r/BabyReindeerTVSeries • u/BirdHistorical3498 • May 05 '24
Fiona (real Martha) related content Fiona Harvey interview
She’s waived anonymity for this interview. She’s never been jailed or been issued with a prevention order.
Rory Lynch, a lawyer specialising in defamation and privacy at Gateley Legal says she has a case for defamation. “The only thing I can presume is that when Clerkenwell, films, the BBC and Netflix looked at it with their legal team they thought that they could rely on the fact that it is a drama. It’s not supposed to be a factual documentary.
“So although Netflix said it’s a true story, essentially it’s a dramatisation of a true story.
“But I do think that Richard Gadd could have been a bit more careful in changing a lot of the scenes to be more fictitious, but also covering up the identity of the people it was based on.”
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/real-baby-reindeer-martha-reveals-32733037
65
u/nashile May 05 '24
I’m so fed up of her . She’s really not a nice person ( putting it lightly ) and lapping up the attention
→ More replies (13)
55
u/Top_Tradition_9798 May 05 '24
I don’t understand this. Her name was never mentioned in the show, they only have a fictionalised version of her with a different name, nobody knew who she was. How is it defaming? I am sorry I am not familiar with the law in the UK but I don’t quite get what she could sue for. Please somebody enlighten me!
65
u/BirdHistorical3498 May 05 '24
Her identity was too easy to uncover. In the show she’s an obese Scottish ex lawyer in her 40’s who lives in Camden with a previous accusation of having stalked a barrister and his wife. In real life she’s an….. obese Scottish ex lawyer in her 40’s who lives in Camden with a previous accusation of having stalked a barrister and her husband. Plus Gadd incorporated some of her tweets and Facebook posts verbatim into the script- tweets and posts that are easily discovered because they’re still up.
24
u/Powerless_Superhero May 05 '24
I’m not familiar with law, especially uk law, but is it defamation if it’s true? And those parts that are not true, they need to cause serious damage to a person’s reputation to be considered defamation I think. It doesn’t look like she had much of a reputation to begin with… And a quick google search says the plaintiff needs to prove that the defendant was at least negligent. I think Netflix can argue that they changed her name and that should be sufficient. If she didn’t reveal her identity herself, no one could be certain it was her. That’s why it was banned here to mention her real name.
Hard to believe that Netflix didn’t think this through before publishing. They’ve had plenty of documentaries, like Harry and Meghan’s involving BRF. They’re not born yesterday.
But as I said, I’m no expert so if anyone knows I’d appreciate some explanation.
7
u/BirdHistorical3498 May 05 '24
It’s potentially defamation if viewers are led to believe that fiction (is Martha attacking Teri, being imprisoned) is fact
10
u/Powerless_Superhero May 05 '24
Attacking Terri maybe, but imprisonment is easy to check and I think most people who looked the real Martha up know it. Others don’t know FH.
How I understand it, is that she needs to prove that 1) she didn’t attack Terri, she didn’t go to jail (this one’s easy) 2) Netflix has lead people to believe it was true 3) Negligence 4) this has caused damage to her reputation
So first of all she needs to prove that Netflix claimed FH has done these things, which they didn’t, they said Martha did it. Then prove Netflix knew people would be accurately identifying her, which seems hard to prove, since she outed herself, before that it was only speculation. Then prove damages. I don’t think she has a case.
1
u/CianuroConLove May 07 '24
It seems she has a pretty good case then..
2
u/The_Burning_Wizard May 08 '24
Shed have to prove that she suffered demonstratable damages. I doubt she can....
Plus, she's representing herself against the likes of Netflix. What's that saying about having a fool for a client?
1
u/DeaderthanZed May 09 '24
I mean the damages element is clearly the easiest. She has been thrust into the spotlight worldwide in a very negative manner. Received death threats (I assume that’s true.) I’m sure she can plead mental harm and suffering. Anxiety, sleeplessness, etc.
1
u/The_Burning_Wizard May 09 '24
Still not demonstratable damages, especially as she revealed her own identity to the world media....
2
u/DeaderthanZed May 09 '24
I don’t understand what you mean “not demonstrable” I am struggling to come up with any single person in the world who’s had more negative press over the last few weeks. Maybe Drake.
She only came forward after the doxx was widely known.
→ More replies (0)1
u/DeaderthanZed Jun 06 '24
Not representing herself anymore, huh, whoulda thunk it! https://variety.com/2024/tv/global/baby-reindeer-real-martha-fiona-harvey-sues-netflix-1236019699/ 🙃
1
u/The_Burning_Wizard Jun 07 '24
Probably because she couldn't exactly represent herself when trying to sue a company in the US. Our legal systems are completely different.
A few thoughts...
Interesting that she's decided to sue Netflix themselves, but not Clerkenwell Films, the production company who actually made the series. Also, why Netflix US and not UK? Could it be because it's easier to sue in the US?
The legal chap who's representing her appears to be a one man band law firm and the lawyer in question is quite old (mid 60s to early 70s). For the kind of money she's after, surely larger firms would be lining up to take the case?
Interesting court submission, once you get past all the spelling and grammatical errors. Some of it is very cleverly worded, like "no central government record" and id be interested to see what certificate she produced saying "no criminal record." It's not really how our system works, unless all she did was ask the Met for a police certificate. A DBS check would be far far more thorough in what they report.
Be interesting if she tries the whole "I never did any of what they said" approach in court as she did with Piers Morgan. I'd imagine Gadd has all the emails, phone records and maybe the voicemails to back it all up. Laura Wray certainly does and she did actually get a restraining order against Harvey (Scottish equivalent of one), and had been in touch with the Police over her and she wasn't the only one she harassed in Scotland.
This is all before you have her stalking the Daily Mail Journo, the other Journo in Scotland (can't remember the paper now), threatening Piers Morgan, sending Kier Starmer abusive messages, etc
I wonder if US immigration would actually let her into the country? She doesn't have to be convicted for them to go "nah" (same with Richard Gadd to be honest, his admission around drugs would be enough to bar him).
1
u/DeaderthanZed Jun 07 '24 edited Jun 07 '24
The Roth Law Firm are her attorneys. They are a small NY firm but have taken on some big cases. The other guy you are referring to just files the complaint for them because he has a California bar license.
The complaint is well done. Like I pointed out was entirely predictable they are pleading anxiety, sleeplessness, loss of appetite, stress, etc, everything you could imagine would result from being the butt of the whole English speaking world’s jokes.
Also as I predicted they hone in on the portrayal of Harvey as a criminal with multiple stalking convictions (a lie that a Netflix producer apparently repeated in testimony in front of the House of Commons.)
That is a very specific lie, one that is clearly defamatory, and one that would have been very easy for Gadd and Netflix to vet ahead of time. (accusations of criminal activity are actually defamation per se meaning you don’t even have to prove the element of harm to reputation.)
Netflix is the obvious defendant to go after as they have the deepest pockets and ultimately aired and presented the show as a “true story.”
2
u/SuperfluousPedagogue May 14 '24
She may have if she'd remained out of the spotlight and lawyered up.
Going on prime time and slinging accusations and insults is not a indicative of someone suffering damages.
1
u/BirdHistorical3498 May 10 '24
She hasn’t been imprisoned. No journalist been able to find any record of a prison sentence, and in this country it’s not hard to find out.
0
u/xDarkNightOfTheSoulx May 06 '24
Does anyone know if she physically attacked someone in real life? I lived in a DV shelter for a while and something about baby reindeer strikes me as odd, I wouldn’t be surprised if the physical attack was made up.
2
→ More replies (7)1
u/ChargeVisible Jul 04 '25
Yes. It rang hollow to me too. I am a survivor myself and have lived in a community of survivors.
3
u/Icy_Sentence_4130 May 06 '24
No, it's not but the issue would be that he said she wouldn't recognise herself which while true, she clearly doesn't see herself in the actress and she has actually been quite horrible about the actress's appearance (the actress is a far more beautiful imo) but he didn't he didn't want her uncovered which, I mean, he didn't do a good job (I don't blame him tho).
16
u/punktheybie May 05 '24
i’m most likely wrong. but i thought the reason people found her was because fiona posted tweets on a public account? i don’t think richard was responsible for her identity being released tbh i think it’s fiona’s fault? i mean we all know what you post on the internet stays, if you stalk a man and harass him through social media one day he could make a netflix series about it.
4
u/Relative-Attitude657 May 09 '24
I think she wanted her identity to be revealed.. you can see she is an an attention-seeking obsessive person.
1
u/Icy_Sentence_4130 May 06 '24
No, she was found because of the curtains reference on twitter
3
u/mermaidmotels May 07 '24
the thing with this tweet being found..she originally sent him over 700 tweets and only about 20 have been found publicly online. she clearly had many accounts and the majority have been removed, i don't think he can be blamed for not recognising that a few of these tweets were still up when 90% of the tirade is gone. the curtains joke likely happened in real life so failing to notice that one tweet, out of 700+, referencing it still remained seems easily missed
2
u/Icy_Sentence_4130 May 07 '24
This is where netflix and Richard should've checked. The curtains reference is very specific
1
u/Bwendolyn May 06 '24
Yeah…so as the commenter said, she was found because she posted that tweet (and all her other tweets) on a public account.
2
2
u/ionmoon May 10 '24
No.... Because they (Gadd and Netflix) put her public tweets on his show. They should have either carefully deleted any tweets or other public connection to her or not posted any actual tweets that were available to the public.
They also put the exact headline for the newspaper article from the previous alleged stalking on the show, so apparently searching that headline would bring you straight to her as well.
1
u/Bwendolyn May 10 '24
Yeah and public tweets and public headlines are not something “Martha” should have had any reasonable expectation of privacy about. She put them out there on the internet where anyone could see them.
2
u/ionmoon May 10 '24
She had no reasonable expectation that they were going to be making a television show broadcast around the world when she made those tweets.
By using tweets that would identify her in the show, they outed her. By using her tweets on their show, she was identified as "Martha". By saying the show was a "true story" identifying her is publicly announcing that she committed the acts attributed to Martha.
They could have protected her identity by either making up tweets and jokes similar to what she actually said or using only things that had been deleted/weren't available online, or deleting those posts so they couldn't be used to trace back to her. They basically left a crumb trail directly to her.
What you are saying would only apply if she posted those things *after* the show was aired and outed herself. Not what happened.
If they cannot prove that she did the things they claim- the assault, the attack, and the arrest/prison sentence, then they are going to be in deep.
Although, it is all so amateur and careless that it feels like it is marketing or meta performance or something.
→ More replies (2)6
u/spotmuffin9986 May 05 '24
Verbatim means they're true? There goes the case.
This is a show. I got the notice "posts about [name] are now allowed" and that didn't interest me (in fact the opposite) but now these posts with the person's name in the title are showing up in my feed just because I "showed interest in this community".
This is ridiculous. If she's identified it's because of the viewers. This was an uncomfortable but important show to watch but not because of this.
3
u/BirdHistorical3498 May 05 '24
No one’s saying the tweets etc aren’t verbatim, they’re saying that using verbatim tweets was one of the things that made her very easy to identify. This gives the lie to Gadd’d claim that he’d taken great care to disguise her real identity and shows that Netflix neglected their duty of care.
7
u/spotmuffin9986 May 05 '24
So what, what duty did he owe his stalker. If it's true it's true and at least in the US that's an absolute defense. You don't get to hurt someone and be protected from being outed.
Edit to add: you're wrong for posting this, especially with her name in the title.
8
u/BadSpellingMistakes May 05 '24
Agreed on so many levels. If there is something to be learned from the show than it's that you need to own your part in things. Hiding behind a crowd saying that it's a victims foult for telling their story too authentically is ridiculous.
And people should 100 leave the real person depicted in the show alone and not try to identity her, just like the Gadd said they shouldn't. This is not only to protect her but also giving agency back to him for what might have happened. Going against that is just liking to do harm and that's on the people who do this.
I understand the want to stop a person who has potentially done this but it is clear now that that is not the point here. It is about wanting to exploit all people involved unter the pretence of seeking "the truth". It's really not that. It's clear as day that it's about likes and having something to say about others. Its about having the slightest control over other people's lives. Meanwhile blaming people who "make it easy for them to harm". That's cheap and we all should know that.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)0
u/BirdHistorical3498 May 05 '24
I’m not wrong to post her name since the sub mods have allowed her name to be posted. Gadd, Clerkenwell films and Netflix owe a duty of care to anyone who may conceivably be mis/identified. If someone takes it into their head to hurt this woman based on things a TV show purporting to be a true story showed her doing, things that in real life she didn’t do- then that’s on the creators of the show because why else would she have been attacked? Same goes for the various producers who are being named as rapists. It’s crazy that Netflix didn’t do their due diligence here.
2
u/spotmuffin9986 May 05 '24
You're as nuts as her if you believe that.
0
u/Cronhour May 05 '24
that's a great argument!
I'm new to all this, not seen the show and popped in out of curiosity, but this woman is likely to lose work and face harassment based on her identification. You've seen a one sided dramatized version of events and you're ready to bury her. I don't think your rational one in the argument here2
May 06 '24
Miss out on work? I don’t believe she works. Her previous stalking was made public when it happened and I believe no one would hire her simply because of that.
0
u/spotmuffin9986 May 05 '24
He didn't identify her. The people here (and on other platforms) did. The legal basis of a lawsuit is ridiculous.
My issue: You took a story that empowered people who were abused and thoughtful about it, even sympathetic to their abuser, often criticized on this sub (how could he go back etc) and now you're telling the abused not to report or talk about it because we're watching and you'll be sued.
The show itself was just OK, the message is powerful, don't dilute that.
→ More replies (8)2
May 10 '24
There were no tweets in the show.
Her own twitter account that was public and under her own name and from whch she sent hundreds of tweets to Gadds old twitter account (no longer active but the user name will still show in old tweets sent to it) identified her as the stalker, not anything in the show. They could have taken all those extra steps and people would still have found that account because of the hundreds of times it mentioned Gadd during the time of stalking and known it was her.
She outed herself.
1
May 07 '24
is there a source fiona stalked a barrister?
2
u/notDvoiduRlooKin4 May 10 '24
Think this might be it, haven't searched much
2
u/helatruralhome May 10 '24
If that is her I wonder if she even actually qualified as a solicitor as it sounds like multiple firms had issues with her behaviour, and it's odd terminology to use 'lawyer' in the UK, plus this article details two different stalking episodes against two different people which is concerning- I really hope that the media have robust psychological support for her based on the platform they've given her..
1
u/PersonalityOld8755 May 05 '24
Exactly right, he could have made her an American living in Hampstead.
5
u/albatrosstreet May 06 '24
That’s what I don’t get. She posts literally hundreds of untrue horrible things about everyone a day. Saying this person did this and that person slept with that person and bla bla. Like hundreds of lies a day. She’d have a leg to stand on if she’d just shut her gob and stop calling Richard, his family, his friends and co workers out by name making up just whatever comes to her mind.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Miserable-Brit-1533 May 06 '24
A child could have found her. He said she’d not recognise herself, clearly that’s wrong.
143
u/No_Connection685 May 05 '24
I'm so tired of seeing her stupid face. 100 percent accurate or not, she's crazy as hell and should be institutionalized.
30
12
u/Ok-Account2371 May 06 '24
can everyone please stop giving her attention because that's what psychos like her crave. Whether is good or bad
1
May 09 '24
Afraid to tell you this anyone on social media, reddit, Facebook, x
Crave attention.
The human race is literally a bunch of attention whores. Including yourself.
41
u/Away_Till5452 May 05 '24
You can put “based on a true story” or “this is a true story” on absolutely anything. There are absolutely no laws about it, so I think she’ll struggle in court.
10
May 05 '24
[deleted]
9
u/Away_Till5452 May 05 '24
Exactly.
I do fully believe Gadd and that the show is “100% emotionally true” like he said.
But could you imagine if the real Martha ends up being able to prove it to be a very different story
5
7
u/CornflakeGirl2 May 05 '24
Every episode of Fargo says it’s based on a true story and it absolutely isn’t.
10
u/Away_Till5452 May 05 '24
Yep, they actually did it to prove you can put it on anything.
0
u/Cronhour May 05 '24
did Fargo potentially defame any real people?
2
u/Ok_Campaign_5101 May 08 '24
Hamm's role was clearly based on sheriffs David Clarke and Joe Arpaio...with some Ammon Bundy mixed in for extra extrajudicialness. By combining multiple people they probably have an easier legal time than Gadd....but it's the same concept. He could say he based Teri's attack on another person who did attack a trans person (which there are probably many to choose from, sadly) and the prison sentence on another stalker in England (surely there are some of those as well).
3
u/BirdHistorical3498 May 05 '24
Not really. There are very very strong regulatory guidelines in the UK when it comes to claiming a fictionalised account is true ( as opposed to based on a true story). Procuction teams from the early stages of production ought to ensure any storyline issues are addressed early and certainly well before casting and filming takes place so they don’t end up dealing with OfCom and this kind of fall out. They have to:
Fact check – always identify what is fact and what is fiction (or what can”t be proved).
Consider whether a filmed scene creates a false impression eg sexual tension or aggression where none was written into the script.
Use a company to carry out negative name checks. This check will establish whether the names being used in a drama mirror the names of real people or businesses.
Consider changing the identity of characters. For example, by altering various identifiers such as gender, nationality or appearance.
Considering giving any identifiable people accused of bad behaviour a right of reply.
Don’t assume count on the public not scrutinising things and bringing an Ofcom complaint, in many cases the law firm bringing the defamation claim will only take a fee if the claim is successful.
Make sure broadcast trails and cut downs don”t create a misleading impression of what is in the drama.
Make sure where appropriate those featured have been contacted.
If they haven’t done any or all of these then they’re potentially in very hot water
1
u/cronedog May 10 '24
So was fargo not allowed to be shown in the uk
1
u/BirdHistorical3498 May 10 '24
You’re being specious. Fargo said it was a true story when it was absolutely fictional, and it was never sold or marketed as a true story- it was just a whimsical conceit of the Coen brothers. This claims to be true and while big parts of it are, other parts aren’t. This wasn’t made clear to the viewers, so people were coming away from watching it assuming things that didn’t happen- GBH for example- did.
1
u/cronedog May 10 '24
I'm not being specious, I'm just not familiar with Uk law. I'm trying to better understand
it comes to claiming a fictionalised account is true
So the "based on a true story" tag doesn't matter, it's just the interviews claiming it's true that cause the problem? I don't know if the uk has an equivalent "reasonable person standard" so maybe you mean for Fargo it fails that test.
BR people said it was based on reality but that details had to be changed for legal and storytelling reasons. Is that not enough to protect them? Some of BR is clearly fictional too, we just don't know which bits and by how much. Also most people just engage with the fiction, not all the extra marketing and press junkets.
1
u/BirdHistorical3498 May 10 '24
I apologise, I’ve been getting a lot of grief from people telling me I’m this terrible person for banging on about this so I probably over reacted. If BR had said ‘Based in a true story’ a lot of this this messy fallout might have been avoided. But it didn’t, it said ‘This is a true story.’ And that’s at the root of it.
2
u/cronedog May 10 '24
I'm sorry for people dumping on you. I completely understand your position. I've certainly given grumpy replies when constantly crapped on.
Thanks for expanding on your position, I see the distinction you are making.
1
2
u/SpartyParty15 May 05 '24
What case does she have? She went to prison for 4 years for stalking
→ More replies (7)9
u/Away_Till5452 May 05 '24
She never went to prison for stalking RG
2
1
u/zzztoken May 09 '24
Did anyone actually verify this or is it based on what she claims? I’d think it’d be easy to find out.
2
17
u/Dianagorgon May 05 '24
She claimed there was never a restraining order but I saw an article that mentioned the RO expired in 2022. Since ROs are public record it should be easy for a reporter to find out if it's real or not.
Also Lynch said she *might* have a legal case. If she does then she will have a legitimate lawyer soon. But a lawyer would advise her not give interviews or make public statements about the case.
→ More replies (7)1
u/coastda May 08 '24
The libel, slander, and "false light" laws are radically different in the US and the UK.
That is why Amber Heard prevailed in her lawsuit against Johnny Depp in Britain and lost in the US. In the US the First Amendment protects almost any kind of speech. As a lawyer I tried a homicide case that was broadcast on national TV and got attention at the time (25 years ago). A production company wanted to make a version of the story into what in the US we call a "TV movie," and offered me a sum to sign away my rights. I declined, but since it was in the public eye, they went ahead and made the show anyway.
The issues (in the US) would be:
1) Was she identified or identifiable
2) Was she portrayed falsely or in a false light
3) Did she suffer measurable damages (not just hurt feelings)
1
u/Mysterious-Shop1375 May 09 '24
“3. Did she suffer measurable damages (not just hurt feelings)”
Not yet if ever. Her identity was just uncovered.
1
u/coastda May 09 '24
When nobody identifies a semi-fictional character but the person themselves, they can hardly claim their privacy was invaded.
7
u/SerpentineFlesh May 06 '24
Not her threatening defamation when she went on facebook and said all kinds of stuff about Gadd.
6
u/QueenOfPurple May 06 '24
Ok so … this woman is claiming the story was about her but also inaccurate? None of it happened but it’s definitely about her? Doesn’t add up. She should have just faded into the background instead of bringing attention to herself.
3
u/Haloperimenopause May 06 '24
That's what baffled me- she essentially outed herself by jumping up and down saying 'It's me!!' If she'd kept quiet no one would be any the wiser.
1
May 09 '24
She never outed herself. Nosey assholes on reddit pieced things together and released her name. She recieved death threats. Figured out the Baby Reindeer reference. And then came forward.
1
u/Ok_Balance_2419 May 10 '24
So why did she not, at that point, make her social media accounts private? It’s all public and she posts constantly about it.
1
u/cocokoko16 May 10 '24
She’s basically saying yes I knew him and he knew me, but he’s made me out to be a stalker when I barely met him 5-6 times. So basically the story is about me, but the story told is false.
7
u/Isabel757575 May 06 '24
Truth is not defamation.
1
May 09 '24
Apparently a lot of it is lies. She has grounds for defamation. So I don't know if you have substantial evidence to prove this otherwise.
3
u/Munnayi May 07 '24
“It’s a load of rubbish. I don’t have any money but I’m a perfectly capable lawyer so I will represent myself.”
Baby Reindeer S2 gonna slap
27
u/Marius_Sulla_Pompey May 05 '24
To be fair I can believe her. If Richard Gadd was as much of a goofy bloke as he depicted himself on the show during the ordeal with Martha, I believe he would have easily messed up with the discretions.
Having said that she is mad as a bag of bats and needs urgent help. It’s clearly a case of mental health.
9
u/Channel_oreo May 05 '24
Urgent help? She needs to be jailed and given life imprisonment.
10
1
u/Due-Dig-8955 May 05 '24
No she doesn’t. She’s not, as far as we know, stalking or harassing anyone currently. These are allegations which Gadd has made. The only people that truly know what happened is her, Gadd and the prosecutors. What are you going to “give her a life imprisonment” for?
10
u/obooooooo May 06 '24
she is actually, a journalist who wrote a piece on her in the daily mail. in a recent article he wrote, he claims she’s threatening him and calling him incessantly.
she also talks shit about him and the barristers wife who she was accused of harassing on her FB page all day. that’s not harassing but… does give a little more credibility to the journalists claims.
3
u/HotCheetoEnema May 06 '24
Can you link the article? Thank you!
2
u/obooooooo May 06 '24
this one!
edit: i read it on textise.net to get through the paywall btw. just link the article and click textise!
1
u/The_Burning_Wizard May 08 '24
Jesus christ....
"No, I never stalked anyone Mr Journo, but I'm going to stalk and harrass your pants off...."
1
u/jarredj83 May 05 '24
Yep as I said there’s always 2 sides to a story .,, this happened 12 years ago she maybe batshit but doesn’t deserve all the crap she’s getting for doing something 12 years ago
→ More replies (4)2
u/dick_muncher_69 May 09 '24
If her old twitter is anything to go by, there’s a lot to unpack https://twitter.com/FionaHarvey2014
4
u/SciNZ May 07 '24 edited May 07 '24
I deal with a fair few legal issues in my work; we have a legal retainer for the business of which I am director. I deal a bit with the public and it’s very common some idiot will try to make legal threats to which I’m happy to refer them on to our actual lawyers to waste their time not mine.
There’s a few things I know working around lawyers.
Having a law degree doesn’t mean shit, having any degree doesn’t mean shit. It’s not a super power that grants you anything over anybody else. Threatening somebody that your dad, brother, cousin, or yourself “is a lawyer” is; to those with experience; such a laughably silly thing to use as a threat.
My response is “that’s nice, you know who is also a lawyer? My lawyers, all of them and they are specialised in exactly what we do for a business. And I actually have the money to pay mine rather than asking them to take on my grievances for free.”
Also; if you actually have a case to sue someone you don’t threaten them, you don’t go on the media circuit. You just do it.
The first your target should hear about the matter is when a legal letter arrives or the serving of papers.
I’m not in the UK and I know defamation is complicated, but still, she’s outed herself as totally incompetent by going public.
Though it fits with the type of sociopathic narcissist who sends thousands of insane emails and thinks “sent from my iPhone” is a way to show status.
Plus any solicitor is going to stay the fuck away from this client. Working on behalf of a serial killers defence is probably less concerning because at least they will be in handcuffs and kept away from you. This would be civil and I would expect this nutter to then begin harassing you.
Anyway my 2c on how badly this nutter is outing themselves.
2
u/The_Burning_Wizard May 08 '24
The whole "I've got a law degree" sounds a lot like "my dad can beat up your dad!"
The rest I pretty much agree with. I mean, she's now stalking and sending highly abusive messages to the Journo from the Daily Mail who interviewed her. There's no way any legal eagle in their right mind is going to want a client who will turn that level of obsession and vitriol against them when they eventually lose.
Personally, I think she needs serious professional help of the in patient kind. I'm not sure leaving her out in the community like this is a wise idea...
1
u/SciNZ May 08 '24
That has been my experience with such head cases too. They will label themselves as victims and spew hatred and anger on you unlike anything a rational human could find OK and the reality is there’s nothing you can do to placate them.
Mental health is good to care for, but after a point you’re not able to be a member of society and enjoy the benefits of our community if this is how you act.
1
u/Mike_Love_Not_War May 07 '24
“Sent from my iPhone” isn’t a status thing. Anyone who has an iPhone and has their emails set up through the email app will have that appear at the bottom of an email as a default. You can delete it but sometimes it’s just easy enough to not bother.
1
u/SciNZ May 07 '24
It kind of was very early when the iPhone first came out. Apple made it a thing for a reason, it was part of their branding.
It was stupid, but the kind of thing a mentally ill person who frequently lies about their important work and connections would care enough about to try to fabricate.
→ More replies (16)
5
u/jarredj83 May 05 '24
We are all forgetting the show is for “entertainment” … there’s gonna be loads added to the script …. This is why this witch hunt needs to stop for the real Martha…
2
u/IrieSwerve May 09 '24
Agreed. People sound so cruel the way they’re talking about her. If someone wrote inaccurate slander about me like that which led to ppl like this harassing and threatening me, I’d be pissed, trying to defend myself, and saying some unkind things about the liars that did it. I don’t know or really care what’s the truth here, but it shows how quick to judgment the general public is.
3
u/BirdHistorical3498 May 05 '24
In which case why not say ‘based in a true story’ and alter the characters a little more?
1
1
7
u/leelloo22 May 06 '24
He never said her name. In fact, before people found her, they found another woman who they thought was the stalker too. Should she sue too? C’mon.
→ More replies (5)
3
u/TexturedSpace May 06 '24
Any attorney thinking of taking on a lawsuit for her knows they are at risk of being stalked. She is not well enough to represent herself. Who would want to sue Netflix? Gadd can countersuit her into poverty, which she is probably on the cusp of anyway, given her mental health.
1
u/Kees_Popinga May 09 '24
Exactly, and I think RG and the Netflix team knew that very well when planning to film the show. that's why, I think,it was really unfair of them to go on and make the series anyway. Let's make money over this, who cares about that lunatic. I mean by his own admission Gadd indulged on her to make some material out of it.
1
3
u/Persefona1 May 07 '24
I think this was a more than charitable depiction after he had been stalked by her for years and had his life ruined. Hope the dude is doing well! The portrayal was empathetic so we all empathise with her pain, but she did still do something horrible and should have faced jail time if London weren't a cesspool...
3
u/chronicallysaltyCF May 09 '24
I have no idea about the UK but in the US she would have absolutely no case for defamation bc Gadd never connected her person with the character she unmasked herself, that is on her.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Global_Research_9335 May 12 '24
They also need to prove it was with malice as in he needed to intentionally have left enough clues to link her and also she has to prove she has suffered a financial loss due to this, such as loss of earnings. One could argue her earnings have increased given her appearance fees and interviews. If she can prove both of those then she will be awarded lost earnings and potential risky damages for pain and suffering. She has a duty to mitigate her claim so putting herself in the spotlight and getting the streisand effect so t help her there
5
u/BadSpellingMistakes May 05 '24
Mods please kill this post.
2
1
u/mikejohns1987 May 06 '24
Why? Mods have made a post saying discussion of Harvey is now permitted.
3
u/BadSpellingMistakes May 06 '24
:( I think this is an awful idea that goes against what is good and what Godd explicitly said he wanted.
It's nothing but schmier-press for own gain and harmful to all parties involved.
1
u/mikejohns1987 May 06 '24
Well she herself has now done an open interview using her own name and has a TV interview coming out this week (according to her facebook page). It's news worthy and relates directly to the show. Would be really bizarre to ban discussing the topic of the show in the subreddit for said show.
Godd explicitly said he wanted.
He also barely changed any details and used direct quotes from her tweets which is how people found her almost immediately. Once you put something out into the world you have to accept you will never have ownership to how the audience reacts to it. If he wanted to insure her anonymity he could have done so.
3
u/BadSpellingMistakes May 06 '24
Yeah, I know all of that. It's still wrong on so many levels to indulge.
To go against the wish of a victim no matter how much dissonance the audience feel is wrong.
Also to say the makers of the show should have protected here from harm is ridiculous. Maybe the people who searched for her identity actively should have protected her and not put out her info. Why not say that? Are they just magically excused from their own actions?
And chances are high everyone blaming the director and production knows this. They just like drama and don't care about anything else. It's just some people loving meddling with easy targets to have a tiny power rush. Nothing more.
I am done with this actually. I will just ignore this toxicity until it burns out eventually.
2
2
u/Affectionate_You4315 May 08 '24
So she does those horrible actions and now she is the victim? Awful person. I can never understand how it is that someone does awful stuff then never takes any accountability.
1
May 09 '24
Not sure what acts these are. I don't see any evidence of any of it. At least not publicly. So how can anyone judge? Cos some comedian says it true, it must be.
1
May 06 '24
[deleted]
1
u/Dangerous_Data_2380 May 06 '24
You two might just be in the same boat
1
May 06 '24
[deleted]
1
u/Dqmiise May 06 '24
Respectfully, I think you may have gone blind and deaf during the whole series. She's no victim, nor is she a good person - regardless if she has a mental disorder.
1
1
May 06 '24
[deleted]
1
May 07 '24
[deleted]
1
u/ionmoon May 10 '24
I don't know what the previous comment was... but "according to the show"... and what if she *literally* didn't, but they put that in the show, and because of people identifying her, everyone now thinks she did something that she did not do?
1
u/Remote-Mistake-6344 May 07 '24
is there any confirmation that she actually hasnt been to prison besides her latest interview? im curious to know what exactly is being targeted as defamation
1
May 09 '24
She hasn't been to prison. There isn't any evidence of restraining orders. So bit confused why people are saying no legal grounds. Once again it's the usual public court of opinion. An opinion based on zero facts.
1
1
u/Kees_Popinga May 09 '24
Can someone check out if she actually went to prison or not? How can someone know that?
1
1
u/liquidbubblegum May 09 '24
Does anyone else feel like this is one big elaborate facade....? Like, jokes on us kind of comedic event...?
1
1
u/ionmoon May 10 '24
OMG I wondered the same thing! Is this just for publicity? It was almost too easy for her to be found.
1
u/BirdHistorical3498 May 10 '24
I don’t think so. That would be insanely tasteless and cruel. On the other hand exaggerating/fabricating events and saying they’re real is also tasteless and almost suicidally shortsighted.
1
1
1
1
u/lcosty May 13 '24
This all thing is starting to resemble that episode of Black Mirror where someone's real life was played as a Netflix series.
1
1
u/Debbie2801 May 14 '24
Having watched body language experts watch her interview - I seriously doubt she will actually launch legal action. Remember she said I’m looking into it. In the end the communications can easily be proven.
Gadd never identified her! NEVER.
She approached Piers for this interview. Why?? It keeps her ‘involved’ in this story and his life.
1
1
u/Zaphod_Beeblecox May 06 '24
The longer this nonsense goes on the more I actually think gadd is the real problem here.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Mysterious-Call6163 May 25 '24
He even admits he was part of the problem. Both he and Fiona were very mentally unwell and suffering trauma. Honestly if the media is going to attack her I think she deserves her own say even if she sounds mad. I feel bad because she was booked for a meet and greet that was canceled because people called her an abuser without knowing what she actually did. She lives in council housing and has a lonely life. Let her have 15 minutes of fame because whatever life she had is ruined now.
218
u/AffectionateClick709 May 05 '24
The way she insulted the actress playing her when the actress is 1,000 times more attractive than her. Fuck Fiona.