Just Skimmed Through STORMS - Page 35

Tango · #**511** 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?

CADreaming · #**512** 03-22-2009, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

Yeah, and it's called "Always Been A Storm," b*tch!

LOL...take that, Carol Ann!

Gailh · #**513** 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 · #**514** 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

whitewingdove73 · #**515** 03-22-2009, 10:37 PM

Thanks for explaining all that for me. Makes lots of sense.

Gailh · #**516** 03-23-2009, 08:41 AM

Very nicely explained Michele.

although I suppose there must be some medical records the only witness was Christine and as you say a good lawyer would claim that she was hardly impartial.

As I said before I think in a few years time all this might raise it's ugly head again

Gail

michelej1 · #**517** 03-23-2009, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gailh

although I suppose there must be some medical records
Gail

Yes. I remember she was at the doctor for the miscarriage, but I don't know if she said she went to the doctor after any of the attacks or not.

Michele

Gailh · #**518** 03-23-2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michelej1

Yes. I remember she was at the doctor for the miscarriage, but I don't know if she said she went to the doctor after any of the attacks or not.

Michele

I might be remembering this wrong but wasn't there something where a doctor told her something like "he wont change and it will get worse" or words to that effect. So presumably there would still be a record of that?

Gail

TrueFaith77 · #**519** 03-23-2009, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gailh

I might be remembering this wrong but wasn't there something where a doctor told her something like "he wont change and it will get worse" or words to that effect. So presumably there would still be a record of that?

Gail

Right but I don't remember why she was there. Psychological or physical?

CADreaming · #**520** 03-23-2009, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

Right but I don't remember why she was there. Psychological or physical?

That struck me as sort of funny...sorry...

Tango · #**521** 03-23-2009, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michelej1

Yes. I remember she was at the doctor for the miscarriage, but I don't know if she said she went to the doctor after any of the attacks or not.

Michele

Check out pages 352-353

Nico · #**522** 03-23-2009, 06:10 PM

It's been awhile since I read that book and I think it's packed away somewhere now so I couldn't read those pages mentioned above.

What really stuck out about the book was how immature the author sounded. Not necessarily is this a slight on the content, but her voice. She painted herself out as a very innocent, insecure, clingy type. And while I don't know her personally, it almost seems as though she didn't quite mature much from the person she described. It's like she wants us, the readers, to believe she was sort of forced into this lifestyle and had no say whatsoever in many of the choices she made. And of course everyone appeared to do more drugs than her, though in that video where she's seen backstage shadowing Lindsey she looks more strung out than anyone else aside from Mick...

I remember a lot of incidents where she was sick or Lindsey was sick. In fact, is it my imagination or was his health kind of not-so-great? I just remember a lot of different parts in the book where he was either in the hospital, on a plane lying down, having tests done, etc. I felt kind of bad for him...but then again it could have all been just one time and in my failing memory I got that confused.

michelej1 · #**523** 03-23-2009, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nico

I remember a lot of incidents where she was sick or Lindsey was sick. In fact, is it my imagination or was his health kind of not-so-great? I just remember a lot of different parts in the book where he was either in the hospital, on a plane lying down, having tests done, etc. I felt kind of bad for him...but then again it could have all been just one time and in my failing memory I got that confused.

I think in her book he was basically sick that one time with the spinal tap (if you don't count throwing up around Dick Clark), but I did find it interesting that outside of the book when asked whether he had mono (and if that's where ISA came from) he said he really didn't have it. He was just sick for a year and the family doctor didn't know what it was and he said it was actually never diagnosed. I thought that was rather weird, for such a young person.

Stevie said Lindsey's father ailed and dwindled away for months before he died. Then his brother died at 45. They don't sound like a healthy bunch of folks.

Michele

CADreaming · #**524** 03-23-2009, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michelej1

I think in her book he was basically sick that one time with the spinal tap (if you don't count throwing up around Dick Clark), but I did find it interesting that outside of the book when asked whether he had mono (and if that's where ISA came from) he said he really didn't have it. He was just sick for a year and the family doctor didn't know what it was and he said it was actually never diagnosed. I thought that was rather weird, for such a young person.

Stevie said Lindsey's father ailed and dwindled away for months before he died. Then his brother died at 45. They don't sound like a healthy bunch of folks.

Michele

Michele, that's the first I've heard LB not really having mono. Interesting. What was the time frame on that? SnL moved to LA and then moved back when he was sick?

Never heard about LB's dad being sick before either. I'm assuming it was known he had heart trouble?

Nico · #**525** 03-23-2009, 08:32 PM

Sorry about the grammar...I meant "laying" down.

It's news to me about him saying he didn't have mono. Actually, I never heard him talk about it, so...lol!

But, yeah, in the book it just seemed he was sick a lot. Wasn't there also mention of him having severe stomach cramps where he had to go to the doctor and have tests? I remember that being in there when they were recording Tusk.

OMG, I hope Lindsey's seeming great health and physical appearance means he takes extra good care of himself, because you are making me a little worried re: the family history, Michele. But his mom lived a long time. Maybe as well as her face and physique he also inherited her health genes and will be able to release 20 more albums before any sad stuff has to happen...as I dream...sigh...