot from the estate??? I feel sorry for the Estate, they were fooled by Cascios, Porte and Brawley. I don't blame them at all for that. I blame them they didn't react after they found out the truth, apologize for the mistake and remove those songs from MJ's discography. John Branca is not a bad man. Cascio brothers are.

 

[ivy]

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

SSo the more I read this thread and the more I hear people elsewhere the more convinced I am that this issue will never end, the only chance if it's a slam dunk win for the plantiff.

ETA And even if the plantiff does win then forever more after that every time the estate so much as breathes they will have constant name calling and put downs. So from that point of view I don't know how,with either outcome, could we possibly move forward.

Call me naive but I still hope that this could help the fans to have some closure, find some answers and resolve issues. Some fans are looking for answers and I do think they can be quite reasonable (some not so much). I would personally love to see expert reports from either side and I'm highly interested in to see what people will say during depositions / under oath.

However I think and agree with Birchey's previous comment of "no hard evidence" so I don't think this will be slam dunk - not for any side. It'll be a battle of experts mainly. given the civil trials only require "more likely than not" (aka 51% - 49%) any verdict/outcome wouldn't be seen as definitive as well.

However some people aren't looking for answers, they are seeking a punishment. These people believe they know everything and they are absolutely correct. They aren't interested in information and nothing can change their minds. and I appreciate the above few posters for being honest about it. For example I would bet even if there's almost perfect evidence - imagine something like an expert report that says 99% certainty it's Michael and every expert agrees with that (ps : I know that's not possible, it's just an example) - there would be someone that says the evidence is doctored / faked. And I'm not limiting this to one side, both sides in this issue have equally biased people.

 

[ivy]

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

Also "whether it's all a plot from the estate." Plot from the estate???

that's a reference to some negative stuff said about the fan who filed this case.

I blame them they didn't react after they found out the truth

what makes you think they "found out the truth"? Branca told two members of this forum that he believes the songs to be legit. Weitzman repeated a similar statement after this lawsuit was filed. So it looks like while they think releasing these songs against fan reaction was a mistake (given they promise to not to release them anymore), it doesn't look like their position about the authenticity of the songs has changed.

and there's a difference between making a mistake and deliberate actions. So if they were fooled and therefore released the songs - it's understandable and isn't something to hold against them as it makes them a victim as well. However if they "found out the truth" and lying about it knowingly that's a whole different ballgame. I wouldn't see it as a victim anymore, they become a co-conspirator and aiding and abetting.

 

[czechstar]

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

Michael was perhaps not the most diligently organised person in the world, but he made notes about every nuance of his art, plans, goals. He filmed pretty much everything he did. He made multiple recordings of every track. He spent years sometimes on a single song; sometimes decades perfecting his vision. He was the ultimate perfectionist.

To the so-called believers, there is simply NO WAY Michael Jackson would have instructed anyone to delete earlier versions, demos, outtakes of the Cascio recordings. Aside from the freaking obvious fact that it is not Michael singing these songs, nothing about them and the way they were recorded makes sense given the history of the recording artist, his methods and well-documented perfectionism.

If the Estate put their hands up and admit they believe they might have been duped, remove the songs from the Michael album and official discography and promise to continue to honour Michael's legacy then we can all move on. Until they do, all that continues to get damaged is belief in genuine MJ tracks and his musical legacy.

It is not for fans without the inside knowledge to prove the tracks were recorded by Michael, it is for the Estate to prove they were. Sadly, that will not be possible... We can only hope for a quick resolution to this issue so we can get back to supporting the wonderful tracks on Xscape.

 

[OnirMJ]

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

what makes you think they "found out the truth"? Branca told two members of this forum that he believes the songs to be legit. Weitzman repeated a similar statement after this lawsuit was filed. So it looks like while they think releasing these songs against fan reaction was a mistake (given they promise to not to release them anymore), it doesn't look like their position about the authenticity of the songs has changed.

and there's a difference between making a mistake and deliberate actions. So if they were fooled and therefore released the songs - it's understandable and isn't something to hold against them as it makes them a victim as well. However if they "found out the truth" and lying about it knowingly that's a whole different ballgame. I wouldn't see it as a victim anymore, they become a co-conspirator and aiding and abetting.

I think they know the truth now, but just like the rest of us, they don't have any evidence because Cascio brothers and Porte destroyed them all. They can now use the experts and musicologists (because I doubt they did before releasing them) but it's to late. Damage has been done and they don't want any more damage. In one sentence - they ****ed up.

 

[OnirMJ]

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

Statement from the Estate like:

We apologize for releasing those songs, we now believe those songs are fake but we have no hard evidence to prove that. Cascio brothers may have fooled us. We can't sue them because we acted in a rush and bought those songs from them without asking for any proof because we were naive and thought that Michael's friends would not lie to us. Because there is no hard evidence to prove those songs are Michael Jackson and because Cascio brothers refuse to give us more explanations of the songs origins, the songs will be removed from Michael's official discography, itunes, amazon... and we will re-release MICHAEL album without those songs and replace them with 7 demos. Fans can exchange the CD for free or ask for their money back for the 3 songs. We deeply apologize. Thank you for your understanding.

That would be the right thing to do and a nice statement. I would forgive them.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

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

condescending? no just tired of explaining the same thing over and over and frustrated. it was merely to explain why people - even jurors- might go for a simple explanation but we can act like that's not a possibility.

and why do you take it personal? I did say that it wasn't limited to you or personal. Whether you like it or not there are extremists out there in regards to Cascio songs who would never ever accept anything but what they hear and what they believe and they say so. I don't get why we keep acting like everyone out there are reasonable or decent people. They aren't.

You don't think the repeated underlining and bolding of the terms "multiple" and "more than one", as if someone is ignorant to the definition of the term, is condescending?


Whatever, if you didn't mean it that way, so be it. That's how it comes off though.



And I'm not taking it personal, you just said "why do we krep acting like everyone out there are reasonable or decent people"..We aren't talking about everyone out there, we're talking about this forum. Your post even singled that out when you asked why we're acting like that if the Estate did bring forward proof, that we'd be willing to believe it. Fact is, none of us really have any clue who's reasonable and decent or not. However I've seen nothing from most people in this thread, that would lead me to believe anyone isn't decent or reasonable. Therefore I don't even think that statement was necessary as not much is known about many people outside of this forum, so assuming they're "unreasonable" and wouldn't be willing to admit being wrong after being show good evidence and proof is out of the question, for me.
As its a baseless and premature judgement of an individual.


And before anyone says "but you judge Eddie Cascio", he's given everyone perfect reason to be skeptical of him.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

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

So really this fan in your opinion is wasting her money as I doubt Michael was filmed. Extremist? request number 1 is somewhat extreme!

I have even had somebody tell me that they are waiting to see what evidence this fan presents before they decide whether it's all a plot from the estate.

So the more I read this thread and the more I hear people elsewhere the more convinced I am that this issue will never end, the only chance if it's a slam dunk win for the plantiff.

ETA And even if the plantiff does win then forever more after that every time the estate so much as breathes they will have constant name calling and put downs. So from that point of view I don't know how,with either outcome, could we possibly move forward.

Not true. The Estate will ALWAYS have their own "haters", however that doesn't nor has it ever spoken to the majority of the fanbase. Many have already acknowledged that perhaps the Estate wasn't so much involved in this scam after all, but them being desperate for brand new Michael hits led them to do the things they did, like purchasing these songs, deciding to release them despite all the red flags and concerns, which Cory Rooney claims were brought up during the infamous "meeting". So if she does win, I don't believe you'll get the amount of Estate attackers you're predicting. There will always be the anti- groups, that isn't going to change. And these tracks are little reason for that, as those people began to "hate the Estate" the moment the two John's were named as the executives of Michael's Estate and everything he owned.

 

[ivy]

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

we're talking about this forum. Your post even singled that out when you asked why we're acting like that if the Estate did bring forward proof, that we'd be willing to believe it.

and what's the issue with that? do you propose that everyone on this forum would believe Estate's evidence - such as an expert report as they mentioned? I'm pretty sure at least two members commented with "not Michael, period" and "only video of Michael". So I'll maintain my position that some people - on and off this forum- wouldn't believe and/or change their opinions based any evidence Estate/Sony/Cascio might bring. You might not behave like that but doesn't change the fact that there would be people who would act like that.

As its a baseless and premature judgement of an individual.

not really. first of all which individual? My post didn't name or target anyone specific. So who is getting offended by a general statement? If you feel that doesn't apply to you then it doesn't apply to you. secondly over the years I asked people multiple time what if they are wrong and heard responses how they cannot be wrong. My memory is really good to remember debates back in the day about a possible forensic analysis done by Estate and how people argued it could be faked, bought, not conclusive. and yes even in the last page two people have been honest about nothing would change their opinion - short of a miracle. So I see it as your Cascio example and I feel we all have been given enough examples and experienced a lot of discussions about this so I really don't see the need for denial.

Please look over my hypothetical I posted before: For example I would bet even if there's almost perfect evidence - imagine something like an expert report that says 99% certainty it's Michael and every expert agrees with that (ps : I know that's not possible, it's just an example) - there would be someone that says the evidence is doctored / faked.

Do you disagree with that? Do you claim everyone on this forum would accept such report? 100%? If your answer is no, then we are actually agreeing and whole this back and forth is wasting our time.

If the reason behind denial is because you think it's negative towards you or anti-cascio people let me remind that I also posted "And I'm not limiting this to one side, both sides in this issue have equally biased people.". Yes I know people who also refuses to even acknowledge the issues with these songs. So yeah the other side is equally flawed as well.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

What bothers me the most is that anyone can record anything under someone else's name and there seem to be no way to take this to court with an legitimate claim\evidence. At least that's my understanding from the comments here.

If we go by logic, you just need to tell people "that doesn't sound like X. I know his voice." and that's enough for an argument.
Say someone calls you and pretends to be your parents, you'd be able to say "that's not them". If someone asks how do you know or why do you think it's not them, "because I know their voices and it sounds nothing like them" would be a legitimate answer. Then anyone that claims otherwise would have to prove you are wrong... But we're talking about court. I know. It's just that I think there have to be some sort of precedents somewhere. It's not a usual case of actual, physical evidences unless of course there's a video of Michael recording those songs. And I also don't think Occam's razor is a good way to deal with case like this either.

 

[LastTear]

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

Not true. The Estate will ALWAYS have their own "haters", however that doesn't nor has it ever spoken to the majority of the fanbase. Many have already acknowledged that perhaps the Estate wasn't so much involved in this scam after all, but them being desperate for brand new Michael hits led them to do the things they did, like purchasing these songs, deciding to release them despite all the red flags and concerns, which Cory Rooney claims were brought up during the infamous "meeting". So if she does win, I don't believe you'll get the amount of Estate attackers you're predicting. There will always be the anti- groups, that isn't going to change. And these tracks are little reason for that, as those people began to "hate the Estate" the moment the two John's were named as the executives of Michael's Estate and everything he owned.

I don't really understand what you are saying is not true? You are right in as much as those very vocal estate haters would carry on regardless but this would give them plenty of ammunition and would be their answer for everything. I have been pleased to read on this board that for the most part fans would be willing to consider, if the plantiff wins, that the estate may have been deceived.