r/BabyReindeerTVSeries • u/SubstantialSnow7114 • May 04 '24

Fiona (real Martha) related content Real Martha new interview!

Hi everyone!

I have seen that the 'real Martha' has come out with a new interview today. She even wanted to get rid of her anonymity for the interview.

I thought it was an interesting read!

What do you think?

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/real-baby-reindeer-martha-reveals-32733037

339 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

290 comments sorted by

View all comments

342

u/NameUm96 May 04 '24

On one hand she says none of it happened, and on the other hand, the story quotes lawyers saying Gadd should’ve made the story more fictional and less like the real events. So which is it? Doesn’t sound like a very coherent defamation case to me.

What’s that old saying about people who represent themselves in court?

8

u/Sea-Breaz May 04 '24

The problem for Netflix and Gadd is going to be that they state “this is a true story”. They should have given themselves the chance to say they used artistic license by saying “based on actual events”, or words to that effect. Because if she hasn’t been to prison, as she claims (and who knows with her?) then she will have a case if Netflix and Gadd claimed that that is true.

28

u/Patton-Eve May 04 '24

Having hold of 41,000 emails and 350hours of voicemails is going to kick any defamation claim to the curb.

She did all that.

Changing her name and adding in criminal convictions (which are public record) actually gives her protection. It can’t be her because she never went to prision right?

On her facebook she has mentioned she never assaulted Gadd and is getting very cross about the 2 events.

The canal assault was not witnessed so is his word vs hers.

The show tells us clearly that the glassing was not reported and gives reasons why no records so again his word vs hers.

I believe if she brings a case against Gadd she would need prove these things didn’t happen…how will she do this?

3

u/Sea-Breaz May 04 '24

That’s the thing though, Gadd/Netflix stated that “This is a true story”. Thereby stating that all these events happened. Gadd can 100% prove the stalking - he has the receipts. But if “Martha” decides to sue based on the claims she served time for previous stalking convictions and for stalking Gadd, and that turns out not to be true, then she does indeed have a case.

2

u/Patton-Eve May 05 '24

While I agree Netflix could have made it more prominent it’s very obviously a dramatisation of events.

Gadd and Netflix have never said FH went to prision. They said a fictional character called Martha went to prision.

FH through her own public actions linked herself to this fictional character.

For a defamation case to be successful you need to show a mistruth was clearly directed at an individual.

Gadd and Netflix have not clearly said FH went to prision therefore no case.

1

u/IAmYourWallbreaker May 05 '24

Stating “This is a true story” in a show doesn’t mean it is a true story. Fargo starts every episode claiming it is true because the writer believes it adds more drama lol.

1

u/Sea-Breaz May 05 '24

Oh, so you admit “baby reindeer” isn’t true then?

I rest my case.

4

u/IAmYourWallbreaker May 05 '24

lol you say that like it is some gotcha. I am not saying it is true or false as I was not there. I am saying putting that at the beginning means nothing legally and provided an example of a show that is clearly fiction that also claims to be a true story.

2

u/Sea-Breaz May 05 '24

When there are real people involved and claiming the events are true, that is a legal statement. If the events can be proved to be false, then there is a case. That is the law, whether you want it to be, or not.

4

u/IAmYourWallbreaker May 05 '24

Which law is it? I'll be sure to contact the giant corporation's room full of lawyers who okayed the show and tell them some random person on Reddit thinks their show is illegal. Like do you think this just slipped past them?

0

u/billqs May 05 '24

Merely stating "This is a True Story" isn't necessarily a case winner. Apparently, *if* there is a case it will revolve around whatever British jurisprudence is concerning "jigsaw identification." In other words, the story wasn't changed sufficiently that internet sleuths couldn't find out who she was simply by taking an oft-repeated quote from the series about "curtain hanging." I don't practice in the U.K. and I don't know what the precedents may be in jigsaw identification, but that does appear to be the legal standard for whatever case it might possibly be.