Michael - The Great Album Debate

[StellaJackson]

So that's why I can never find the CD's in my local shops/find them in weird places. =P

Yeah but I always put History, Dangerous etc in to the number one position in the charts! I just move entire sections of MJ cds right to where all the hottest stuff is!

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

And whoever doesn't have the money to file a law suit or whatever it is called just warn people that the album contains three fake songs and they won't buy it. I think that will prevent Sony and the Estate from messing with MJ's work again.

Warning people of something that is not proven is just as it was in 2005 people said MJ was a child molester with no proof what so ever and they started telling people that he did all these nasty things that he did not do and now you want to warn people about 3 so called "Fake" songs that no one can prove fake ?

 

[StellaJackson]

Warning people of something that is not proven is just as it was in 2005 people said MJ was a child molester with no proof what so ever and they started telling people that he did all these nasty things that he did not do and now you want to warn people about 3 so called "Fake" songs that no one can prove fake ?

Those are two totally different scenarios.

 

[Ramona122003]

Those are two totally different scenarios.

They're not. You have already accused the songs of being fake without taking it to a court of law. That's no different that when people saw Michael as guilt before he even had his day in court.

Then again, you see nothing wrong with accusing others of a federal crime, so what's calling songs fake is to you.

 

[Pentum]

Haven't you already passed judgement on me the moment you said I thought the songs were real because someone told me like I couldn't make up my own mind. Besides, this is an open discussion where your past can and will be use against you. If you said something regrettable, you shouldn't have post it to begin with.

Really, you need to stop your double standards. Besides, you're mad about me judging on two posters post, what are you doing exactly?

It's funny how you are becoming one of "us" now. The whiners, wasting their time just debating in this little thread.

 

[StellaJackson]

They're not. You have already accused the songs of being fake without taking it to a court of law. That's no different that when people saw Michael as guilt before he even had his day in court.

Then again, you see nothing wrong with accusing others of a federal crime, so what's calling songs fake is to you.

Are you really comparing me with the people who accused Michael of child molestation. If so then I don't think you should be here. That is a horrible thing to say. I can say I believe the songs are fake if that's what I believe. I don't automatically have to go to court. I don't have time, legal support or money to do such a thing.

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

Those are two totally different scenarios.

But there doing similar things

#1 Accusing someone/something without proof
#2 Spreading false information (Since it's not proven)

 

[Ramona122003]

Are you really comparing me with the people who accused Michael of child molestation. If so then I don't think you should be here. that is a horrible thing to say. I can say I believe the songs are fake if that's what I believe. I don't automatically have to go to court. I don't have time, legal support or money to do such a thing.

Now, you're questioning my fans credit. Classy.

You can say the songs are fake until you're blue in the face, but you're not given a opinion. You say the songs are fake as fact, not room for debate. If you're going to accuse someone of a federal crime, you better back it up in my book, otherwise you are no different to me than the people who called Michael a pedo.

 

[StellaJackson]

But there doing similar things

#1 Accusing someone/something without proof
#2 Spreading false information (Since it's not proven)

For us the songs are proof. They sound like Jason Malachi and not Michael Jackson. Are you saying that if I hear jason on these tracks I should just not say anything for fear that I might be accusing someone of a crime? Ridiculous.

 

[Rudolf]

But there doing similar things

#1 Accusing someone/something without proof
#2 Spreading false information (Since it's not proven)

Though in 2005 MJ was proven innocent, but I don't think anyone will officially prove if Cascios are real or not. It's either you believe them or doubt. And I have never asked myself a question if that's really MJ singing in any of MJ songs except Cascios which I've listened to. That makes me thinking that something is not ''right'' in his voice. Which leads to doubt whether it's MJ at all.

 

[StellaJackson]

Now, you're questioning my fans credit. Classy.

You can say the songs are fake until you're blue in the face, but you're not given a opinion. You say the songs are fake as fact, not room for debate. If you're going to accuse someone of a federal crime, you better back it up in my book, otherwise you are no different to me than the people who called Michael a pedo.

There is no such thing as a federal crime in this country . I have backed it up. I believe the songs speak for themselves and the extensive audio comparisons prove it is Jason. Where is the proof it is Michael? Because the two people who claim to have witnessed the recordings and sold them for a load of money said so?

Please demonstrate why you believe the songs to be real instead of attacking my own evidence. Counter it with something. Explain the vibrato. Explain the snorts. You must have a reason for believing those are coming from the voice of MJ.

And I didn't question your credit as a fan at all.

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

For us the songs are proof. They sound like Jason Malachi and not Michael Jackson. Are you saying that if I hear jason on these tracks I should just not say anything for fear that I might be accusing someone of a crime? Ridiculous.

That only proves one thing that they sound alike but not that he is the vocalist.

 

[StellaJackson]

As it hasn't been posted here yet, here is the part of Jermaine's interview with MJJC regarding this topic.

MJJC: Do you still feel strongly against the Cascio tracks? If so then do you or any other family member's plan to make issue with any future MJ albums that include any more Cascio tracks?

Jermaine Jackson: For now, I'll say what I've always said on this issue: when has Michael's music and voice ever been released with a question mark over it, as to whether it's 100% him? I think the truth will come out one day but no, that first album is not 100% Michael and no one can talk to me about the authentic sound of my own brother's voice.

 

[StellaJackson]

That only proves one thing that they sound alike but not that he is the vocalist.

No it proves there are direct matches between the two voices such as the accent, pronounciation, vibrato, timbre and snorts. None of which can be found on any other MJ recording, regardless of what the conditions are of said recording. Even WBSS 2008, recorded in the same studio at the same time does not have those vocal aspects that match Jason. They are only on the 12 songs which appeared almost a year after Michael's death and have no supporting evidence that Michael recorded them.

 

[Ramona122003]

There is no such thing as a federal crime in this country . I have backed it up. I believe the songs speak for themselves and the extensive audio comparisons prove it is Jason. Where is the proof it is Michael? Because the two people who claim to have witnessed the recordings and sold them for a load of money said so?

Please demonstrate why you believe the songs to be real instead of attacking my own evidence. Counter it with something. Explain the vibrato. Explain the snorts. You must have a reason for believing those are coming from the voice of MJ.

And I didn't question your credit as a fan at all.

I gave you an offer. Put your money where you're mouth.

 

[ginvid]

some corrections



I think you are mixing up "filing a lawsuit" versus "having a legit lawsuit". You don't need a lawyer or evidence to file a lawsuit. Today I can as pro se (representing myself) can write a complaint file go to the court and pay several hundreds dollars of filing fee and can sue Sony. United States is full of examples of this such as Nona Jackson filing a motion in MJ Estate probate saying that she's entitled to half of Neverland. So filing a lawsuit is real easy and cheap.

You know very well what the meaning is. Why file a lawsuit that you know very well from the beginning has no chance of being proven. The end result based on people saying "Just file a lawsuit" is the same. Unless they have proof of the crimes of which they accuse someone of, filing a suit or having a suit is a waste of time.

Those are all discovery questions that would come after the lawsuit stands the dismissal request. For coming to that stage all you need is a legit question. For example if today someone went to court with a professional vocal analysis as Charles Thomson said, a judge would grant that there's a legit question / issue for a jury to look and decide and the case would have gone to trial. The above would only become relevant and will determine if you win the case or not.
Example would be Katherine arguing there's an oral contract between Murray and AEG and AEG arguing there wasn't a signed contract. The judge decided both were legit points and it was a decision for a jury. Similarly if someone went to court with any piece of legit information - such as an expert analysis showing fraud - it would have been a legit question to go on to the next stage - an intergorratory and discovery and then an actual trial.

It does not matter when those questions came into play. If you were to bring suit against someone, they would have to be answered. I don't care if you represented yourself or not. Anyone who would take on a large entity would first make sure this information could be answered or the very basis of the lawsuit would have no standing.

If you lose they can ask you to pay the legal costs however you are wrong about the slander /libel lawsuits. No one can sue you for libel or slander due to a lawsuit you filed. Lawsuits claims , testimonies etc are exempt of defamation lawsuits.

I just reconfirmed with a lawyer. korgnex is correct. They can countersue if your claim was malicious. She said if she was a lawyer for Sony (or anyone), she would put out all that Sony did to prove that the voice was Michael's including the letter that was circulated to fans saying what they did. She would have them show that they did the best they could with what they had. She said she would interview everyone who knew you and pull out all of the stops to show that you knew all of this ahead of time so for you to still accuse them of fraud was a malicious assasination of character. She said it is possible but not certain it would happen since Sony had the burden of proof.

not quite. damages can be as simple as the money paid for the item. In Milli Vanilli lawsuit the damages was the money paid for the albums and concert tickets which was only a few dollars. So in this case damages are the money paid for the CD.

I confimed this as well. She said the only way this would occur is if there was something like a class action lawsuit against them. She said if we could maybe get like 1,000,000 people who bought the CD to come up against them for this purpose. Otherwise, it would not be worth it (I guess this depends on what the person suing wanted for the final outcome) especially since you have the burden of proof. Otherwise, she said fans "Don't have a pot to piss in" unless they were his Estate making a claim (nothing that would ever happen).

So again, with all of this round about talk, we still come to the same conclusion, with the information we have now, none of us can just go and sue Sony or the Estate for fraud. Until we had proof and could actually prove our case, it would be for nothing and would probably immediately be thrown out of court. Also, we may suffer legally ourselves as a result.

 

[teli-mj]

That's the problem, what happens if the songs are not fake? If we learn tomorrow that the doubters were wrong, how would you justify taking money out of Michael's estate and his kids? Are you just gong to say, Sony should had told us, when they did but you didn't believe them? Boycotting without proper proof is dangerous.

Weren't you the one who said that you don't care if Monster is fake because is better that real one? What happened to honor MJ's work and legacy? Do you think that MJ would have been fine with people not only releasing songs that are most likely not him but that are also so low quality that his fans can't even recognize his voice on them? What happens to people taking advantage of him even now that he is dead? Because what they did with the "Michael" album was leeching from a dead's man body.

You say what happens if the songs turn out to be real. If you go back in this thread you will see lots of us, doubters , say, pray, beg, the Estate, Sony, the Cascios to show us proofs that it is MJ singing in those three songs and we will shut up forever. Some have been asking this since the controversy started. Some of us that even claim that those three songs are pure crap, we say that we will stop doubting their authenticity, if someone show us some proof. So you see, we the doubters, WANT to be proven wrong. So again for a million times, somebody show us proofs that it is Mike and this thread will automatically die out.

But, where are the proofs? Have you seen any? Just because Eddie showed some room pictures and said that MJ recorded there, i should believe him? What about my ears that tell me that it is not Mike singing on those songs. And mind you, i was one of them who at first tried to convince myself that those songs. But i simply could bare to listen to Monster and continue to believe that it is MJ singing. It's so obvious that it's not him.

You say that the kids and the estate lose money. Frankly, i don't care. I want MJ's kids to be alright and well and i want MJ's estate to be fruitful but my main concern is MJ's legacy. I'm his fan not MJ's kids fan.

I want to add something here though. By releasing cd's like Michael the Estate is actually the one harming the source that brings them money. When they don't respect the artist that they represent and they release crap for people to buy it's not people's fault who refuse to buy them.

 

[Chamife]

Now, you're questioning my fans credit. Classy.

You can say the songs are fake until you're blue in the face, but you're not given a opinion. You say the songs are fake as fact, not room for debate. If you're going to accuse someone of a federal crime, you better back it up in my book, otherwise you are no different to me than the people who called Michael a pedo.

The only thing that these two subjects CAN have in common is the possibility that people can be falsely accused. And that is where any comparison with the pedophile-case ends!

 

[ginvid]

I'll repost since this was obviously missed.MOD NOTE:

No one is going to be allowed to talk about other members for their perceived "bullying". Not out in the thread. Any instances of things that went on between members were taken care of between those members and do not need an outside referee to impose their personal opinions on the matter.

Do not demean one another by calling people "blind" or "followers". We've asked this many times. It is not allowed from either side.

If your post is missing it has been deleted for either breaking a rule or responding to someone who has. I am just saying this so people understand.

Thank you.

 

[Ramona122003]

Weren't you the one who said that you don't care if Monster is fake because is better that real one? What happened to honor MJ's work and legacy? Do you think that MJ would have been fine with people not only releasing songs that are most likely not him but that are also so low quality that his fans can't even recognize his voice on them? What happens to people taking advantage of him even now that he is dead? Because what they did with the "Michael" album was leeching from a dead's man body.

You say what happens if the songs turn out to be real. If you go back in this thread you will see lots of us, doubters , say, pray, beg, the Estate, Sony, the Cascios to show us proofs that it is MJ singing in those three songs and we will shut up forever. Some have been asking this since the controversy started. Some of us that even claim that those three songs are pure crap, we say that we will stop doubting their authenticity, if someone show us some proof. So you see, we the doubters, WANT to be proven wrong. So again for a million times, somebody show us proofs that it is Mike and this thread will automatically die out.

But, where are the proofs? Have you seen any? Just because Eddie showed some room pictures and said that MJ recorded there, i should believe him? What about my ears that tell me that it is not Mike singing on those songs. And mind you, i was one of them who at first tried to convince myself that those songs. But i simply could bare to listen to Monster and continue to believe that it is MJ singing. It's so obvious that it's not him.

You say that the kids and the estate lose money. Frankly, i don't care. I want MJ's kids to be alright and well and i want MJ's estate to be fruitful but my main concern is MJ's legacy. I'm his fan not MJ's kids fan.

I want to add something here though. By releasing cd's like Michael the Estate is actually the one harming the source that brings them money. When they don't respect the artist that they represent and they release crap for people to buy it's not people's fault who refuse to buy them.

I gave an in-between. I offered to start a donation so we can hired our own professional so we can end this debate. I got crap about the idea and mocked. To me, fans are equally to blame as the estate if these songs turn out to be real since fans jumped without getting the real truth.

As for Monster, I said I liked it better than Hollywood Tonight, which sounds mediocre to me and I tried of fans telling me how great of a song it is. If the song is fake, it would still sound better than Hollywood Tonight to me. Being a fan doesn't mean I love all his music. It has nothing to do with his legacy. I bought the album because I love the music overall.

 

[KingMikeJ]

Where were all these people who believe the Cascio tracks to be Michael a few months ago before I "converted"? I could have used some support.

 

[ivy]

You know very well what the meaning is. Why file a lawsuit that you know very well from the beginning has no chance of being proven. The end result based on people saying "Just file a lawsuit" is the same. Unless they have proof of the crimes of which they accuse someone of, filing a suit or having a suit is a waste of time.

It does not matter when those questions came into play. If you were to bring suit against someone, they would have to be answered. I don't care if you represented yourself or not. Anyone who would take on a large entity would first make sure this information could be answered or the very basis of the lawsuit would have no standing.

so you basically saying that doubters have no lawsuit. and I agree. therefore people - and not meaning you personally - should stop acting like they have "fact", or "evidence" or "proof". It's just a personal opinion.

I just reconfirmed with a lawyer. korgnex is correct. They can countersue if your claim was malicious.

yes korgnex is right and "malicious" is when you know for a fact that the songs are real bur yet you bring a lawsuit that says they are fake. In other words malicious is when you intentionally and knowingly lie. If you have a honest belief that the songs are fake and if you have expert reports or any analysis that says they are fake nobody can argue that you are being malicious and that was my point.

I confimed this as well. She said the only way this would occur is if there was something like a class action lawsuit against them. She said if we could maybe get like 1,000,000 people who bought the CD to come up against them for this purpose. Otherwise, it would not be worth it (I guess this depends on what the person suing wanted for the final outcome) especially since you have the burden of proof. Otherwise, she said fans "Don't have a pot to piss in" unless they were his Estate making a claim (nothing that would ever happen).

in the milli vanilli lawsuit one housewife from Ohio filed the lawsuit and gave notice that other parties can join. It's how these lawsuit works. It just requires one person to file it and then thousands to millions to join. The company can even be told to notify people of the class action lawsuit. For example Bank of America was sued by some group in regards to the fees, the person won and every bank of america card holder were returned the fees. Google was sued and they had to send mass emails notifying people of the lawsuit and giving chance to join or give up your right. most of the consumer fraud and false advertising lawsuits are class action lawsuits. in the milli vanilli lawsuit it was determined that everyone with a proof of purchase is entitled for their money back.



---------------------

edited to add : the believers aren't naive to the reality of costs and evidence involved in a lawsuit. they simply say "then file a lawsuit" based on the doubters absolute certain like fact statements of fake songs and fraud. If people only wrote stuff like it's their piersonal opinion this wouldn't be an issue. However if they write stuff as "it's Malachi, 100%, this is proof, that's evidence" and so on, the opposite side can ask "okay then where's the legal action?".

It's simply saying "if you have as strong proof of fake songs as you claim then take a legal action - put your money where your mouth is , if you don't then please don't act like what you say is fact".

 

[teli-mj]

I gave an in-between. I offered to start a donation so we can hired our own professional so we can end this debate. I got crap about the idea and mocked. To me, fans are equally to blame as the estate if these songs turn out to be real since fans jumped without getting the real truth.

I hear your idea. It was recommended before and few people responded positively to it. Why? Well, there are lots of reasons. It's a good idea but not many people will agree with it. But why don't the Estate or Cascios just give us what they have to prove us wrong?I mean it's so easy and so cheap, they could have done it from the beginning. Why do the fans have to pay, again, for a controversy that didn't start from them (come on, we are not to blame because Sony and the Estate rush to put out an album in order to collect money and they didn't make the simplest research on what they hell they were releasing, as it happened with This Is It song) Some of us paid for the cd, yes i bought the damn thing. Why should i pay again for the thing that i deserve for free? That is hearing the man that i'm supposed to hear in an album that i paid in order to get. This is what i think on it. So if they are not going to give any proofs (and they won't because thy got what they wanted -money )then i'm going to diss them and claim that the "Michael" album has three fake songs in it whenever and wherever i can. Fare deal, don't you think?

As for Monster, I said I liked it better than Hollywood Tonight, which sounds mediocre to me and I tried of fans telling me how great of a song it is. If the song is fake, it would still sound better than Hollywood Tonight to me. Being a fan doesn't mean I love all his music. It has nothing to do with his legacy. I bought the album because I love the music overall.

This is absolutely your right, i mean to prefer a song over an other. I thought that you meant that you would not have a problem a fake song to be under MJ's name on a cd since you like it. I misinterpret you comment, i apologize.

 

[Korgnex]

By the way...

You mean mentally ill people vs daughter who he sang to constantly in his final years?

I know the truth. I've seen the voice analyses.
Absolutely. They compared the acapalla vocals from all three Cascio tracks to MJ, then to Malachi. Perfect match to the latter.

And he calls himself a "journalist"...

Kudos to Damien Shields and TPIMaster for helping Charles Thompson to convince himself he would have seen "the voice analyses" and even lying about it in the eyes of the public!

 

[Chamife]

Where were all these people who believe the Cascio tracks to be Michael a few months ago before I "converted"? I could have used some support.

 

[Pentum]

I'm asking this Charles Thomson, why we can't see this analysis he has seen. There's no reason to hide it.

 

[ginvid]

so you basically saying that doubters have no lawsuit. and I agree. therefore people - and not meaning you personally - should stop acting like they have "fact", or "evidence" or "proof". It's just a personal opinion.

I said that from the get go in my post. I said no side had proof that is was Michael or that it was not. I already said that people have the comparisons and people have their opinions but this was not enough to win a lawsuit. The point of the post was to show that until irrefutable proof could be obtained, then telling people to just file a lawsuit was not realistic.

yes korgnex is right and "malicious" is when you know for a fact that the songs are real bur yet you bring a lawsuit that says they are fake. In other words malicious is when you intentionally and knowingly lie. If you have a honest belief that the songs are fake and if you have expert reports or any analysis that says they are fake nobody can argue that you are being malicious and that was my point.

That is the whole point. people do not have this information as per what I wrote. Therefore, to bring this to a court, especially as the lawyer said, if SOny could show all they did to prove it was MJ and this was known beforehand, then it could be considered malicious. So to tell people who do not have absolute proof to go to court could very well open them up to being countersued if Sony so wished to take that step.

in the milli vanilli lawsuit one housewife from Ohio filed the lawsuit and gave notice that other parties can join. It's how these lawsuit works. It just requires one person to file it and then thousands to millions to join. The company can even be told to notify people of the class action lawsuit. For example Bank of America was sued by some group in regards to the fees, the person won and every bank of america card holder were returned the fees. Google was sued and they had to send mass emails notifying people of the lawsuit and giving chance to join or give up your right. most of the consumer fraud and false advertising lawsuits are class action lawsuits. in the milli vanilli lawsuit it was determined that everyone with a proof of purchase is entitled for their money back.

The Milli Vanilli lawsuit began after it was publically admitted by the parties involved that the singers lipsynched. The person did not have to try to prove her case. I know how class action lawsuits work, though I appreciate the explanation, as I have several times been invited to join and I have seen commercials from Tv looking for people to join. This case is not the same. We are askng the members to not just join in numbers to collect money, but to prove a crime has been committed that cannot be proven. Unless, like I said, Sony or the Estate comes forth with information as to what went on behind the scenes. Something I said was not going to happen even if they became aware afterwards that they were hoodwinked.

---------------------

edited to add : the believers aren't naive to the reality of costs and evidence involved in a lawsuit. they simply say "then file a lawsuit" based on the doubters absolute certain like fact statements of fake songs and fraud. If people only wrote stuff like it's their piersonal opinion this wouldn't be an issue. However if they write stuff as "it's Malachi, 100%, this is proof, that's evidence" and so on, the opposite side can ask "okay then where's the legal action?".

It's simply saying "if you have as strong proof of fake songs as you claim then take a legal action - put your money where your mouth is , if you don't then please don't act like what you say is fact".

It is a bit childish for every sentence to be ended with "This is my opinion". If a person states that they think it is 100% Malachi, it is understood to be their opinion. I can say that I am 100% sure it is not totally Michael. Some people are giving their opinion just based on how they feel or what they hear not because of some external proof. (Although the comparisions may be the icing on the cake and may be a personal although not legal proof enough for some). Now for those who say they have concrete proof, point taken.

 

[Korgnex]

You know very well what the meaning is. Why file a lawsuit that you know very well from the beginning has no chance of being proven.

I'll give you a hint: Doubters have claimed that they don't have anything to back up their claim it's Michael. So in that case, once the burden of proof has been shifted to the accused (and that is BEFORE you would even come up with a forensic assessment yourself), you'd see what they have to back up their claim it's Michael. THEN you have a foundation to achieve anything. And if you don't have it, then that's because they have irrefutable proof. Something the Jacksons have learnt months ago, that's why they won't do a thing about it.

So to tell people who do not have absolute proof to go to court could very well open them up to being countersued if Sony so wished to take that step.
You do NOT need absolute proof. Again: The purpose of a consumer fraud lawsuit is to adjudge if one's belief in a punishable conduct of the accused is justified. What you claim however would be against legal security.
Are you really into legal matters?

Huh? You CANNOT be countersued for NOT knowing. You CANNOT qualify for "acting maliciously" when you DO NOT KNOW anything. And as a matter of fact you have not seen what they did to prove it's Michael.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

ADKI, your comparison of Sneddon's legal actions and this debate is completely misplaced.

If I am not mistaken according to the Californian law it is enough to put someone's hand on someone's shoulder to be sued for sexual harassment. Michael holding Avrizo's hand backed by the Bashir's documentary was enough proof to sue MJ on the grounds of that ridiculous law, not to mention other claims.

In this very situation, NOBODY is accusing directly anyone of fraud; and that's the point that you are completely missing.
Here's what the doubters say: "we don't hear MJ". PERIOD.

Now, is it due to the fraud or our inability to recognize MJ we don't know. However, we did take the most convincing parts that sound like Jason and compared them with Jason. We didn't just simply say (like you in your earlier post) Monster = Let me let go, we actually put them side aside. Those who hear the similarities, well yeah they understand our point of view, those who don't, well they have other comparisons that we made in order to show where it ressembles Jason's voice.

Now if you one says you hear MJ all over the Cascio track, well be my guest, take any portion of it and put it side aside with any portion of a MJ's previous song and let's listen to those parts side aside. It should'nt be difficult since you hear MJ all over the song. I did it with various grits form different eras (except with the Cascio songs), and trhe ressemblance was absolutely identical, no matter his age. Now what prevents anyone to take any portion of the Cascio song and put it side aside with any portion of a MJ's previous song rather than just repeatig "I hear Michael".

What doubters ask the believers is much easier than filing a lawsuit, yet no one seems able to come up with such comparisons.

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

No it proves there are direct matches between the two voices such as the accent, pronounciation, vibrato, timbre and snorts. None of which can be found on any other MJ recording, regardless of what the conditions are of said recording. Even WBSS 2008, recorded in the same studio at the same time does not have those vocal aspects that match Jason. They are only on the 12 songs which appeared almost a year after Michael's death and have no supporting evidence that Michael recorded them.

Are you forgetting that the vocals on the Cascio tracks were guide vocals, Frank confirmed that MJ was gonna record the final versions while on tour.