Michael - The Great Album Debate

[ivy]

Ivy, I think that you have missed many articles in many newspapers then. Michael was portrayed worldwide as a paedophile by many newspapers and magazines wioth loads of pictures suggesting that Michael slept with all those boys. The newspapers of course were even not aware that the boys that tehy were showing were sometimes his nephews, or family or family's friends. I even don't need to mention the picture of Michael holding Avrizo's hand on the whole page and in colors.

Correct. They were accusing him of sleeping with boys the day after the Bashir documentary.

I know that. And I'm saying they were all after the 1993 Chandler accusations, the law enforcement investigation, the photograph of MJ's genitalia and the 10 year tip line established by the DA and the case was kept open. I'm saying that Sun didn't decide one day they would call Michael a molester, they wrote the stories after a criminal complaint was filed in 1993.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I know that. And I'm saying they were all after the 1993 Chandler accusations, the law enforcement investigation, the photograph of MJ's genitalia and the 10 year tip line established by the DA and the case was kept open. I'm saying that Sun didn't decide one day they would call Michael a molester, they wrote the stories after a criminal complaint was filed in 1993.

Some newspapers were accusing him even before the 1993 case after La Toya's statements.

 

[ivy]

Some newspapers were accusing him even before the 1993 case after La Toya's statements.

Latoya's statement was after the Chandlers criminal complaint to the police. In her book she clearly writes that she heard the allegations on TV days before. She claims that she asked Gordon to allow her to defend Michael with a statement but Gordon forced her to read that accusation statement.

 

[Korgnex]

What you forgot is that unfortunately the newspapers had a basis for such tabloid stories: the accusations from the Chandlers.
So they were looking for people who wanted to tell stories related to the accusations made by Chandlers and that's what they did. Not respecting human rights, of course. But you can't hold them responsible as long as they are not proven to make up such stories themselves but by selling stories from people who wanted to bad-mouth MJ for some cash.

That's reality.

Now to Cascios again: There's no basis for any newspaper to develop an interesting story that could sell well. Why should they publish the claims by some fans?

The only way for you to expose their alleged fraud is a court case - and someone's currently trying to do exactly what you want someone to do.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Latoya's statement was after the Chandlers criminal complaint to the police. In her book she clearly writes that she heard the allegations on TV days before. She claims that she asked Gordon to allow her to defend Michael with a statement but Gordon forced her to read that accusation statement.

No. I was referring to another statement that was circulating in 1990-1991. I still have the article somewhere in my attick.

p.s. I even remember Michael's shirt in that article - green.

 

[StellaJackson]

It's important to point out that the notion of the tracks being fraudulent and the possible involvement of Jason Cupeta originated before any fan had even heard Breaking News. I'm curious to know who the first person was to name drop Cupeta to the Estate.

 

[StellaJackson]

No. I was referring to another statement that was circulating in 1990-1991. I still have the article somewhere in my attick.

p.s. I even remember Michael's shirt in that article - green.

Yes, it was 1991 when she first made such an allegation.

 

[Willy]

Well, then the media could simply report fans' "campaign for truth", if there was one.

 

[ivy]

Well, then the media could simply report fans' "campaign for truth", if there was one.

they reported "the controversy" which is the best that you'll get and that's old news now.

 

[StellaJackson]

Why the desperation to sweep this under the rug?

 

[ivy]

Why the desperation to sweep this under the rug?

desperation? who, what?

It's been 9 months since the album release, they reported the controversy and there's no new information or proof whatsoever. It's a dead story for the media. It's also a non-interest topic to the Jacksons who mentioned their concerns. We are the only ones that's been discussing this issue. Like it , hate it. It's the reality.

 

[StellaJackson]

desperation? who, what?

It's been 9 months since the album release, they reported the controversy and there's no new information or proof whatsoever. It's a dead story for the media. It's also a non-interest topic to the Jacksons who mentioned their concerns. We are the only ones that's been discussing this issue. Like it , hate it. It's the reality.

No more proof? I would call saturday major proof. Yet more believers have come to the side of the doubters following that stuff.

 

[ivy]

No more proof? I would call saturday major proof. Yet more believers have come to the side of the doubters following that stuff.

legal proof

let me try this again. Accusing people of criminal acts is automatic defamation in USA. The only way to get out of that defamation is truth - proving what you said to be truth. Truth is established in a court of law based on evidence. To establish truth in a court of law you'll need hard solid proof that would hold in a court.

In short if a person hears a snippet and changes their mind about the songs - fine - it's their personal opinion. However "I ain't hearing Michael" isn't going to get people / media out of defamation lawsuits.

 

[StellaJackson]

A snippet? We are talking 12 complete songs performed by Jason Cupeta. That could not be any more obvious. Can you really believe that Fall in Love, with it's out of tune singing, god awful vibrato which is not a result of processing, and weak, young amateurish voice is Michael Jackson?

 

[ivy]

Doesn't matter what I believe or what you believe. It won't hold in court.

and it was that "obvious" we wouldn't be having this discussion and someone - like Jacksons - would have been suing Sony. That didn't happen , did it?

 

[StellaJackson]

The Jacksons aren't interested in anything that doesn't make them a profit. It's far more complicated than that. And yes it is that obvious to those who have actually listened to this stuff.

 

[ivy]

The Jacksons aren't interested in anything that doesn't make them a profit. It's far more complicated than that. And yes it is that obvious to those who have actually listened to this stuff.

if you CAREFULLY read what I wrote, you would realize that I clearly stated that it's fine if you or anyone else BELIEVE it to be OBVIOUS that it's not Michael. What I'm trying to say - and you really tired me- that WON'T HOLD IN COURT. and I wouldn't expect any media to put their neck out and make CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS without evidence that would be legally acceptable to keep them out of trouble.

You are all across the board, comparing apples to oranges, skipping from subject to subject. I need a drink.

 

[StellaJackson]

if you CAREFULLY read what I wrote, you would realize that I clearly stated that it's fine if you or anyone else BELIEVE it to be OBVIOUS that it's not Michael. What I'm trying to say - and you really tired me- that WON'T HOLD IN COURT. and I wouldn't expect any media to put their neck out and make CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS without evidence that would be legally acceptable to keep them out of trouble.

You are all across the board, comparing apples to oranges, skipping from subject to subject. I need a drink.

I don't know. I think the evidence is legally acceptable. I think you're quite wrong on the legal side of it.

 

[ivy]

I don't know. I think the evidence is legally acceptable. I think you're quite wrong on the legal side of it.

I previously wrote a detailed explanation about it. In short format :
- any comparison videos/audios aren't acceptable because they are leading.
- what we hear isn't fool proof
- opinions are evaluated on credentials and knowledge. in most cases an expert opinion are going to be more highly weighted than a fan
- fans (we are all) biased in regards to this subject, that makes us terrible witnesses.

If I was quite wrong on the legal side of it, this debate would have been long solved in a court of law. If you have legally acceptable evidence, what is stopping you?

 

[StellaJackson]

I previously wrote a detailed explanation about it. In short format :
- any comparison videos/audios aren't acceptable because they are leading.
- what we hear isn't fool proof
- opinions are evaluated on credentials and knowledge. in most cases an expert opinion are going to be more highly weighted than a fan
- fan (we are all) biased in regards to this subject

No that's definately wrong. And besides we all know they are fake now, court case or not.

 

[ivy]

No that's definately wrong.

prove me wrong with actual case law then

let me prove myself

- cops used to get suspects and get them say stuff so that the witnesses can do voice identification. No longer acceptable because the courts have determined it to be "leading the witness" - that's the rule that applies to "comparison videos"

- you saying "I can't be wrong it's 100 Malachi nothing else is possible" shows your bias. An unbiased person should be at least be able to acknowledge that they might be wrong and other possibilities are possible. Because for example even if DNA test accuracy rate is %99.9997 it shows that there's still room for error - in everything.

- I posted in detail about humans hearing ability. Accuracy levels of identifying voices - especially similar voices - is low.

- that brings the issue of who is more credible and knowledgeable to do so.

 

[ginvid]

Why don't you fill them up?

I posted the links to "get out of my mind" by Aynik and a link to "beautiful girl" by Michael Jackson. The string instruments sound extremely similar. I was not focusing on the vocals, just the background meldoy played by string instruments. Could be guitar or a keyboard imitating a string instrument.

I was just saying that I thought you incorrectly posted them and they were not showing. However, it appears that I was the only one who could not see them. I don''t know why that is. Some things on the forum just aren't showing up for. Such as pictures and YT videos. It's not this forum alone either. It must be a setting on my comp. Bummer.

 

[StellaJackson]

prove me wrong with actual case law then

I'm really not interested in the law with regards to this issue. I'm interested in what i know as a fan of 20 years experience tells me. And that is that it is not Michael Jackson on these songs. That is more important than anything.

 

[ivy]

I'm really not interested in the law with regards to this issue. I'm interested in what i know as a fan of 20 years experience tells me. And that is that it is not Michael Jackson on these songs. That is more important than anything.

then don't argue with me about the law. I have no problems with your opinions. I have no problems with how strongly you feel and how confident you are. However I have huge problems with misrepresentations about the law and legal evidence. If you know nothing about it, refrain from commenting about it and just stick with your opinion.

 

[StellaJackson]

then don't argue with me about the law. I have no problems with your opinions. I have no problems with how strongly you feel and how confident you are. However I have huge problems with misrepresentations about the law and legal evidence. If you know nothing about it, refrain from commenting about it and just stick with your opinion.

I know an awful lot about the law. British law. If you read up on it and get to understand legal stuff then we can have a good chat about it.

 

[ginvid]

No that's definately wrong. And besides we all know they are fake now, court case or not.

Stella, as much as I would like to go against the people responsible for this, Ivy is correct in what she says. In the eyes of the law, any fan would seem prejudiced. Also, any comparisons, no matter how concrete to us, would not hold against a professional musical analysis done by Sony, since that was supposed to be done by a third party with no vested interest and one of the top people in their field.

It is like the movie A Few Good Men, where Tom Cruise says, "It doesn't matter what I believe. It only matters what I can prove."

If we sued them, we would have a big battle to prove that a huge company put aside all logical courses of action and conspired on such a large level to deceive consumers.

To make a start, we would need to hire our own music analyzer. But even then, we would need raw materials before they were touched for them to use in order to accurately make our argument. It is very unlikely we will ever get this from anyone.

I wish there was more we could do, because nobody likes getting screwed. But, we are kind of stuck.

This is according to American law. Maybe you guys might have an easier time in Britain. That would be cool if the ball could get rolling someplace where the law were not as constrictive as the US. :yes:

 

[StellaJackson]

Stella, as much as I would like to go against the people responsible for this, Ivy is correct in what she says. In the eyes of the law, any fan would seem prejudiced. Also, any comparisons, no matter how concrete to us, would not hold against a professional musical analysis done by Sony, since that was supposed to be done by a third party with no vested interest and one of the top people in their field.

It is like the movie A Few Good Men, where Tom Cruise says, "It doesn't matter what I believe. It only matters what I can prove."

If we sued them, we would have a big battle to prove that a huge company put aside all logical courses of action and conspired on such a large level to deceive consumers.

To make a start, we would need to hire our own music analyzer. But even then, we would need raw materials before they were touched for them to use in order to accurately make our argument. It is very unlikely we will ever get this from anyone.

I don't believe Sony conspired to deceive people. That's absurd. They were fooled themselves. As for their musical analysis. Nonsense. On one hand the believers say that a voice can not be scientifically identified 100%, on the other hand we are supposed to take Sony's own analysis as gospel. They did not test the raw takes. They were not available. We have the original demos as sold to Sony. If such tests ever took place of course. What were the tests? What did they test? What was the margin of error? Were they just given the adlibs to test? How do we know they were independent? Who were they? I trust an experienced MJ fan over a professional paid by Sony any day.

 

[ginvid]

I don't believe Sony conspired to deceive people. That's absurd. They were fooled themselves. As for their musical analysis. Nonsense. On one hand the believers say that a voice can not be scientifically identified 100%, on the other hand we are supposed to take Sony's own analysis as gospel. They did not test the raw takes. They were not available. We have the original demos as sold to Sony. If such tests ever took place of course. What were the tests? What did they test? What was the margin of error? Were they just given the adlibs to test? How do we know they were independent? Who were they? I trust an experienced MJ fan over a professional paid by Sony any day.

I believe the fans as well. I believe what I hear. I don't think it is MJ.

As for what tests were actually done and what materials were used, we don't know conclusively because neither the Estate nor Sony have been forthcoming. No amount of doubt is going to make them forthcoming. And, if you think Sony was fooled, to bring a ccase against anyone, we would have to have Sony complicit in saying they were duped. If they said this, after their stories of musical analysis and after being warned by fans, that would open them up to all knid of lawsuits and scrutiny and damage to their reputation. Not only them, but the reputation of the Estate. Those people are going to make sure not of that information ever sees the light of day.

As for the specific tests the conducted, in the Estate letter to the fanbase, they named the techniques they used. I am sure you can easily find it and look at what they said and then google the margins of error. I believe someone looked it up previously. But, exactly what thread, I could not say.

You would be going up against very powerful people, and "I believe as a fan of 20 years," just is not enough.

 

[StellaJackson]

I'm aware of all that ginvid. I just want the message to get across loud and clear that, as the consumers, we don't want any more of these songs, but as we've seen with Cirque, there is a possibility that we are not being listened to. Have you heard everything that's leaked? Opinions?

 

[Jesta]

I know we cannot discuss the court case at hand, but what kind of witnesses will there be for the defence? I immediately think of Taryll when thinking of a case like this, and it's unlikely he would be there.