Just Skimmed Through STORMS

whitewingdove73 · #1 03-21-2009, 11:10 PM

I didn't like this book at all.

I wish Lindsay or Stevie would have said something about it...

It's weird he didn't sue for defamation of character or something.

Gailh · #2 03-22-2009, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whitewingdove73

It's weird he didn't sue for defamation of character or something.

There are probably two reasons why he didn't take some kind of legal action

1) It's all true and he would lose

2) He didn't want to give the book the oxygen of publicity so whether it was true or not she would still gain

I don't know which one of these it would be. I don't think she could have got away with the story about the incident at Christine's house without that having a huge amount of truth in it. I suspect that nobody in Fleetwood Mac (past or present) has commented because they don't want to give her the publicity.

Gail

Tango · #3 03-22-2009, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gailh

There are probably two reasons why he didn't take some kind of legal action

1) It's all true and he would lose

2) He didn't want to give the book the oxygen of publicity so whether it was true or not she would still gain

I don't know which one of these it would be. I don't think she could have got away with the story about the incident at Christine's house without that having a huge amount of truth in it. I suspect that nobody in Fleetwood Mac (past or present) has commented because they don't want to give her the publicity.

Gail

I think you're right Gail on all of the above. When you mentioned "oxygen" I immediately thought of Oprah and the attention she is spending on Chris Brown and Rhianna (close enough to the word Rhiannon, in my mind). I'd hate to think the only way Opray would ever give attention to Fleetwood Mac would be due to this book, but I think I know what Oprah would be saying.

Tango · #4 03-22-2009, 12:32 PM

I'm thinking more about all of this, and what Gail wrote. We know Fleetwood Mac chose to ignore the book. Were they wrong? Or maybe it's not Fleetwood Mac's place to respond, as that conversation would have to start with Lindsey. I think of Truman, The buck stops here. While this book probably induced concerns financial terror among the rest of the band (and maybe even some praying to the 'commercial gods'?), while listening to Lindsey's spoken words on "Surrender The Rain" (OOTC) I wonder what his thoughts were. Right now his thoughts are probably focused on the tour and his family. Would facing the book with someone like Oprah bring integrity and interest back to the band or would it just be commercial suicide? What do you think?

Gailh · #5 03-22-2009, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tango

I'm thinking more about all of this, and what Gail wrote. We know Fleetwood Mac chose to ignore the book. Were they wrong? Or maybe it's not Fleetwood Mac's place to respond, as that conversation would have to start with Lindsey. I think of Truman, The buck stops here. While this book probably induced concerns financial terror among the rest of the band (and maybe even some praying to the 'commercial gods'?), while listening to Lindsey's spoken words on "Surrender The Rain" (OOTC) I wonder what his thoughts were. Right now his thoughts are probably focused on the tour and his family. Would facing the book with someone like Oprah bring integrity and interest back to the band or would it just be commercial suicide? What do you think?

I think it would be a dangerous game to play. Outside of this forum the furore has died down so why not just leave it? Whenever a decision is made to take legal action a whole load of other stuff invariably comes out and why put his family through that?

I think they did the right thing and basically ignored it (for now) I wouldn't be surprised in a few years if it gets spoken about

Gail

michelej1 · #6 03-22-2009, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whitewingdove73

It's weird he didn't sue for defamation of character or something.

Even if he sued and everything Carol wrote was a lie, he'd lose the case. Carol didn't really say anything that you can disprove factually. And you can't win a libel case based on he said/she said -- at least not in the U.S. where the person suing would have the burden of proof. In other countries, the person who published the allegedly defamatory statement would have the burden of proof and so it's easier to prove defamation, but not here.

Since we've all been thinking of Natasha Richardson, I remember the 1999 defamation lawsuit she and Liam won against the Belfast Telegraph, a publication that claimed their marriage was over. That was in the UK. They never would have won in the United States, because our defamation laws are so different.

Also, stating your opinion of what happened is not defamatory. You really can't sue on things that are subject to different points of view -- especially in this case where you're talking incidents that are 25+ years old and witnesses are not likely to have clear recollections.

Now, if she said something like she filed a police report for assault and you could go back and show that no police report was ever filed or the report contradicted what she said, that would be evidence. Or if she said she went to a doctor for treatment and he had her medical records which disputed that, that would be evidence. But having someone like fellow band members dispute descriptions of what Carol wrote is hardly strong enough evidence to win a defamation suit. For one thing, having two people say something instead of one, doesn't mean it's true or untrue. Even if Christine backed Lindsey up and said they never had a physical fight at Christine's house, that doesn't mean Lindsey would win his case. It's not "true" for a judge or jury, just because more people say it's true. Further, fellow band members aren't disinterested parties. It's not the same as having an objective third party witness (like a stranger in a bar) testify.

Also, a defamation suit is one thing, that seeks damages for injury to his reputation. But if you are talking about a lawsuit that would take her book off the shelves or make her have to delete or rewrite portions of it, that is more than defamation. That involves a restraint on freedom of speech, a constitutional right and that kind of lawsuit where you would be requesting injunctive relief (to keep the book from being sold) is even harder to prove.

Going back to defamation (libel) I think he would lose a libel suit, not necessarily because what Carol wrote is true, but because he couldn't meet his burden of proof to prevail. That would be tantamount to a criminal case where you have someone being acquitted of murder, not because they were "innocent" but because guilt couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In this sort of civil case, as the party bringing the lawsuit, Lindsey would have to be the one proving Carol's guilt in lying. She would not have to be the one proving that what she said was true. Lindsey, the plaintiff, would have the burden of proof.

I don't think there's any way he could prove a negative, prove that something did not happen. I mean, he can dispute factual things, like dates, locations, a miscarriage which was treated in a hospital, etc., but he can't disprove actions or words that didn't happen in public.

The most he could do is sue her and, because he has more money than she does, force her into a settlement because she'd have to pay exorbitant legal costs to fight his case.

Michele