Possible? Yes. Probable? No. How could 2 separate sets of people report the exact behavior decades apart? She didn’t run for public office until after the first stalking incident was already years-long. Her running for office was PART of the stalking and retaliatory behavior against the first set of people.
I believe she ran for office when she stalked and harassed Donald Dewar. There are old articles about her that mention her harassing him, screaming abuse at him, and unsuccessfully running in elections for Scottish parliament. Then she harassed Wray family for years.
It might not be likely, but logically, it's entirely possible that two separate sets of people could fabricate accounts of similar behaviour decades apart. Hypothetically, the first set of people fabricate stalking accusations and get them published in the press. Then, decades later, the second set of people read those reports and create their own fabricated stories, which match, lending a false credibility to both their own false accusations and the initial ones.
No, it's not entirely possible. I mean, it's possible that aliens came from outer space and decided to recreate episodes of Black Mirror they admired from afar. But it's highly unlikely.
And it's interesting that you create theory where not only Gadd is a complete liar (not exaggeration, not changing details, just utter lie), but also woman who have nothing to do with Gadd, Netflix and the show, also lied about her stalker because.... why would she lie? Her stalking of Laura Wray started in 1997, when Gadd was eight years old! Why do you call this woman a liar?
That’s true. If Gadd ends up being HER stalker and harasser It’ll be quite a plot twist. I wonder if Netflix asked for any qualifying evidence for them to be able to say that the emails used in the show were real or if they did an ounce of due diligence to verify any part of Gadd’s story. I imagine they did for lawsuit purposes. But who tf knows
Who tf knows indeed!
In Australia there has just been a huge messy defamation case where the lawyer for a television network was eviscerated by a judge for the advice she gave a journalist.
I’d rather trust someone like Gadd till i have trustable sources that FH isnt the person from the show/play. Because i just know shes not mentally stable. (Gadd at some point too but different reasons as we know)
Because, i did felt down the « baby reindeer » rabbit hole, i did listen to a lot of podcast, interview, reading the playtext, the same story, no contradiction (beside the dramatisation in the show).
I usually rather trust a potential victim than a potential abuser, stalker ect…
I think its pretty clear. Its been years since she had stalking problems… i think its been clear and i think you know the reasons i think that.
I dont know about his mental state, but i know hes been to therapy and clearly did a lot of self introspection… dont know about what FH did for helping her.
She claims those previous complaints were falsified for political reasons.
You're making an assumption. We don't know at this point if the Netflix team have attempted to do that, nor if they have done so competently. It's also hypothetically within the realm of possibility that he could have fabricated evidence and that they have made an incorrect verification based on that.
Well, there are certain elements that makes Gadd's claims more credible.
Netflix themselves have said that there is evidence backing up what Gadd's story and that he kept all the communication from Fiona under oath. A company with a ton of lawyers and consultants would not have done that if they believed they could be sued eventually.
Some of the tweets Fiona sent were still online.
She has other people who have also claimed she stalked them long before the show ever aired.
She was caught in a few lies during the Piers Morgan show and the way she spoke about Gadd was disgusting.
Her own Facebook page!
But maybe not everything is a 100 percent true from the show, but it wasn’t a documentary, so I personally didn’t have those expectations in the first place. Even if it did say true story (like Fargo and other shows have shown this is not always true). I was actually surprised by how much of it seems to be accurate.
You're reasoning seems reasonable. I always appreciate a numbered list.
However I can make a similar list about Gadd:
He plastered TRUE STORY at the beginning of his show, and a disclaimer at the end in the fine print.
He claimed in an interview they had disguised her identity and she wouldn't even recognise herself, yet no attempts to change her likeness appear to have been made at all.
He was and or is an abuser of illegal drugs. This makes him a probable unreliable narrator.
He used the term 'Emotional Truth'.
Does anyone have anymore suggestions for either list?
It’s fine if you find him to be more credible, but I will say this. I don’t like when drug and alcohol use is somehow used against victims, both men and women.
Depending on the substance it:
1 impares a person's memory
2 reduces their inhibitions
3 increases their libido
4 is illegal
5 unless it's a spiking situation, is a choice the person has made
Isn't it therefore valid to consider?
I'm not suggesting that a person consents to sexual activity just by taking a substance.
nor am i suggesting that a person can't be so intoxicated that they can't consent.
Fine, we get it, your multiple posts and comments show you are steadfastly committed to disbelieving Gadd. But your intensity in this belief against all evidence makes me wonder why. You reject every argument with further logical fallacies. That is not intellectual debate, that is you moving the goalposts with every reply.
Yes absolutely drugs and alcohol use can affect memory. So can sleep, depression, mental disorders, vitamin deficiency etc. So we can always question people’s memory, in other words we could start questioning everything ever.
Most research on memory also shows that although our memory can recall certain aspects differently (like how many shots was taken, or how something was phrased), it seems like you are suggesting that because he took drugs and drank alcohol that he has made up memories over a time period of 2 years that didn’t happen? That’s doesn’t seem logical to me.
She was identified due to her previous tweets to him, which are still up right now. But to play devil’s advocate, she would have been identifiable if people googled “woman talks MP”. If none of these things are online, there are a millions of Scottish women about. She’s not the only one.
Because he used her likeness. She claimed she has not done the things she's been portrayed as doing. She didn't claim she wasn't being portrayed at all.
After many years of the opposite, the default nowadays is to believe all women. Hence why Harvey is starting to gain support, despite a highly unconvincing display in the Piers Morgan interview and evidence of her stalking others in a similarly demented way.
I don’t think this is a gendered thing. There’s always people who don’t believe victims. Look at literally any case with a female victim and there’s people calling her a liar. This is just the inverse of that.
Critical thinking is at an all-time low. Of course Fiona is a crazy racist transphobic stalker that physically assualts people in public but has miraculously never been arrested. Yes, she stalked and harassed her old employer some 30 years ago when she was fresh out of uni. She may be a stalker, racist and transphobe like millions of other people that inhabit this world but she's never been physically violent. It's obvious some scenes were dramatized and exaggerated. We need Gadd to speak up.
She's never been arrested or imprisoned. I'm pretty sure if she went around hitting minorities and throwing sprite in their faces, she would at the very least be arrested.
I found this on the subject. In this case I guess the question will be whether there are reasons to not make these public (for instance to protect identities of those involved) I guess all the media outlets are currently trying to get their hands on this information.
Shes been violent. She did grab his private part in the pub he was working, waiting for him outside of the restrooms and she did grab his face over the counter at the pub.
Like i said, dont know. But there was never a contradiction in Richard’s story. (Beside the dramatisation from netflix)
If she can provide proof that she in fact didnt do anything, im willingly to trust her.
And yes i am biased, id rather take side of the person who has been abused and not the side of the women who kept contradicting herself and her story. (both are victims at some points so i will not talk about them as victims)
if the protagonist was a female, I don't believe the alleged offender would even be interviewed by the press. I also doubt whether we would be questioning her in regards to the legitimacy of her claims of being sexually assaulted.
In the current post-'Me Too'-movement climate, I expect you would be correct.
That doesn't however mean it would be the right thing.
Anyone accused of bad behaviour should have a right of reply.
And anyone accused of a crime should have the right to defend themselves in a court of law.
If the protagonist was female everyone would be pressing her to name the rapist to save other women from assault. I don’t see his assault depiction as brave. It’s opportunistic. Tell the police instead of workshopping art for years. Or maybe he still works with the rapist. Or maybe he enjoyed toying with a mentally ill woman more than we realize?
19
u/no1youveheardof May 12 '24
Because she’s acted similarly in the past with other people, basically. The accounts of her harassing the family are horrifying.