Netflix Baby Reindeer

[Snarky Oracle!]

Are "the feminists" saying anything about this case?

Some lawyers feel the anonymity of the fictionalized character is no protection for Gadd or Netflix legally (wow!) especially if Gadd can't prove the 41,000 texts, et al.

 

[Richard Channing]

Are "the feminists" saying anything about this case?

I saw one on a panel discussing the interview and she said she believed 75% of what Harvey was saying, because it would have been preposterous to say she believed her emphatically.

Some lawyers feel the anonymity of the fictionalized character is no protection for Gadd or Netflix legally (wow!) especially if Gadd can't prove the 41,000 texts, et al.

It's a weird one because I'm sure I've heard that Netflix said they changed so much about the character that even she wouldn't recognize herself which is blatantly not true, but then they also bill it as a true story so you can't have it both ways. But the fact that they don't even say 'based on a true story' or 'inspired by true events' means they presumably have all the necessary documents to back that up.

One point of contention is that in the series at the end Martha goes to prison but, as well as her denying that, so far nobody has found any evidence that she did. Although apparently her nephew has just come out saying that she is a liar and did go to prison for 4 months. So, who knows?

Anyway, I'm inclined to think it's all a big bluff that she is gonna sue because it would mean she'll be exposed for so many of the things she is obviously lying about. Time will tell I guess.

 

[Angela Channing]

Fiona Harvey is not suing Netflix and Richard Gadd. If she was instigating legal proceedings, her solicitors would have stopped her from doing that interview with Piers Morgan because of the risk of her saying something that would undermine her case. She was clearly lying throughout that interview and that was just another one of her lies.

Even if we assume she is suing them, she doesn't have a hope in hell of winning. Netflix and Mr Gadd do not have to prove the show was 100% accurate but just that it is substantially true. Ms Harvey hasn't just got to prove that the show was in her words "a pack of lies" but also that it defamed her. As a serial stalker who significantly disrupted Mr Gadd's life, it's inconceivable that a court would conclude she was defamed. She also risks Mr Gadd countersuing her for defamation, harassment and emotional destress.

The cost of the legal proceeding would be substantial and she wouldn't be able to claim legal aid for a defamation case so she would have to agree a "no win, no fee" deal with her legal team (unless she has large amounts of her own money). I just cannot see any legal professionals taking on the case on this basis because the risk of them losing is massive and they would have to cover the cost. Ms Harvey would also be a nightmare client as she regularly changed her story during the Piers Morgan interview and would likely be a completely unreliable witness in court.

 

[pete lashmar]

I find it hilarious that Fiona Harvey is threatening to sue a show that she hasn't seen and that isn't about her

From the interview with Piers she came across exactly as portrayed in the show and was caught out lying on a number of occasions, the eye roll she does when watching the sentencing clip from the final episode was very revealing as the dates from her stalking were read out.

It's only a matter of time now before any time served in prison is confirmed, and if that happens she really hasn't got a leg to stand on. But even if she didn't go to prison the police would still have details of when it was reported.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I find it hilarious that Fiona Harvey is threatening to sue a show that she hasn't seen and that isn't about her

From the interview with Piers she came across exactly as portrayed in the show and was caught out lying on a number of occasions, the eye roll she does when watching the sentencing clip from the final episode was very revealing as the dates from her stalking were read out.

It's only a matter of time now before any time served in prison is confirmed, and if that happens she really hasn't got a leg to stand on. But even if she didn't go to prison the police would still have details of when it was reported.

She's a standard issue narcissist-sociopath -- one of the female variety -- and is, as such, impenetrable. She is very much who and what she is.

She might, if things get too rough for her publicly , fake a suicide attempt, but probably not even that.

Without ever having met her or even seen her until now, I can say that her entire personality and modus operandi are summed up by that interview with Piers Morgan. It's just how she lives, moment by moment

She's an archetype of sorts. So it's no wonder somebody made a TV show about her.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

She now wants $1.25 million from Piers Morgan.

 

[Willie Oleson]

as well as her denying that, so far nobody has found any evidence that she did

The way I see it, you have a criminal record or you don't. I'm not sure if everyone has access to these records, but if that information would be one of the pivotal arguments in a trial then I'm sure it wouldn't take a lot of effort to get it.
Surely it's not possible to serve time "secretly"? Unless, for whatever reason, a criminal record has been erased (but I've only seen that in films).

On the other hand, my whole (adult) life I've been lying about not having a driver's licence (because I didn't want to drive).
But apart from the licence itself I don't think it's registered anywhere so I can still lie on the stand in a fabulous courtroom drama.

 

[Richard Channing]

The way I see it, you have a criminal record or you don't. I'm not sure if everyone has access to these records, but if that information would be one of the pivotal arguments in a trial then I'm sure it wouldn't take a lot of effort to get it.
Surely it's not possible to serve time "secretly"? Unless, for whatever reason, a criminal record has been erased (but I've only seen that in films).

On the other hand, my whole (adult) life I've been lying about not having a driver's licence (because I didn't want to drive).
But apart from the licence itself I don't think it's registered anywhere so I can still lie on the stand in a fabulous courtroom drama.

Right. Even though I think there was mention of some surname changes shenanigans it should be pretty straightforward to find out if someone has a criminal record or not. In fact, I'm surprised it hasn't been resolved already.
That and verification of the existence of all the emails, texts, letters and voicemails are two issues I would expect to get more clarification on in the coming days.

 

[Angela Channing]

Right. Even though I think there was mention of some surname changes shenanigans it should be pretty straightforward to find out if someone has a criminal record or not. In fact, I'm surprised it hasn't been resolved already.
That and verification of the existence of all the emails, texts, letters and voicemails are two issues I would expect to get more clarification on in the coming days.

Not really. Although the police keep a record of all criminal convictions, privacy laws mean that only a limited number of people in specific reasons can access this information, for example, an employer may be able to get this information about a member of staff. Also, to allow the rehabilitation of convicts, after a specified period of time (between 5-10 years depending on the crime) the record is "spent", i.e., it is effectively wiped.

I would still be possible to find Ms Harvey's record but it would take a lot of investigative work looking at courts records, local papers and other sources. Newspapers sometimes bribe police to illegally access their databases to get this information but I can't imagine they would do this (which would be criminal in itself) just because of interest in a TV show.

 

[Willie Oleson]

I would still be possible to find Ms Harvey's record but it would take a lot of investigative work looking at courts records, local papers and other sources

But if Gadd was involved with the legal process that sent her to jail then surely it would narrow things down a bit.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

But if Gadd was involved with the legal process that sent her to jail then surely it would narrow things down a bit.

He wasn't. I think the allegation is that she was prosecuted for something earlier and is now denying it.

 

[Willie Oleson]

He wasn't.

Sorry, I had misinterpreted that part of the video.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Sorry, I had misinterpreted that part of the video.

It gets confusing because the show apparently has her arrested and imprisoned (which didn't happen). But there are assertions she was arrested and imprisoned for something else years ago (which may have happened, but she claims didn't).

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

The BABY REINDEER scandal has quickly become all the rage, even for people who haven't seen the show. Piers Morgan says the response to his interview with Lady Non-Martha has surpassed almost any piece he's ever done.

Why is that?

Is there something about outrageous pathological bitches that just pulls us in? Is it 'misogyny'? Is it a sense of recognition regarding things we've seen and experienced? Is it a weird blend of both?

Why do we still like noir bitches from the '40s (still by far the most popular genre from Old Hollywood's heyday) and grande dame guignol bitches (a la BABBY JANE and its knock-offs) from the '60s, and over-dressed nighttime soap diva bitches from the '80s?

What does all this fascination tap into??

 

[Willie Oleson]

Why do we still like noir bitches from the '40s (still by far the most popular genre from Old Hollywood's heyday) and grande dame guignol bitches (a la BABBY JANE and its knock-offs) from the '60s, and over-dressed nighttime soap diva bitches from the '80s?

It should be noticed that nobody cares about her (alleged) victim anymore.
She's close to becoming a pop culture icon and if that happens it means that Gadd's sob story has backfired epically.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

It should be noticed that nobody cares about her (alleged) victim anymore.
She's close to becoming a pop culture icon and if that happens it means that Gadd's sob story has backfired epically.

Like Meghan Markle? Or, less-so, Amber Heard (whose victim no one indeed cares about, due to gender issues)?

I think the reason that its less-likely to happen to Fiona is because she, frankly, is too physically unattractive, and because her mental issues are so obviously off-putting, that it's stressful listening to her go on and on. She can't so easily play the 'wicked-seductress-who-lied-and-won' card because she just isn't very pretty.

Her ugliness could potentially make her more sympathetic, I suppose, and the fourth wavers might try and turn her into a cause cé·lè·bre, but I think even they would lose interest pretty quickly.

I mean, the woman who tried to kill Warhol --- Valerie Solanas -- was mostly defended by the feminists, but she did her shtick before the internet. And she did do a couple of years in the slammer.

 

[Angela Channing]

But if Gadd was involved with the legal process that sent her to jail then surely it would narrow things down a bit.

Yes, he would be able to identify the court where the trial took place which would narrow the work down considerably however, there may be time limits for when a court would consider it practicable to look back for a result (even though many of the records are computerised) and they would normally only do it for someone who was involved in the case. The system is not staffed to deal with media enquiries.

 

[Angela Channing]

It should be noticed that nobody cares about her (alleged) victim anymore.
She's close to becoming a pop culture icon and if that happens it means that Gadd's sob story has backfired epically.

I'm not sure I agree with you. Richard Gadd has gotten his story out to a wider audience which is what he wanted and the public have a lot of affection for him. He also made a lot of money from the series and is in a lot of demand for interviews, comedy gigs, and writing assignments. He never wanted anything bad to happen to "Martha" so I can't imagine he is losing any sleep about her growing notoriety.

 

[Richard Channing]

It gets confusing because the show apparently has her arrested and imprisoned (which didn't happen).

I'm not sure we know for sure it didn't happen. She denies it of course but the last thing Netflix had to say on the subject was that it's a true story. So far it's her word against theirs. Although apparently now a Scottish MP is calling on Netflix to come up with the proof that she was a convicted stalker. Whether that be the first time or both times remains to be seen.

And there is also an MP's wife who has come out and said that she was stalked by Harvey for 5 years, so it seems the evidence of her being a stalker is mounting.

she just isn't very pretty.

Lol, even though she doesn't seem to think so. It made me laugh in the interview when she gave her version of the first meeting with Gadd when she said he interrupted her conversation and from that moment his obsession with her began. Somehow I can't imagine she is a victim of 'obsessed at first sight' by handsome young men half her age all that frequently.

And also she was insulted to be compared to the actress playing her even though that actress is much prettier than her, and incidentally, plays her with a lot more charm and wit than she actually appears to possess. I think Gadd was actually generous with the casting and portrayal for the series.

 

[Richard Channing]

Not keen on posting The Sun as a source but they're the ones who broke the story. It appears Harvey has sent 226 messages, many of them very vicious, to Labour leader Kier Starmer. Plus she now wants 11 million pounds from Netflix.