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

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

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.

That is indeed an important piece of information, but it is countered, I think, by the NY engineer saying that before MJ's death, Eddie had sent him songs to be mixed, "because MJ would record them in London". Eddie was paying that man to prepare the songs, and he proudly talked about who they were for. It wasn't like he was saying,"I'm hoping MJ considers them", but he asserted they were for MJ.

So maybe the list shows not that MJ didn't know about the songs, but only that he had given false hopes to Eddie and James. Or maybe it's a list of "his" songs from the vaults, which wouldn't include any material yet to be recorded.

Let's also be honest : even if the list included the title "Breaking News" or "All I Need", it would be seen as evidence that MJ WANTED to record them, not that he sang them in 2007.

However, I do agree this is an important piece of evidence.
 
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.

Indeed however; I seriously doubt they fear being overthrown.

No one wants to admit wrongdoing and what bothers me most about this lawsuit is that certain parties will not have to admit wrongdoing whether the lawsuit does not go to trial, whether it is settled, and regardless of outcome if it goes to trial. No scenario demands a public apology and the removal of the Cascio tracks from Michael's catalog. For me, that it is horribly unfair to Michael.

I know that is not Michael on those tracks however; how will fans feel if this does not go to trial or it is settled, or it goes to trial and regardless of outcome, the songs remain in Michael's catalog and no wrongdoing is admitted to by each party responsible? I will not feel justice was served.


Whoisit89, I have no issue with you disagreeing with my views however; I did not post my views, I posted the facts. Anyone is free to agree/disagree with the facts but, it does not change that they are indeed facts. See Ivy's post above. Same message, different messenger.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

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

I also agree that it definitely seems implausible.

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

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

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

Simple explanation: We sent people to the moon.

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

or think about Pyramids

simple explanation : Humans build Pyramids.

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

As you can see the moon landing conspiracy or Pyramid conspiracy requires way too many conditions to happen for it to be real therefore according to Occam's razor principle the simple explanation is most likely the correct one.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Occam's Razor
What about: "These songs don't sound anything like Michael Jackson?" Simplest explanation? They aren't Michael Jackson.

Instead of the excuses that they had to over-process, manipulate, distort, and screw with the songs to the point of not being able to recognize Michael Jackson, "but it's really him!!!" Maybe it just isn't. Maybe that's simplest.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

I haven't read the whole thread here, but I'm still waiting for the names of the "top forensics" that SONY and Estate employed for the analysis. Only the fact that they never put their names forward indicates that they hadn't been fully honnest.

Each serious study carries a signature, at least by using a pseudonym, but in this case for some reason, they want to make us believe that the forensics are the "top ones" who did a serious job, without hinting a single name. How convincing.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Haha..yea okay dude, just disregard the facts ad go on with your "your ears aren't working" theory. They're new vocals, and there aren't any known WBSS outtakes from the 80s in which Michael sounds like that.


Pretty obvious some people just cant stand to face when they've been proven wrong. Oh well...


Yeah, right. So where are the facts, where is the proof? You have none, as i tried to explain to you. You have PR texts full of obvious errors and hear-say, nothing more. If you don't hear what i hear, fine. I have no problem with that, and i never exclude the possibility to be wrong. So shouldn't you and get off your high horse.

But whatever, "dude"...
 
Last edited:
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 :

I think there are lots of fallacies in what you stated in this post. You represent all of us as saying that the Cascios did it for money. In reality, many of us said we do NOT feel they did it for money. I think that's more a side issue. I personally think Eddie did it more for prestige - a boost for his struggling career as a songwriter and producer by putting himself on an MJ record.

MJ himself, up to the minute before his death, would have scolded us for saying that about the Cascios.

Before his death he probably would have scolded us for saying anything bad about the Robsons as well. Yet, here we go with the crap the Robsons are trying to pull. So considering Robson and Safechuck I hope you realize this "they were MJ's friends all his life, why would they betray him now" argument is not a good one. Actually there is hardly any person in MJ's life who did not betray him one way or another at one point. As sad it is, it seems to be rather the "norm" than some exception that everyone wants to use him one way or another for their benefit.

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

The Cascios DO auction off stuff from Michael on eBay.

And no, child abuse allegations are not necessarily a quicker and easier way (only Robson and Safechuck have no other choice to extort money from MJ's Estate). Wade made his allegations over one year ago and he has not seen a dime yet. (Hopefully never will.) His case did not go much forward in this one year and it may never get to court, considering statues of limitations. I think what Eddie did is probably a quicker way to get money, actually, because I would think he got paid some for the songs he turned in. But like I said, I don't think money was the main issue to him either way.

Plus, false child abuse allegations are the lowest of low, not everyone is prepered to sink THAT low. I do believe Eddie and the Cascios love Michael enough to (hopefully) never to sink that low. But maybe they thought forging some songs is something that is more "harmless".


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).

I don't think they were overly cunning. I think the problem is that MJ's Estate and Sony who were so desperate for new MJ songs that they were willing to turn a blind eye on certain red flags which enabled this scam. Like people raising concerns about the vocals at meetings. Like every evidence that could possibly link these songs to MJ being allegedly destroyed - hard drives etc. I think at the very least more due diligence should have been done on these songs and not rush them on the first MJ posthumus album. If there are concerns then park these songs until the concerns are fully resolved.

Not only that but they actually had the audacity to put out Breaking News as the promotion single. Sometimes I wonder if they intended to test us - whether we would it eat it up and if we would then there would be no limits any more to "discovering" an abundance of "unreleased MJ material". It would never run out then...
 
Last edited:
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

I don't think they were overly cunning. I think the problem is that MJ's Estate and Sony who were so desperate for new MJ songs that they were willing to turn a blind eye on certain red flags which enabled this scam. Like people raising concerns about the vocals at meetings. Like every evidence that could possibly link these songs to MJ being allegedly destroyed - hard drives etc. I think at the very least more due diligence should have been done on these songs and not rush them on the first MJ posthumus album. If there are concerns then park these songs until the concerns are fully resolved.

Not only that but they actually had the audacity to put out Breaking News as the promotion single. Sometimes I wonder if they intended to test us - whether we would it eat it up and if we would then there would be no limits any more to "discovering" an abundance of "unreleased MJ material". It would never run out then...

I don't think it helped matters with the Cascios holding the songs right up until the last minute we already know Teddy worked on them in a flash and then got onto Hollywood Tonight and that he mix was recalled several times, the whole album was rushed and had to be pushed back for numerous reasons, 3 or potentially 4 "ready" songs might have been too hard to "give up"
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

That is indeed an important piece of information, but it is countered, I think, by the NY engineer saying that before MJ's death, Eddie had sent him songs to be mixed, "because MJ would record them in London". Eddie was paying that man to prepare the songs, and he proudly talked about who they were for. It wasn't like he was saying,"I'm hoping MJ considers them", but he asserted they were for MJ.

So maybe the list shows not that MJ didn't know about the songs, but only that he had given false hopes to Eddie and James. Or maybe it's a list of "his" songs from the vaults, which wouldn't include any material yet to be recorded.

Let's also be honest : even if the list included the title "Breaking News" or "All I Need", it would be seen as evidence that MJ WANTED to record them, not that he sang them in 2007.

However, I do agree this is an important piece of evidence.


Got a link or something for that? I just recall Eddie being the only one who said Michael would continue work on them in London. Even if the engineer did say that, he was told so by Eddie. Who essentially is the only source for this information. Not a really a good counter argument I think, personally. It makes that info extremely unreliable because of course, its coming from Eddie Cascio.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Double post.


Yeah, right. So where are the facts, where is the proof? You have none, as i tried to explain to you. You have PR texts full of obvious errors and hear-say, nothing more. If you don't hear what i hear, fine. I have no problem with that, and i never exclude the possibility to be wrong. So shouldn't you and get off your high horse.

But whatever, "dude"...

Thats funny considering you said specifically that those of us who realize those were new vocals were, your words not mine, "having a hard time using our ears".

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

What about: "These songs don't sound anything like Michael Jackson?" Simplest explanation? They aren't Michael Jackson.

Instead of the excuses that they had to over-process, manipulate, distort, and screw with the songs to the point of not being able to recognize Michael Jackson, "but it's really him!!!" Maybe it just isn't. Maybe that's simplest.

are we reading the same thread? or do you remember Great debate?

First of all Occam's razor not like "It's Michael", "It's not Michael". It's you look to an event and explain HOWit happened.

I don't want to write the full explanation for the anti-cascio theory but just in the few pages we have seen part of HOW "It's not Michael" explained. for example apparently Malachi agreed to fake the vocals, took a vacation from work, lied about being oversees but did a status update suspicious enough for the researcher fans. Brawley is portrayed as thief stealing songs, leaking songs, has financial problems but also skilled in voice manipulation who can be bought,without morals or disgruntled enough to be a part of a fraud. Also simultaneously this is the perfect crime with no hard evidence and no witness but also it's the worst crime that researchers were able to collect a lot of proof sometimes even as easily as from facebook/blog posts.

Again I don't want to list the full theory but there's nothing "simple" about it. It's filled with a lot of assumptions, conditions and a lot of ifs.

Finally if it's not clear let me say explicitly I'm not making any claims about which theory is the correct one. I merely explained how and why people might reject explanations that has way too many elements/conditions and seem hard to achieve and far fetched. For example people might look to Pyramids and get suspicious and ask themselves "how did the humans achieved to do this back in the day with no advance technology" but then also reject the alien theory because of the conditions/assumptions required for it to happen. And my intent should have been clear from my examples not being mj or cascio related. so it was quite unneeded to bring it back to cascio example.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Double post.




Thats funny considering you said specifically that those of us who realize those were new vocals were, your words not mine, "having a hard time using our ears".

Lol, but okay.


That's not a direct quote from me.
Unlike you, i always use a lot of "i guess", "it seems" etc when i'm expressing theories,
which helps to not come across like an arrogant smart-ass. ;-P

Aaaaanyway... End of off-topic.
 
Last edited:
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

About bloody time. These tracks are horrid
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Occam's razor

Since when has anything in Michael's world ever been simple / not complecated? :)
Might rather be the case of Hickam's dictum here. :D
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Re: WBSS

There is grid in his voice in the original WBSS. Not in the used take of that verse, but in a few other parts.

But anyway... I guess that those who badly want to have a real Michael / fake Michael comparison for the year 2008, have a hard time listing with open ears.

The Cascio songs are fake, but i don't think that WBSS 2008 is helping to prove that.


Oh and to say that he sounds the same on WBSS2008, Hold My Hand and Best Of Joy, is just beyond words. He clearly doesn't. But whatever...


Give it up bro. So what you used "I guess", you said exactly what I said you did.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Let's stop guessing and start admitting what you hear and what you don't hear.

On a side note, instead of trying to explain how, why, when, where it happened, let's start by getting the names of the forensics that the Estate and SONY employed and let's see their analysis. Straight to the point.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

are we reading the same thread? or do you remember Great debate?

First of all Occam's razor not like "It's Michael", "It's not Michael". It's you look to an event and explain HOWit happened.

I don't want to write the full explanation for the anti-cascio theory but just in the few pages we have seen part of HOW "It's not Michael" explained. for example apparently Malachi agreed to fake the vocals, took a vacation from work, lied about being oversees but did a status update suspicious enough for the researcher fans. Brawley is portrayed as thief stealing songs, leaking songs, has financial problems but also skilled in voice manipulation who can be bought,without morals or disgruntled enough to be a part of a fraud. Also simultaneously this is the perfect crime with no hard evidence and no witness but also it's the worst crime that researchers were able to collect a lot of proof sometimes even as easily as from facebook/blog posts.
But Aniram's point is about the how's. His point is that explaining how the vocals ended up sounding nothing like MJ is much easier for the anti-people (it's not Michael) than for the pro-people.

You are focusing on a lot of details about how and when it exactly went down. These are things we cannot know for sure about, I don't think anyone claims to do so. You can make an equally long and confusing explanation for the pro-Cascio theory of how these songs came about, if you focus on all the details. Apparently Michael recorded only guide vocals, and he sang through a PVC pipe, and the acoustics in the shower influenced his voice, and they had to use processing on the vocals to get him in key. There are no raw tracks available because Michael was so happy with them that he wanted them destroyed, yet at the same time Eddie says he wanted to work on them again in London. While at the same time, no trace of these songs is found in any of Michael's notes. Or, Eddie does not want to share outtakes with anyone because he is a private, family-focused individual. Michael generally worked on completing songs for years, but because Eddie's mom's pasta was so invigorating, he got inspired and finished twelve in a row in less than three months. Etc. All this is also based on assumptions, and sometimes even on things that can be disproven.

The point is, unless you think the vocals DO sound like Michael, there is no extremely simple explanation. Both the pro and anti-explanations do not have all the facts and are fuzzy on the details about how things went down, who exactly was involved, etc. However, the difference between the pro and anti-explanations imo is that the anti-explanations can easily explain why the vocals sound different (it's not MJ), whereas the pro camp cannot, if only for the fact that so many contradictory explanations have been given.

(And I know you are not specifically talking about one or the other explanations ivy, I just developed this thought after reading your post.)
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

are we reading the same thread? or do you remember Great debate?

First of all Occam's razor not like "It's Michael", "It's not Michael". It's you look to an event and explain HOWit happened.

I don't want to write the full explanation for the anti-cascio theory but just in the few pages we have seen part of HOW "It's not Michael" explained. for example apparently Malachi agreed to fake the vocals, took a vacation from work, lied about being oversees but did a status update suspicious enough for the researcher fans. Brawley is portrayed as thief stealing songs, leaking songs, has financial problems but also skilled in voice manipulation who can be bought,without morals or disgruntled enough to be a part of a fraud. Also simultaneously this is the perfect crime with no hard evidence and no witness but also it's the worst crime that researchers were able to collect a lot of proof sometimes even as easily as from facebook/blog posts.

Again I don't want to list the full theory but there's nothing "simple" about it. It's filled with a lot of assumptions, conditions and a lot of ifs.

Finally if it's not clear let me say explicitly I'm not making any claims about which theory is the correct one. I merely explained how and why people might reject explanations that has way too many elements/conditions and seem hard to achieve and far fetched. For example people might look to Pyramids and get suspicious and ask themselves "how did the humans achieved to do this back in the day with no advance technology" but then also reject the alien theory because of the conditions/assumptions required for it to happen. And my intent should have been clear from my examples not being mj or cascio related. so it was quite unneeded to bring it back to cascio example.


It initially wasn't us though who came with these so called "Occum Razor" theories. It was the promoters of the songs. Judging from what you described, they're the ones who claimed it was Michael, but that he sounds the way he does because he recorded in a shower using a PVC pipe...Think about that. When confronted with, well why are there no alternate takes consistent with Michaels past work, well he adored these songs of all, so much that he ordered them destroyed. Why aren't any of these songs included on his personal list, "well, well uhh..." There's no explanation for that. When simply asked, how did they know its Michael, "that scream, nobody does that scream like Michael." Oh, okay...

Why aren't there anything consistent with Michaels past work in progress material, like the headphone bleeding, the foot stomps, the hand claps, etc.."Michael was sick". Simplest explanation is it isn't Michael. But we were told all these non-sense theories as to why it supposedly is him.

So I dont see how one can blame fans and basically label them conspiracy theorists when it was those who made these songs who came up with all these questionable, inconsistent claims.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

I find it sad that a community rips itself apart over this. Sure, i love a good debate, but i think people on both sides of the album debate need to realize that there probably (although i could be wrong here) wont be a solid conclusion. Mainly because of the lack of evidence, it's a civil case, which means that the verdict is on the balance of probability, in other words "who is more likely right". Even if the fan loses, or the Cascio's for that matter, it won't mean much in the way of answers.

At the end of the day, it will be about our opinions. I personally don't hear Michael on those tracks, but im not going to berate someone for thinking otherwise.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

I find it sad that a community rips itself apart over this. Sure, i love a good debate, but i think people on both sides of the album debate need to realize that there probably (although i could be wrong here) wont be a solid conclusion. Mainly because of the lack of evidence, it's a civil case, which means that the verdict is on the balance of probability, in other words "who is more likely right". Even if the fan loses, or the Cascio's for that matter, it won't mean much in the way of answers.

At the end of the day, it will be about our opinions. I personally don't hear Michael on those tracks, but im not going to berate someone for thinking otherwise.


I havent seen anyone berate anybody in this thread for having thier opinions. All I'm seeing is various opinions being disputed by research, among many other things.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

You are focusing on a lot of details about how and when it exactly went down.

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

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

Second you explain why / how.

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

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

Second explanation: A deliberate fraud was committed.
How was this committed, what are the conditions required for it to happen?
Michael by luck or by planning or even by being lured by Eddie came to NJ, worked on T25 songs on that basement studio - required condition to place him into the cascio studio working on some songs to give these songs existence probability
Songs mentioned to a sound engineer before MJ's death as songs MJ worked or will work on so that's either the truth or proof of establishing a lie dating before MJ's death - required condition to explain some comments
Working on songs mentioned to Dileo and/or he was bought for his support - required condition to explain dileo's comments
Songs registered two days after MJ's death, with an audio recording and performance credit - required condition for early planning to claim MJ was involved in those songs some way
It was also the stupidest thing to do as it proves an evidence of wrongdoing
Eddie Cascio member of a family who stood by and defended Michael for decades quickly sold Michael after his death either for lack of morals, wanting fame, wanting money or so on - required condition to explain his behavior
Malachi agreed to part take in the vocals either lack of morals or for money - required condition to explain Malachi involvement.
Brawley agreed to take part in the fraud due to lack of morals, for money, having issues with Michael. Luckily Brawley not only has stole and leak songs but he's also an expert in voice manipulation - required condition to explain his involvement
Friedman either is fooled or bought to vouch for the authenticity of the songs - required condition to explain his stories
At least 4 people (Cascio, Porte, Malachi, Brawley) and even more people (depending on whatever theory you have) know about the fraud but they kept silent - required condition to explain why no admittance or "witness" to an event came forward
No party that is involved or know or should have known have slipped in the last 4 years but they also left a lot of evidence and breadcrumbs on the public social media.
Estate and Sony either fooled or a part of the conspiracy - required condition to explain the release of the songs
A top 100 power lawyer with many celebrity clients and millions in earnings released a statement that's lie - required condition to explain why weitzman's statement is rejected
Multiple people that worked with Michael before says it's him as they are either fooled or bought in some way - required condition to explain names of the people on estate statement
However this unauthentic songs was easily identifiable by ears of the long term fans - required condition to explain fans position
So therefore this fake songs are simultaneously easy to fool/hard to identify and impossible to fool/easy to identify
It's a perfect crime with no hard evidence and no witness but it's also the stupidest crime with fans being able to collect a lot of proof enough to write books and win lawsuits.


Now is it clear? I kinda wish you didn't make me to spell it out. I was deliberately talking about pyramids and moon landing and so on.
 
Last edited:
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Using Occam's razor to explain that a dude who doesn't sound like MJ is MJ leads to believe that there's no perfect crime in theory (which is absurd in reality). Preference for Occam's razor explanation does not equal the accuracy of the (unkonwn to us) facts in reality.

A mastermind plan could easily resist the Occam's razor theory.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

A mastermind plan could easily resist the Occam's razor theory.

Sure it could. Occam's razor does not say a complex explanation is impossible - please people better reading comprehension. It only argues simplest explanation is most likely. so going back to kreen's post so therefore we could call this "Cascio's Eleven" then. Sure why not. and like you said Kreen's whole post was this requires "a mastermind plan" - like you said - for it to happen. So we all agree that a deliberate attempt of fraud/faking songs is a complex plan?
 
Last edited:
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Sure it could. Occam's razor does not say a complex explanation is impossible - please people better reading comprehension. It only argues simple explanation is most likely. so going back to kreen's post so therefore we could call this "Cascio's Eleven" then. Sure why not.

"Cascio's eleven" is however a bit exaggerated. No such complexity is required.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

In science Occam's razor is used and it can also be used in court cases when you have to chose between two theories that both have about the same amount of evidence for them. Then you go with the more simple explanation. But when one theory has an overwhelming amount of evidence for it and the other does not, it does not matter if the latter is the more simple, you will have to go with the theory that has evidence supporting it, even if it seems more complicated.

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

My point is until we do not know what evidence each side has, many of these premises can actually be wrong.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

"Cascio's eleven" is however a bit exaggerated. No such complexity is required.

Actually it is "Cascio's Twelve".
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

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

I don't necessarily blame Branca & Co. For that as I understand they're running a business. It isn't such a complex theory, really.
 
Here is, for those who would like to read it again or for the first time, my complete email correspondence with Angelo Montrone, of Majestic Music Factory, in Brooklyn, who is the sound engineer to whom Eddie Cascio and James Porte sent several of the "Cascio tracks" in the early summer of 2009 -- before MJ's death. Enjoy!



Hello,

Surfing the Web, some Michael Jackson fans have noticed that you worked on some of the tracks that were eventually released on the “Michael” album from Sony back in 2010.

As you might remember, those tracks created controversy, and while this controversy has died down in the mainstream media, it is still going strong on Michael Jackson Internet forums, where every effort is still being made to determine how much input MJ had into those songs, and indeed whether he ever even recorded them.

Considering your early involvement in this project, would you mind telling us a bit about your impression of the authenticity of the vocals?

Mainly, did you get the impression working on the tracks that no MJ vocals for those songs existed as of yet, and that they were to come later, or do you agree that there may have been early MJ guide or demo vocals existing before you were handed the tracks?

Thank you very much for your time.

***

Hi,

I assume you are the person who contacted me on Gearslutz. Unfortunately, I never got a straight story as to where they were with MJ in the process. Porte had written on quite a few songs with him and supposedly MJ had laid down some roughs, other things were going to be done later etc. Most of my conversation with Porte centered around the mixes as opposed to the logistics of when they were going to track vocals. We tracked some background vocals for Keep Your Head Up with Katia Cadet in late May and then I was mixing. I sent them my mixes in early June and MJ passed away a few weeks later so there certainly was time for MJ to have recorded his tracks.

On the other hand, I remember hearing the MJ track with headphones after it was released and thinking, "This could be MJ, but it's not MJ doing a great vocal." Maybe that was a rough, maybe it was because of his physical condition and the fact that he had grown older. The only raw MJ tracks I have ever heard were when they did the transfers of Thriller for the 25th anniversary (for Kanye to remix). Because I was an producer/A&R consultant for Sony at the time, I was in the studio and able to listen to all the tracks individually. Listening to MJ's vocal on it's own demonstrated what a great singer he was. Absolutely killer. However, that was 25 years earlier when MJ was young and healthy.

If you want an answer you have to figure out what MJ did between June 3 when I sent the final mix and June 25 when he passed away (and account for the fact that there may have been a guide that MJ had sung during the songwritng that could have been used after the fact).

Regards,

Angelo

***
Hello,

Thank you very much for your answer. I'm not the person who contacted you on Gearslutz, but that must have been somebody else from the same MJ forums I belong to; sorry if too many of us are bothering you at the same time.

It is 100% certain that the vocals that were eventually released on the "Michael" album were NOT recorded between June 3 and June 25; the producers/writers themselves have always claimed that the vocals, such as they are, were recorded in 2007, in Eddie Cascio (Porte's songwriting partner)'s family home, where he has a home studio.

In your email, you mention the following : "Porte had written on quite a few songs with him and supposedly MJ had laid down some roughs, other things were going to be done later etc." This is a HUGELY important point. Did Porte, in his conversations with you, before MJ's death, mention that he had some rough vocals from MJ? If he did mention or imply that he already had some rough vocals from MJ, that would support the official story, which is that all of those vocals that ended up on the album were rough/guide vocals from MJ, recorded in Cascio's home studio, as they were collaborating on the songs.

I thank you again for this information, which is immensely fascinating.
***
Hi,

I can't say with any certainty about what Porte and Cascio (Angel as we called him) had done vocally with MJ on any of the songs that I worked on. I worked on 3 or 4 songs for which they sent me audio and Porte's guide vocals only. Porte does sound a lot like MJ himself.

From what your telling me that Porte and Angelo claimed, it would make sense to me. I know that they had worked on tracks for MJ at Angel's NJ studio (I think they did one of the bonus tracks on the Thriller 25th there), and I was under the impression that they had done guides with MJ on the songs we were working on. Again, I never sat there and drilled them on exactly what they had or hadn't done, because it wasn't relevant to what I was doing. Usually if you're writing with an artist the artist will sing the track to make sure the key is good, the song sounds good with their voice etc, so I would assume that there were some guides done by MJ based on the normal way things are done.

I'm sure this is a tough nut to crack. If you know for sure MJ didn't record after I sent the mixes, well, it's very likely that there were existing guide vox the producer had at their disposal. Beyond that it becomes very murky. There are so many studio tricks that are used on singers to enhance their voices which are just part of modern pop music (pitch correction, copying words from other parts of the song, comping between takes, sliding things around, having another singer's voice blended in subtly to enhance the sound of the lead vocalist) and no doubt that if the producer were working with MJ's rough vocals they were using some of those tricks, which I'm sure MJ himself had used on previous albums (as everyone does to some degree).

You can quote me on the discussion forums but please send me a link to anything you post so I can verity that I'm being quoted correctly.

Hope this helps,

Angelo
***
Hello again,

This is fascinating; thank you so much.

With your permission, I will copy our complete correspondence on the MJ Forum I am a member of; I will also send you the link.

As you might be aware, the controversy regarding those songs is that many people claim that James Porte and Eddie Cascio never had any MJ vocals; not even guide vocals. When MJ died, they simply hired an impersonator to record their tracks, and it is those fake vocals -- according to many -- that are now on the official "Michael" album. That is why I insisted on the very precise point of whether they had told you anything -- before MJ's death -- that implied either that they had MJ's rough vocals in the can, or on the contrary that they didn't have any MJ vocals yet.

If you should remember any additional detail regarding this issue -- or if you ever obtain more information from Eddie Cascio and James Porte, who have both been mostly silent on the controversy -- please do not hesitate to share with me, as this is a maddeningly frustrating situation for MJ fans and music lovers in general.

Thank you again for your time.
***
Hi,

Yes, you can reprint my letter on your forum.

My impression is that there were MJ vocals in existence and that probably those are what was used with various enhancements. I understand why people question it. The vocals on that album are not what people are used to hearing. Some of his vibratos sound off etc, but again if they were doing digital enhancements to make the best of rough vocals that could have been it, maybe MJ just wasn't singing his best because he was just learning the song etc.

What I find amusing about these arguments is that no one ever mentions the fact that Porte himself is a great MJ impersonator. If they were going to fake the tracks, which I don't think they did, Porte would have done it himself.

That's why I take a 95% stance that they are probably real and reserve that last 5% for the slim possibility that some of it could have been faked. When I was working on the roughs, it was almost eery that the vocals already sounded a lot like MJ but were sung by Porte to sound like MJ (they definitely were not MJ, ultimately I could hear that). So first I have these tracks that are eerily sounding like MJ but aren't, then 2 weeks after I submit them MJ passes away, and then there is the whole controversy around the potentially fake vocals, and all along we had joked that Porte could make a living as an MJ impersonator!

I think it's cool that you guys are searching for some truth in all this which is why I'm happy to share some information. Most people who worked on that album are probably more concerned with covering their own asses than revealing what they know.

Regards,

Angelo
***
Hello,
As you can imagine, my posting of our correspondence on the MJ Forum ignited quite a response. Among all of the questions raised, two strike me as particularly pertinent. Since you seem enthusiastic about helping us with this issue, I take the liberty of asking you both questions here:

1- If James Porte already had real MJ guide vocals from 2007 when he handed you the tracks in 2009, why didn’t he put those MJ vocals on the tracks, instead of using his own vocals, especially if he was going to try to sing like MJ anyway?

2- As you know, the vibrato on the Cascio tracks is pretty “shaky”. Those who believe a fraud took place hold that no post-production technique – no music software, no studio trickery – could explain MJ’s natural voice changing into such a weak, shaky vibrato : it has to be an impersonator. Do you agree that the vibrato, as heard on songs like “Breaking News” or “Keep your Head Up”, is a giveaway that it is not MJ singing, or are you aware, as a sound engineer, of other ways in which such an odd-sounding vibrato could have been achieved, voluntarily or not?

I hope that I’m not asking too much of your patience by pestering you with even more questions now. If you choose to no longer answer any more questions, I understand and thank you for your cooperation so far.
***
Hi,

I've been traveling and haven't had a chance to respond to you.

You're answers:

1. It made sense to me on a high profile project like this that they wouldn't send a track of MJ doing a rough because they'd be concerned about his vocal being leaked.

2. The shakey vibrato could be an artifact from pitch correction if the original pitch was sharp (dropping the pitch can make things sound deeper and slower). Also, Autotune has a parameter for adding vibrato -in other words it can track the pitch so tightly that it takes away a singer's natural vibrato and it can recreate it by introducing it's own warble (which the user can set speed and variation). You can download an online instruction manual from Anteres to read more about this. In fact, you could download a free trial and try this yourself and experiment to get an idea of how it effects the voice.

Hope this helps,

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

Give it up bro. So what you used "I guess", you said exactly what I said you did.

I didn't say that i didn't. And i even MIGHT be right. :D
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

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