Just Skimmed Through STORMS

[GlennGlenn]

Originally Posted by RockALittle250

I enjoyed the book because CAH throughly described her great respect for every member of the band, and at the same time did not hold back the truth. I appreciated her candor, because it was not one-sided or partial towards herself.

I think many people who say the book is composed of lies or exaggerations are just afraid to face the truth, such as the fact that Lindsey was (and maybe still is) indeed violent and abusive towards women. After reading about his abuse towards CAH, it is clear that he wasn't being "intense"...he was very violent. Behavior like that is called Domestic Abuse, and CAH was clearly like a lot of abused women who deny that it will ever happen again.

The fact is, CAH was with Fleetwood Mac for a good 7 years, and she was there and we were not. She has the journal writings and recordings to prove it, and she states this clearly in the book.

A lot has been discussed about this book, BUT the fact remains, Lindsey's lawyers had to agree to a LOT of this and I am sure that the book was "vetted" by BOTh his lawyers & the publishers for possible "libel." What she says MAY be exaggerated, BUt I am sure that it is TRUE!!

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by GlennGlenn

A lot has been discussed about this book, BUT the fact remains, Lindsey's lawyers had to agree to a LOT of this and I am sure that the book was "vetted" by BOTh his lawyers & the publishers for possible "libel." What she says MAY be exaggerated, BUt I am sure that it is TRUE!!

This thing about "vetting" the book is mythical. You cannot "vet" a book as to matters involving only 2 people, if one is the writer.

Yes, when the writer is a journalist who has no personal knowledge of an event, then he would usually get verification from at least 2 independent sources, before he states something as fact. So, when Carl Bernstein claimed that Hillary and Bill Clinton were going to get a divorce, since he doesn't know that himself and Hillary and Bill aren't talking, he'd have to "friends of the Clintons" say it to him. Bernstein's book may have been vetted, but when you are writing about yourself, there is no vetting.

Look at the Scott McClellan book that just came out. Everyone in Washington claims he is lying, but he's writing about what was said to him, what he said, what he saw, what he thought. There's no way to vet that, especially as many of the people in meetings with him (Cheney, Libby, etc. wouldn't talk).

You can check facts, but you can't verify whether personal exchanges happened or not. If you're a publisher and want to check facts, you can find out if someone traveled to England in 1983. You can see if they filed a police report in 1979. See if they really went to the Betty Ford clinic. But you really can't verify what went on in their own home.

Also, there is no prior restraint on speech in America. You can't stop something from coming out before it's published. Even if it's full of lies. That book didn't have to be "cleared" with Lindsey's lawyers. From the rumors, we understand that it was 10 years in the making. So maybe they saw drafts of it first. But you can write a book about somebody without them seeing any part of it, until the thing hits the stands.

If it's copyrighted material or trade secret, like the secret Coke recipe, yes you can stop it before it hits the press. But if it's a book about your love affair, you don't get a chance to "clear" it before it is published. All you can do is threaten to sue after it comes out.


Even then, if something is not really a factual matter, but an event subject to differing interpretations, then you can't sue for libel because an OPINION is protected from defamation.

When you're talking about something inimate that happened between 2 people who were mostly alone together, you can't "vet" it and you can't win a libel suit based on it, because it's strictly he said/she said.

Here in America, where the plaintiff would have the burden of proof in a defamation suit, people only win libel suits when there are disinterested third parties who can be called upon to say there was no drunken brawl in the Hokey Pokey in January 2006 directly after the Super Bowl. If someone just describes what happened alone at their house and you think they're lying, you could try to take them to court on that, but your case would go nowhere.

Regarding CAH's book, aside from the incident at Christine's house, there are no witnesses to any of the physical events that Carol describes. She talks about the "you're all alike" matter starting at a concert, but she says everyone at the concert thought Lindsey was being loving and attentive towards her. They stopped her and told her how caring her boyfriend was. So, onlookers thought she was being caressed and not strangled, like she says she was. That's similar to the time when she says that Stevie accosted her back stage. She said no one else could tell what Stevie was doing, because Stevie was blocking their view. So, the only 2 incidents that happened in public weren't perceived by anyone else, the way they were perceived by Carol.

Since most of the passages in CAH's book had no witnesses other than herself, there would be no one available to verify what she says or dispute it either.

As for Carol's audio diaries that confirm everything she said, that's one of the problems with the book. If she'd said she was writing from memory, you could forgive the inaccuracies. But she says that she is using her journals and audio recordings and that assertion is used to give everything the false patina of authenticity. Yet, she still gets most of the objective facts wrong, even using her "records." How could you actually forget the name of a video you worked on as one of your very first professional designing jobs?

The messed up chronology, the wrong names, this is all stuff that could have been verified, but it wasn't. That gives me no confidence in her ability to get the subjective details, the ones that can't be verified correct.

Michele

[BTFLCHLD]

Originally Posted by michelej1

The messed up chronology, the wrong names, this is all stuff that could have been verified, but it wasn't. That gives me no confidence in her ability to get the subjective details, the ones that can't be verified correct.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with this information.