He's still at it on Twitter claiming Michael destroyed his face, his fans are 'crazy' for suggesting otherwise and damaging MJs reputation and that the tip of Michael's was fake and a prosthetic, even claiming it was a different colour. The guy is an obnoxious dick and I can't stand him.
He makes Damien and co. look a lot worse because he is affiliated with them.
F.U.C.K. Charles Thompson. He is a moron. Move on.
On the other hand Damien is a hero no matter what the corporate judges say.
You can be critical but you can also outright hate on someone. Saying they have a prosthetic nose is a vile thing to say, even worse when you try and back it up.
I'm really surprised nobody has posted about the recent developments.
https://mobile.twitter.com/damienshields/status/1073076828955238400
I saw that on Twitter.
How encouraged should we be at this point?
Honestly I wouldn't get your hopes up imo, the decision will most likely be the same as it was last time.
The case isn't heard by the Supreme Court at all. The Supreme Court will review the appeal court's ruling. It will then transfer back the case to the Californian court. That's it.
It wouldn't surprise me if Shields & Co. don't understand this procedure, there's also nothing for any precedence because the law and thus consumer rights have not been undermined. It's Shields & Co. not understanding the ruling at all. For a precedence you need proof, there's none because there hasn't even been a trial. There was no ruling that would suddenly allow art forgery which is not legal in the US in general and also in California. Shields has been talking a lot of nonsense lately which only shows his lack of legal expertise, thus not being able to follow the developments of this case and providing severly wrong information to his readers.
The case isn't heard by the Supreme Court at all. The Supreme Court will review the appeal court's ruling. It will then transfer back the case to the Californian court. That's it.
It wouldn't surprise me if Shields & Co. don't understand this procedure, there's also nothing for any precedence because the law and thus consumer rights have not been undermined. It's Shields & Co. not understanding the ruling at all. For a precedence you need proof, there's none because there hasn't even been a trial. There was no ruling that would suddenly allow art forgery which is not legal in the US in general and also in California. Shields has been talking a lot of nonsense lately which only shows his lack of legal expertise, thus not being able to follow the developments of this case and providing severly wrong information to his readers.
Ok, we know it already. You love these fake songs and you believe they are Michael Jackson. It's not necessary to undermine this great achievement!
StellaJackson;4229258 said:
Faking Michael is an investigative podcast series detailing the 8-year quest for the truth about a collection of 12 allegedly-fake Michael Jackson songs. The songs, known as the Cascio tracks, were sold to Sony by Jackson’s longtime friend, music producer Eddie Cascio, and his collaborative partner, James Porte, in mid 2010 — a year after the singer’s sudden death. Upon hearing them, members of the Jackson family, a number of producers who worked with Michael throughout his career, and thousands of fans around the world accused Cascio and Porte of fraud, insisting that the songs were fakes — sung not by Jackson, but by an impersonator. Undeterred by the controversy, Jackson’s estate and record label insisted the vocals were authentic, officially attributing the Cascio tracks to the King of Pop when three of them were released by Epic Records on the Michael album in December 2010. But strong doubts regarding the authenticity of the tracks remain.
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/faking-michael/id1434372710?mt=2&i=1000418631848
Forensic audiologist Dr. George Papcun did an analysis and concluded it is not Michael.Is there anything besides testimony that shows it's not Michael in the recordings?
Forensic audiologist Dr. George Papcun did an analysis and concluded it is not Michael.
See: http://www.damienshields.com/exclusive-forensic-report-concludes-fake-mj-songs-released/
When Breaking News was streamed and fans were outraged, the Estate claimed they had hired forensic experts, one of whom they say concluded it was Michael. However, they never told us who these experts were, nor were we given any information about their reports. In other words, who knows if it's even true - we certainly cannot verify it ourselves.Weren't there other forensic audiologist analyses that concluded that it is Michael?
I haven't thought about this for a really long time, but I vaguely remember that being stated in articles.
SoCav;4287947 said:In contrast, we do have access to Papcun's entire report, and can check his resume. Papcun also says the various methods he used as part of his analysis are much more detailed and accurate than a waveform analysis (which the Estate says their expert conducted).
^And into Jason Malachi's
^And into Jason Malachi's