Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)
Ivy, from a legal perspective, isn't it the case that it's not always about giving 100% proof but about 'reasonable doubt'?
it's "beyond reasonable doubt". nothing in life can be 100%. Even DNA tests are 99.997% - there's always room for error.
You seem to be satisfied with scientific proofs only when it suits you.
I'm hitting my head on a wall right now. Again scientific test and law are different. and I'm saying that yes objective scientific tests are more superior than other kinds of evidence (DNA vs eye witness account) yet in a court of law in most cases a single scientific test wouldn't be enough and more the evidence the better.. I don't know how I can explain this if you still don't get it.
When audiologists say it is Michael, you follow their opinion saying that it is enough to convince you. But be it in court or not, your example of the suspect points it out that scientific procedures are not enough to have evidence unless you have other proofs which could corroborate the scientific results. In the Cascio case you seem to be satisfied by the simple verbal corroboration from Jason's side "we have nothing to do with it", but when Michael's mother says it is not him, you do'nttake her for a word..
1) first of all there's no actual confirmation that MJ's mother or children said anything - it's all said by Roger Friedman and repeated by TMZ - are we going to say that they are perfectly credible? If the answer to this is yes and you also need to account the fact that both Roger Friedman and TMZ also said that this was due to jealousy and the children were manipulated. so that part of the information must be true as well. I honestly do not understand this "picking out information that suits me and refusing the part that doesn't suit me" logic.
2) when did I say my personal opinion was solely based on expert reports? Go back my first post after the first time Breaking News was released - I said I was torn and heard Michael on some parts and didn't hear him at other parts. After learning about James Porte, guide vocals, processing went into it and seeing the estate statement (2 forensic experts + opinions of people worked with MJ ) and adding my personal life experiences with music to me it became "MJ with legit supporting/backing vocals". My opinion is a combination of many things. (and honestly I didn't consider Jason's word to be an important factor)
3) as for "he said - she said" argument I also explained why I was personally needed more from Jacksons to believe their statements. Everyone will be subjective in this regard as who they think more credible. It's very similar to you saying "I don't believe Teddy's word". Similarly another person might not be believing to what is being said by any of the Jacksons.
4) even in my first post as a reply to your longer post it can easily be seen that I never claimed scientific tests to be perfect (as I acknowledged the error and possibility to fool them). My goal was to explain what is meant by "scientific" testing and how "comparison" videos/audios wouldn't be able to compete with them. Again although scientific objective tests would have more weight in a court of law, it doesn't mean that just having them will be enough.
For me, doing everything includes more than a simple verbal contact. This is not serious! You have vocals that are litterally screaming Jason all over the songs and all they did to prevent fraud was asking Jason if he was involved?
We don't know what else they might have done
By the way, you still haven't answer my question, why even bother asking Jason if he was involved after having "overwhelming proof" that it is Michael on those vocals? It is simply unbelievable that they did it to clear their legal conscience.
I did answer you 3 times now. Calling and asking someone is a thing that can easily be done, it would be additional confirmation that can protect you legally. So why not? 100 proof confirming the same thing is better than 10 and 1. So more the better. It's that simple.
So on top of contacting that person, wouldn't you also do all possible tests in order to say "look, I did everything I could" before releasing the tracks?
Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn't. Perhaps it cannot be "reasonably" done without the raw vocals of Jason. This is all speculation.
Imagine another scenario. Imagine that the tests match both vocals, Michael's and Jason's (which wouldn't be impossible actually). Don't you think that the company could easily get away from justice simply with the fact that Jason denied his involvement?
And why shouldn't the company get away with it in this scenario as they were themselves were "fooled"? You say that the tests gave a false positive as Jason was able to mimic MJ perfectly and even asked this Jason denied his involvement. The record company is innocent in this scenario.
Don't you think that the company (or whoever responsible) would try to get back the invested money otherwise than through long, costly and painful legal investigations and court rulings?
I don't think I understand this who's getting money from who? If you mean there was a fraud but not by the record company yes they can sue whoever did the fraud.
That's what I call a perfect crime! Legally get away with questioned tracks.
who got away? again in your above scenario if the record company is fooled despite their best efforts, it's not their fault. Whoever did the fraud still be legally responsible for the crime.
And besides, they did not do everything they could and they did not take into account people who knew Michael in his life and who claim that it is not Michael on those tracks.
they could have but that's again "he said - she said" debate. The most credible person with the most experience will win in such case. Blood wouldn't be a factor.
I also suppose that the judge would call Michael's mother, children, and other people who also knew him and aske hem their opinion.
not unless they have been in a studio with Michael and have relevant experience to offer an educated opinion.
Ultimately the judge, after seeing the difference of opinion, would most probably ask to compare Jason's vocals to those on the cascio tracks --leading to the conclusion again that they did not do everything they could to prevent the fraud.
in what lawsuit?
I have to say it feels good to be "off the fence" with my opinion about these tracks. I have officially joined the "dark side" now. Sam, Bumper, Arklove, et al - thank you for standing up for what you believe.
