Opinion ID: 1601643
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the alleged defamatory implications.

Text: The plaintiffs' primary claim is that the Pine Knob series as a whole falsely implied that plaintiffs were members or associates of organized crime. Although the plaintiffs initially declined to provide any specific allegations of falsity, they argue on appeal that the layout of the Pine Knob articles, including photographs and headlines, as well as the repetition of certain words such as Mafia, Sicilian, and money wash, and indeed certain specific statements, contribute to the overall implication. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, an inescapable implication of the Pine Knob series conforms to the facts developed at trial: the plaintiffs had numerous financial and social connections with reputed organized crime figures and these associations contributed in the financing of Pine Knob and prompted intense investigative scrutiny, if not harassment, from law enforcement authorities. [37] Although capable of defamatory interpretation, the implications alleged by the plaintiffs do not arise from false facts or material omissions, and, standing alone, are not even proven by the plaintiffs to be false. The plaintiffs it would seem, want to have it both ways regarding their defamation by implication claims. On the one hand, they assert that the articles as a whole disseminate false implications. On the other, they point to statements or headlines in isolation from the whole, such as the use of the word lent in the statement that [s]everal investors associated with organized crime ... either lent or helped Locricchio and Francell raise large sums of money. However, the plaintiffs did directly or indirectly obtain loans and other financial assistance from reputed organized crime figures. Construing the articles as a whole, the plaintiffs have failed to show false implications by a preponderance of the evidence. Similarly, the headlines in the series, while arguably inflammatory, do not convey false implications apart from the context of the reported facts. The two partners did indeed, through hustle create a big resort, millions in debts and a question: `Is it Mafia?' The partners did indeed attempt to create a money wash by obscuring the source of the Magill loan. The partners did indeed have a brush with bankruptcy in the course of financing Pine Knob. While the headline that the partners were stalked by Mafia-hunters was somewhat misleading, since the Mafia-hunters were not stalking the plaintiffs, the headline falls into the category of permissible rhetorical hyperbole. The most troubling aspect of the Pine Knob series lies in the photograph in the second article of the automobile under the caption, Harvey Leach's car was found with his body in the trunk. Reporter Wendland conceded that the picture should have said, in 1974, and it is also troubling that the caption did not say where the murder occurred. Again, however, the articles must be construed as a whole, and the article later pointed out that intensive investigations by law enforcement agencies failed to link the plaintiffs to the Leach (or Brush) murders. [38]