Netflix Baby Reindeer

[Richard Channing]

She's released a new statement. He reads it out in the first few minutes:

 

[Angela Channing]

Plus she now wants 11 million pounds from Netflix.

How is she going to claim that she was defamed when she has a long and proven history of stalking? Nothing in that series, even if it contains some inaccuracies, has worsened her reputation. I would be amazed if her case goes forward. I think it's just another thing in her world of delusion and fantasy.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

How is she going to claim that she was defamed when she has a long and proven history of stalking? Nothing in that series, even if it contains some inaccuracies, has worsened her reputation. I would be amazed if her case goes forward. I think it's just another thing in her world of delusion and fantasy.

And how does "this is a true story" explain the name "Martha" if this is to be taken literally? Was she convicted of something earlier, as BABY REINDEER suggests? Seems like a moot point given that we know she wasn't convicted and imprisoned for stalking Gadd, even though the Netflix show has that happen.

Since when do name changes not protect the storytellers legally? Sounds like a bunch of posing hooey.

Piers question that the current dialogue (attempting to make her into the victim) might be spun differently if the genders were switched, was a valid one, but nobody wanted "to go there" and I can't blame them (well, I can't blame Popcorned Planet, the others I can).

But, rather predictably, nearly everybody now is bending over backwards to give Fiona the benefit of the doubt -- which is absurd if you even bother to re-watch Piers' interview with her.

Surprisingly, younger photos of her do in fact seem to show a woman more attractive than one might have guessed.

BTW: Ava Santina is such a c***.

 

[Richard Channing]

And how does "this is a true story" explain the name "Martha" if this is to be taken literally? Was she convicted of something earlier, as BABY REINDEER suggests? Seems like a moot point given that we know she wasn't convicted and imprisoned for stalking Gadd, even though the Netflix show has that happen.

Since when do name changes not protect the storytellers legally? Sounds like a bunch of posing hooey.

Piers question that the current dialogue (attempting to make her into the victim) might be spun differently if the genders were switched, was a valid one, but nobody wanted "to go there" and I can't blame them (well, I can't blame Popcorned Planet, the others I can).

But, rather predictably, nearly everybody now is bending over backwards to give Fiona the benefit of the doubt -- which is absurd if you even bother to re-watch Piers' interview with her.

Surprisingly, younger photos of her do in fact seem to show a woman more attractive than one might have guessed.

BTW: Ava Santina is such a c***.

Yes it's kind of weird some people want to paint her as the victim here. The woman has spent most of her adult life terrorising people and making their lives a living hell. So what if she's had her 'agency' taken away from her. It was only a matter of time before karma was gonna come and kick her in the ass, and her time is now.

 

[Angela Channing]

Yes it's kind of weird some people want to paint her as the victim here. The woman has spent most of her adult life terrorising people and making their lives a living hell. So what if she's had her 'agency' taken away from her. It was only a matter of time before karma was gonna come and kick her in the ass, and her time is now.

Piers Morgan is pushing the narrative that she is a victim and Richard Gadd has to take some responsibility for allowing her to be identified. He's doing this to be controversial to drive viewers to his YouTube videos and to deflect from the fact that he conducted an exploitative interview with a mentally deranged individual who committed an appalling crime. He talks about Netflix owing her a duty of care which is nonsense, it's like saying Netflix owe the convicted murderers of Asunta Basterra a duty of care because they made a drama out of the crime. I'm not saying the crimes are equivalent but the principle is the same.

The lawyer he had on his show who claimed that saying Ms Harvey had a criminal record is defamation is talking out of his backside. Never employ that man because he will lose your case. What exactly in Baby Reindeer is he claiming is making Ms Harvey's reputation worse? It's like if in the drama The Asunta Case, they claimed as well as killing Asunta, her parents also stabbed her dog and that would now allow them to sue Netflix for defamation if the production company couldn't prove the parents hurt her dog. The reality is, if your reputation is already in the toilet, you're not going to win a defamation case.

Piers Morgan is supposed to be a top journalist but he doesn't challenge some of the nonsense that his guests say. Also, the fact that the media haven't yet been able to find details of Ms Harvey's criminal conviction doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As I explained in a previous post, even though this is public information, it can be difficult to access it. As a journalist he should know this.

 

[Richard Channing]

Piers Morgan is pushing the narrative that she is a victim and Richard Gadd has to take some responsibility for allowing her to be identified. He's doing this to be controversial to drive viewers to his YouTube videos and to deflect from the fact that he conducted an exploitative interview with a mentally deranged individual who committed an appalling crime. He talks about Netflix owing her a duty of care which is nonsense, it's like saying Netflix owe the convicted murderers of Asunta Basterra a duty of care because they made a drama out of the crime. I'm not saying the crimes are equivalent but the principle is the same.

The lawyer he had on his show who claimed that saying Ms Harvey had a criminal record is defamation is talking out of his backside. Never employ that man because he will lose your case. What exactly in Baby Reindeer is he claiming is making Ms Harvey's reputation worse? It's like if in the drama The Asunta Case, they claimed as well as killing Asunta, her parents also stabbed her dog and that would now allow them to sue Netflix for defamation if the production company couldn't prove the parents hurt her dog. The reality is, if your reputation is already in the toilet, you're not going to win a defamation case.

Piers Morgan is supposed to be a top journalist but he doesn't challenge some of the nonsense that his guests say. Also, the fact that the media haven't yet been able to find details of Ms Harvey's criminal conviction doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As I explained in a previous post, even though this is public information, it can be difficult to access it. As a journalist he should know this.

Agree with all your points except I don't think the interview was exploitative. Yes she has mental issues, but she's also cold, manipulative and vindictive. She knew exactly what she was doing going on that show. She wanted to get the ball rolling on her ridiculous defamation suit and also to stick the knife into Richard Gadd one more time. So I don't feel like she was being taken advantage off. Except maybe that she only got £350 or whatever it was, but she agreed to it so that's on her.

 

[Angela Channing]

Agree with all your points except I don't think the interview was exploitative. Yes she has mental issues, but she's also cold, manipulative and vindictive. She knew exactly what she was doing going on that show. She wanted to get the ball rolling on her ridiculous defamation suit and also to stick the knife into Richard Gadd one more time. So I don't feel like she was being taken advantage off. Except maybe that she only got £350 or whatever it was, but she agreed to it so that's on her.

You make valid points and you may well be correct. However, I also think Piers Morgan is a cold and manipulative individual and only cares about himself and his ratings and has been using her to raise the profile of his show. I think she is a deeply troubled woman who should be receiving counselling and not being paraded on TV to give her lies some credibility. I can see how she is using her new platform to raise her own profile so maybe they're both using each other.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

You're both right. She's responsible for her behavior and knew what she was doing by accepting the interview.

That said, Piers Morgan is an all-purpose pig.

 

[Richard Channing]

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Changing the names ought to protect them, legally. Otherwise, every other episode of DRAGNET and LAW & ORDER could be suable despite the fact that "names have been changed to protect the innocent (guilty)" when their plots have so often been ripped from the headlines.

What is the legal difference between the disclaimer "this is based on a true story" and "this is a true story" (or however Netflix phrased it) ?

 

[Richard Channing]

What is the legal difference between the disclaimer "this is based on a true story" and "this is a true story" (or however Netflix phrased it) ?

I don't know but you'd imagine even something billed as a true story can never really be 100% true so there must be some leeway there legally. Actually one commentator made a point today that it only says "this is a true story" before the first episode, not before any of the consecutive ones. So technically Netflix could say that they only claimed the first episode was a true story, not the rest of them, if they wanted to go that route.

BTW the latest today is that she has now filed a $50 million lawsuit against Netflix.

 

[Richard Channing]

It's gone up to $170 million today!

 

[Angela Channing]

Changing the names ought to protect them, legally. Otherwise, every other episode of DRAGNET and LAW & ORDER could be suable despite the fact that "names have been changed to protect the innocent (guilty)" when their plots have so often been ripped from the headlines.

What is the legal difference between the disclaimer "this is based on a true story" and "this is a true story" (or however Netflix phrased it) ?

Not a lot, although saying "based on a true story" might give a production company a little more flexibility in having more fictionalised content in the show. The thing is, "This is a true story" doesn't mean every aspect of the plot, or every line of dialogue needs to be an accurate reflection of what really happened, it only means the show has to be "substantially true" and the creators are still able to make changes from life to help the story telling. The credits also included the disclaimer "this program is based on real events however certain characters, names, incidents, locations and dialogue have been fictionalised for dramatic purposes" so it was never claimed to be 100% accurate.

It's gone up to $170 million today!

There are only really 4 things in the show that she can sue Netflix for: the amount of communications she sent, the sexual assault by the canal, the prison sentence and invasion of privacy.

If she sent a few hundred or tens of thousands emails and voicemails, it doesn't matter because both would be a substantial number and evidence of stalking so I can't see how she could win on that point.

The sexual assault would be his word against hers and the onus would be on her to prove it wasn't true and I can't see how she would do that other than giving a very convincing performance in the witness box. Having seen her interview with Piers Morgan in which she repeatedly contradicted herself and came across as being slightly deranged I think a court would find it difficult to believe her.

Whether or not she went to prison wouldn't defame her if Netflix were able to show the behaviour that the series implied lead to the conviction was true. I think there is enough evidence out there from many of her "victims" to demonstrate illegal stalking behaviour and threats.

Finally, privacy would be hard for her to prove because she chose to go on Piers Morgan's show to confirm she was "Martha" and she has subsequently agreed to accept money do public appearances to cash in on her notoriety so it will be difficult to argue that she has had her privacy invaded.

Netflix should be confident of winning the case although they might decide to give her a "small" payment, maybe a couple of million dollars, as that might be cheaper and simpler than defending an expensive law suit.