Libel is a more complicated legal concept than just "untrue". It's more like "reckless disregard for truth". And it has to harm someone in a way that costs them money.
Also a retraction is not necessarily an admission of falsehood. It is just "unsaying" something, returning to a neutral position to whatever degree that is possible.
For example I might think someone is on drugs and, for some dumb reason reason, voice said opinion as if I knew it to be fact... "Guess what folks, Person X is on drugs!"
I would probably have to then retract the statement in order to prevent a libel suit because I really don't have a clue what they may or may not on. It might later turn out to be perfectly true, even though I later felt the need to retract it...
The thing is without direct evidence I shouldn't have phrased such an opinion as a known fact. Saying "In my opinion Person X is on drugs" would be fine, as it would cast doubt on my opinion's value if false -- we are actually entitled to hold and express opinions, even when they are utterly ridiculous and make us look foolish.
Combined with indirect evidence like "because their behavior is similar to that of a person on drug X" the statement would be more credible and still legitimate. Only by actually making a directly false statement would you be committing libel (such as if their behavior or that of a person on drug X was dramatically different than that described).
Of course I might later decide I had been impolite and retract the statement of opinion even if I still held the opinion -- even if it was not actually a definite enough statement to qualify as libel. I might simply think it doesn't matter enough to the audience whether person X is on drugs, so I might as well not get entangled in an argument over it.
I am not saying Melody really stole a nondisclosure agreement (or whatever the allegation was). I'm just saying Charles might have had that opinion and expressed it as fact, when in reality he intended it as an opinion. He may or may not have changed his opinion afterward. He may have (for all I know) only stated it as an opinion and retracted it afterward to prevent Melody from hurt feelings, or to reduce his overall amount of hassle in dealing with it. There are a lot of logical possibilities here other than that he was admitting to having committed a reckless disregard for truth at the cost of Melody's career.
It appears that Melody has said some things that she should retract (i.e. rephrase as opinions) in order to prevent a libel suit... Charles has a very expensive lawyer, after all
I agree with Jorden's sentiments that a more polite and cautious expression of opinions on this forum (one which ensures that false statements will not be made even by accident) would be much appreciated by all of us. I don't live in a world where things are all black and white, but there is certainly light and dark -- and what has been going on is certainly too dark for my tastes.
