Latest on MJJC

FT article: Michael Jackson estate says accuser is trying to extract $213mn

OnirMJ said:
It's Frank. Re-read the article again. It says that he spoke to Oprah and Wendy Williams. And that he wrote in his book..

Also there is 5 Cascio children. And they did similar thing in the past with the recording and selling the fake songs to the Estate.
Click to expand...

I think it's Frank too but someone is telling me it's Eddie. Who's the most likely?

@Lightbringer
 
I get the impression that some people have doubted the accuracy of the Financial Times story and whether Branca even said what he was quoted as saying. However looking at the article again I notice this comment at the end:

This article has been updated after the Jackson estate provided additional details of the timing of the payment demand and the Sony deal
 
Bink said:
I get the impression that some people have doubted the accuracy of the Financial Times story and whether Branca even said what he was quoted as saying. However looking at the article again I notice this comment at the end:

This article has been updated after the Jackson estate provided additional details of the timing of the payment demand and the Sony deal
Click to expand...
I've seen a few people attribute what was written in the FT article to some other journalist for some reason when it was clear to me that the article was written either having been contacted by the Estate or vice versa.
 
I never liked Frank Cascio's book. He always presented himself in the best possible light. The promised donations from the book's proceeds to orphanages (as he said Michael would have wanted) never came. But it's good that the book exists. No one forced him to publish a book years after Michael's death that clearly portrayed Michael innocent in realation of any allegations.
 
Last edited:
Annita said:
I never liked Frank Cascio's book. He always presented himself in the best possible light. The promised donations from the book's proceeds to orphanages (as he said Michael would have wanted) never came. But it's good that the book exists. No one forced him to publish a book years after Michael's death that clearly portrayed Michael innocent in realation of any allegations.
Click to expand...
Rereading parts of that book, I noticed some really ambiguous bits. It feels like he was trying to portray Mike in a way that doesn’t quite match reality. There are some odd, exaggerated claims that I seriously doubt actually happened.

For example:

At a certain point, my father had to get back home to his restaurant and my mother. At first Michael accepted this, but when the time came for us to go, he went to my father and broke down crying. ” I know you have to get back to work,” he said through his tears, ” but I am asking if Frank and Eddie can stay here with me. I would really love for them to stay”
Click to expand...
 
whyyouwannatrip said:
The whole Janet thing overshadowed the new "allegations" but I also see people saying that somehow it's bringing MJ into it for some weird reason.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocent/comments/1fmd0zm
I read that her words were twisted anyway, I can't imagine her saying those things in a malicious way as the tabloids are painting it as.
These new "allegations" and this whole media hoopla must be a lot for the grieving family.
Click to expand...
The Guardian article that the Kamala thing came from mentions Michael a few times, and he is presented as guilty in the article, which is probably why he was brought into it; the article brought him into it.

This whole thing is just really upsetting.
 
Saka21 said:
Rereading parts of that book, I noticed some really ambiguous bits. It feels like he was trying to portray Mike in a way that doesn’t quite match reality. There are some odd, exaggerated claims that I seriously doubt actually happened.

For example:
Click to expand...
The book has a lot of similar 'separation' tropes that guilters love. It's a bit odd.
 
It’s incredibly naive to ignore that these songs are clearly connected to this. Sony and The Michael Jackson Estate had no valid reason to include them on the album, especially when every producer at the listening sessions confirmed it wasn’t MJ. This was obviously a calculated move to keep the family silent.
 
alanram said:
It’s incredibly naive to ignore that these songs are clearly connected to this. Sony and The Michael Jackson Estate had no valid reason to include them on the album, especially when every producer at the listening sessions confirmed it wasn’t MJ. This was obviously a calculated move to keep the family silent.
Click to expand...

This is very possible!
It would explain a lot!
 
Didn’t the Estate originally pay around 10 million for the fake songs? So I’m guessing this was renegotiated around 2020 with the allegations and removal of the 3 songs?
 
alanram said:
It’s incredibly naive to ignore that these songs are clearly connected to this. Sony and The Michael Jackson Estate had no valid reason to include them on the album, especially when every producer at the listening sessions confirmed it wasn’t MJ. This was obviously a calculated move to keep the family silent.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. There was a valid reason for them. Money. 12 brand new MJ songs recorded in 2007 with full vocals. Also, there was Frank DiLeo vouching for the songs and for the family. Also, they first bought the songs. And listening session with engineers and producers came only after some family members heard the songs being worked on for the album. And since Branca paid so much for them already, he wanted them on the album.

Cascios LOVED MJ until 2019 when they flipped because of LN when they saw new opportunity to make money. Also, at that point, the Estate informed them already that no other songs will ever be released. So no more money there for them.

There was defeinitely no such talks in 2010. John just got greedy in 2010 and bought fake songs.
 
If they wanted to threaten the Estate in 2010, they could have just do that. Go there and say, pay us 12 million or we'll publicly say bad things about Michael. But no, they first secretly got Jason Malachi to record his vocals for 12 demos Eddie wrote for Michael (some of which Michael heard), then hired Stuart Brawley to copy-paste real MJ screams and breaths all over the songs. And only then go to Estate and say.. release these 12 songs Michael recorded in our basement or we will say bad things about Michael. Doesn't make ANY sense!

Also, remember that in 2010 Michael was absolute hero for everyone. There was no LN, there was no Wade and James lawsuits. Nobody was thinking that way in 2010, especially not the Cascios.

All of them, including Wade and Frank, first wanted to milk everything they had in their possesion.. auction everything, sell unreleased demos (with fake re-recorded vocals), do tributes and interviews, write books, etc. Only after all that, only after they milked every possible way of making money from being Michael's friend, they turned, changed their stories and went to Estate asking for money and threatening to say bad things.
 
Amaya said:
The Guardian article that the Kamala thing came from mentions Michael a few times, and he is presented as guilty in the article, which is probably why he was brought into it; the article brought him into it.

This whole thing is just really upsetting.
Click to expand...
Very upsetting indeed. What Janet said was stupid and shouldn’t have been said and though she does live in London, she should’ve known better. She made a mistake and it’s a shame now that it’s blowing up all over the internet and bringing Michael’s children into it too, it is a mess. I also feel like some words were twisted in the guardian article. It was written so weirdly and I’m seeing people say that it looks like a lof of it was written to make the family look bad. I don’t know why she would let the guardian interview her out of all outlets. The guardian is notorious for writing bogus crap about the Jacksons and especially Michael. The writer wanted a messy interview because it would generate a lot of buzz in the press. The article was basically bashing the Jackson family passively, saying weird stuff about Joe, Latoya (the lies Latoya was forced to say 30 years ago). This seems like a setup because the guardian has been anti-jackson in the past, but who really knows anyway. I just hope all the mess clears up so people leave the Jacksons alone especially since they’re still grieving over Tito’s passing.
 
OnirMJ said:
If they wanted to threaten the Estate in 2010, they could have just do that. Go there and say, pay us 12 million or we'll publicly say bad things about Michael. But no, they first secretly got Jason Malachi to record his vocals for 12 demos Eddie wrote for Michael (some of which Michael heard), then hired Stuart Brawley to copy-paste real MJ screams and breaths all over the songs. And only then go to Estate and say.. release these 12 songs Michael recorded in our basement or we will say bad things about Michael. Doesn't make ANY sense!

Also, remember that in 2010 Michael was absolute hero for everyone. There was no LN, there was no Wade and James lawsuits. Nobody was thinking that way in 2010, especially not the Cascios.

All of them, including Wade and Frank, first wanted to milk everything they had in their possesion.. auction everything, sell unreleased demos (with fake re-recorded vocals), do tributes and interviews, write books, etc. Only after all that, only after they milked every possible way of making money from being Michael's friend, they turned, changed their stories and went to Estate asking for money and threatening to say bad things.
Click to expand...
Your statement is a convoluted mess. Yes, the listening session happened after they bought the songs, but that doesn’t mean they bought them blindly. They heard the tracks before purchasing. There’s no excuse for not realizing they weren’t legitimate. If the fans could tell without any insider information, surely those closer to the situation would have seen it too.

But let’s assume, for argument's sake, they bought the tracks believing they were legitimate. Now, with everyone, including the family, saying they’re not, you claim they kept them on the album for money. Please explain how adding Breaking News to the tracklist increased the album’s marketing value. Those songs could have easily been replaced. Nobody bought the album because of these tracks—they bought it because it’s Michael Jackson. Including them did nothing to boost the value of the product.

In your theory, it makes more sense to add the fake songs to a highly anticipated album and risk a massive legal battle that could result in millions of dollars in damages, all because they had already spent money on them.
OnirMJ said:
If they wanted to threaten the Estate in 2010, they could have just do that. Go there and say, pay us 12 million or we'll publicly say bad things about Michael.
Click to expand...
The Cascios always wanted to establish their careers in the music industry, and this was the perfect opportunity. They could secure the cash while still pursuing their ultimate dream.
 
Maybe they signed a deal with them upon purchasing the songs, that at least 3 of them will be on the album. That is common. For example, they signed such deal with Paul Anka after This Is It debacle (when they didn't credit him). They agreed to release his remaining 2 songs and he didn't sue them. That might be the deal with the Cascios so they can keep making profit from the royalties.

But there was definitely no talks about making false CSA allegations back in 2010 and any deals regarding that. Cascios just wanted money and they thought that was, not the easiest way, but it's less hurtful for their dead "friend". After that, and the book failed, and after seeing how much money Wade and James recieved from hbo, soundtracks, interviews, various csa organizations, "therapy" podcasts... without having to do any work, they decided to do the same.
 
I for one am quite surprised this hasn't gained more traction in mainstream media considering it's been out for a few days now.
 
With the catalogue in the hands of SONY I doubt this will get any attention at all. There is no way a MultiBillion company who just purchased a very expensive catalogue let some frauds undervalue their investment.
 
NetflexKing said:
With the catalogue in the hands of SONY I doubt this will get any attention at all. There is no way a MultiBillion company who just purchased a very expensive catalogue let some frauds undervalue their investment.
Click to expand...
40% in the hands of Sony.
 
alanram said:
But let’s assume, for argument's sake, they bought the tracks believing they were legitimate. Now, with everyone, including the family, saying they’re not, you claim they kept them on the album for money. Please explain how adding Breaking News to the tracklist increased the album’s marketing value. Those songs could have easily been replaced. Nobody bought the album because of these tracks—they bought it because it’s Michael Jackson. Including them did nothing to boost the value of the product.

In your theory, it makes more sense to add the fake songs to a highly anticipated album and risk a massive legal battle that could result in millions of dollars in damages, all because they had already spent money on them.

The Cascios always wanted to establish their careers in the music industry, and this was the perfect opportunity. They could secure the cash while still pursuing their ultimate dream.
Click to expand...
They had ZERO (0) unreleased songs with releasable vocals recorded after the trial if you don't count a feature on Akon's song (Ok.. and Best Of Joy - but I don't know when Michael Prince and Brad Buxer submitted their tracks - before or after they purchased the fake tracks).

They wanted to market the album as "the last songs MJ recorded". Commercially speaking that is much more appealing to general public than collection of songs recoded 30 years ago and outtakes from other albums.

And I remind you, even with the fake songs on it, the album sold 3 MIL copies because the general public couldn't care less about "conspiracy theories" from fans and "jelaous" Jackson family. A lot of fans also believed the songs are real, not just because of the songs, but because of the Cascios - the first "family of love". So, the album sold more than Xscape which didn't have any fake songs on it, didn't have any controversy around it and had monster hit with A list superstar.

Also, Frank DiLeo, who worked for MJ at the same time as Branca vouched for the songs and for the family. DiLeo was instrumental in securing that deal. Everything went through him and he was leaking info to his pal Roger Friedman to pump up the value of the songs and to generate false hype and besically to force the Estate into this purchase.
 
OnirMJ said:
They had ZERO (0) unreleased songs with releasable vocals recorded after the trial if you don't count a feature on Akon's song (Ok.. and Best Of Joy - but I don't know when Michael Prince and Brad Buxer submitted their tracks - before or after they purchased the fake tracks).

They wanted to market the album as "the last songs MJ recorded". Commercially speaking that is much more appealing to general public than collection of songs recoded 30 years ago and outtakes from other albums.

And I remind you, even with the fake songs on it, the album sold 3 MIL copies because the general public couldn't care less about "conspiracy theories" from fans and "jelaous" Jackson family. A lot of fans also believed the songs are real, not just because of the songs, but because of the Cascios - the first "family of love". So, the album sold more than Xscape which didn't have any fake songs on it, didn't have any controversy around it and had monster hit with A list superstar.

Also, Frank DiLeo, who worked for MJ at the same time as Branca vouched for the songs and for the family. DiLeo was instrumental in securing that deal. Everything went through him and he was leaking info to his pal Roger Friedman to pump up the value of the songs and to generate false hype and besically to force the Estate into this purchase.
Click to expand...
And no one had the balls to put a brake on it. Not even Teddy Riley.:(
 
Hot_Street said:
And no one had the balls to put a brake on it. Not even Teddy Riley.:(
Click to expand...
Teddy Riley signed the contract to produce material and promote the album BEFORE he heard the songs. After he heard the songs he said to Taryll that the vocals are not MJ. But he was already under contract. He could have leave the project and face legal actions (which he should have done) or stay and work on them. Taryll wasn't under any kind of contract so he could leave and talk whatever he wanted. Teddy's contract probably had expiration date because in recent DJ Vlad interview, he admitted that the vocals are not MJ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top