JPJ on mandolin:

On the original, the vocals start at 0:38. On the remastered version, the vocals start at 0:50. Other than that, they are the same.

That's Geoff Stephens. Prolific songwriter.

It's a demo from Page's days at Immediate Records, 1965. Jimmy played guitar and produced it but he didn't sing on it. The same song was later recorded by a guy named Russ Loader.

Bootleg companies intentionally misspelled things so that the major record labels would think they were homemade records and not professional fakes.

It's a remake of a song that Rod recorded with a group called Python Lee Jackson in 1972:

So....it's a guitar that Jimmy may have played one time in 1991?

The tracklist is showing several songs that were not part of the original radio broadcast. Hmmm.

"Cry Me A River" is relevant because it's a good illustration of what can't be copyrighted. Chord arpeggios -- the act of playing each note in a chord -- cannot be copyrighted. Davy Graham knew this, which is why he did not attempt to copyright his original interpretation of "Cry Me A River". I think Randy California knew this as well, which is why he never sued or even threatened to sue. Randy California did not invent the A-minor chord. 😄 The first jury understood this basic legal concept, and the second jury (if the case even goes to trial) will likely conclude the same thing.

No such song exists. Closest thing I can think of is the early demo of "No Quarter" which has a bit of a waltz feel to it. The only pre-Zep recordings with Plant are by P.J. Proby, but Plant didn't do any vocals. He only played tambourine and harmonica.

No, that's not how the trial will work. The jury will ONLY be permitted to hear Spirit's studio recording of "Taurus" as part of the process of determining if P&P had access to the song. The jury will NOT be permitted to hear "Taurus" to determine if the two songs are similar. The appeals court ruling was very clear on that subject. The 2nd trial -- if it happens -- will still be all about the sheet music. IF the jury decides that the sheet music is substantially similar to "Stairway", THEN the audio recording of "Taurus" will come into play. No, I'm not suggesting that P&P can commit perjury. What I'm suggesting is that the publicity from the previous trial could have brought forth some previously-unknown witnesses who could corroborate Plant's testimony (that he did not attend a Spirit concert in 1970) or Page's testimony (that he did not purchase the "Spirit" album which was discovered in his home). There will be no need for Page or Plant to commit perjury.

No, the case does not hinge on this at all. In fact it has almost nothing to do with connecting P&P to Spirit's shows (considering the fact that "Taurus" was almost never played live by Spirit in 1968-71). The case hinges on whether the two songs are "substantially similar" or "strikingly similar". IF the jury concludes that the two songs are substantially similar, THEN the alleged connections between P&P and Spirit MAY come into play. But the 2016 jury ALREADY concluded that P&P did indeed have access to "Taurus" -- and they dismissed the connection as irrelevant. Again, this is irrelevant. The original jury more-or-less agreed with you, but still ruled in P&P's favor. A retrial could actually hurt Malfoy on this particular subject, because P&P did not make an assertive defense against these allegations in the original trial. For example, if it goes to re-trial, then Robert would be able to present witnesses alleging that Robert was NOT in the audience at Spirit's 1970 concert at Mother's Club (and that Spirit did NOT play "Taurus" at that concert); and Jimmy would be able to present witnesses alleging that the copy of Spirit's first album which was discovered in Jimmy's home in 2014 was left there by a friend. Granted, these may not be the most compelling arguments in the world. But every little thing that casts doubt on Malfoy's theories will make it that much harder to rule in his favor.

There are many undeserving people who wrongfully claim that they could have won a lawsuit if only they had enough money to hire a lawyer. Apparently these people think that they can fool readers who are unaware of the concept of "works on contingency no money down". But the reality is that Randy California and his estate had no case. Not in 1971, not in 1997, not in 2016, and not now. Deep down he knew that the 3 similar notes were not stolen, which is why he never sued -- and it also explains why he was mostly quiet on the topic for most of his life. Lou Adler is one of the most financially savvy guys in the business -- if he thought he could get a piece of "Stairway", he absolutely would have done it. I'm well aware of what's claimed in the suit. Or, rather, I'm well aware of what Francis Malfoy attempted to claim -- only to have the judge throw out 99% of it. Such as his claim that Randy California gave guitar lessons to Jimmy Page. Or his claim that Spirit played "Taurus" every night on tour. Those two claims were debunked so fast that he didn't even attempt to bring them up when questioning Jimmy. If the case actually gets to a retrial, the only part that will significantly change is that the jury will get to hear Spirit's original recording of "Taurus". But that's not as big of a win as you might think it is -- because the original recording can only be used to determine if Page and Plant had "access" to the song. It can't be used to determine if the songs are similar. So it's basically a moot point. (The original jury already agreed that Page and Plant had access to the song.)

This is partly false and partly misleading. The false part is that Randy California had plenty of money in 1971. Also, Randy only owns half of the publishing royalties from "Taurus" -- the other half is owned by Lou Adler, who is one of the richest guys in Hollywood and could easily outspend Jimmy Page.....if he wanted to. Which he doesn't. Because he knows the case is bunk. The part that is misleading is that there are literally thousands of crappy lawyers on this planet that would have been more than happy to take on California's case on a contingency basis. We know this because that's exactly what ended up happening.