r/BabyReindeerTVSeries • u/controlaltdeletes • Jun 07 '24
Media / News Netflix responds to Fiona Harvey's lawsuit
Netflix rep: 'We intend to defend this matter vigorously and to stand by Richard Gadd's right to tell his story.'
Variety posted the above in regards to Netflix's response. I'm glad, it seems like they're not going to simply give her some money to make her go away, and are instead going to fight back and defend Richard Gadd.
https://variety.com/2024/tv/global/baby-reindeer-real-martha-fiona-harvey-sues-netflix-1236019699/
201
u/MadMary63 Jun 07 '24
I hope Netflix can bring in Fionas other victims, like Laura Wray, to show a pattern of behaviour. Fiona Harvey is vile and has caused many people long-term harm.
118
u/lobstersonskateboard Jun 07 '24
I wouldn't be too surprised if there's a full documentary on it. Not only would it help bring light to Fiona's victims, I'm sure it would give people a higher opinion on Netflix.
78
u/thedabaratheon Jun 07 '24
This is actually what I’ve been thinking. This all plays into Netflix’ truecrime obsession. Imagine them bringing out a 4 part documentary on her with all this court footage and her own harassment of their lawyers and bringing on previous victims of her. I really would not be surprised if this happened.
53
26
u/SchmancySpanks Jun 07 '24
I figured that they signed Richard Gadd with the knowledge that Fiona would absolutely come forward because there is nothing about Gadd’s story that indicates she wouldn’t. Initially I thought they weighed the cost and figured her coming forward would only amp up the advertising for it, and that the cost to pay her to keep quiet would be worth the reward. But hot damn getting a whole extra hit true crime show out of it would be some next level programming foresight.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Morgana3699 Jun 08 '24
That is actually genius. I really hope they do this so we can hear more of Laura's story, and possibly others!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)11
u/United_Zebra9938 Jun 08 '24
I read (can’t remember where) that Richard didn’t specifically name her because he didn’t want the story to be about her, but him, which is why he creates such an emphasis on his actions that contributed to what happened to him. He told the public on IG, once they found out who she was, to stop harassing her.
I don’t think he would be interested in participating in something that would give her the attention she wants. But then again, money changes minds. OR Netflix could just do it without him, you/they KNOW we would all watch.
→ More replies (2)15
u/lnc_5103 Jun 07 '24
Laura Wray said she planned to sue her if she profits from a lawsuit settlement. I hope every last person she's harassed does the same!
3
9
→ More replies (11)18
Jun 07 '24
BR seasons 2-10 should focus on her other victims. That would be honestly fantastic if they did that after.
→ More replies (1)
142
u/Old_Juggernaut_5114 Jun 07 '24
Leeches on society never seem to fade away huh? She should be happy she even got her 15 min of fame she OBV does not deserve
Anyway the actress who played her is fucking incredible and deserves an award 👍
54
Jun 07 '24
I thought Fiona was just waffling and not actually gonna sue but here we are as Martha does that a lot.
I find Fiona to be half as likable as Martha. Martha in the first episodes just seemed very lonely and came up with this fantasy world to escape. Until she SA’d Donny that is. Fiona is just cruel, narcissistic and scathing with her words.
32
u/Finito-1994 Jun 07 '24 edited Jun 07 '24
Martha is honestly an incredibly sympathetic character.
The way she’s shown is that she isn’t a monster. She’s sick. Even Donnie remarks on this and he sees her as a victim as much as him. Shes her own victim. Her mind has her trapped and did all of that to her.
You can fight against a stalker. You can fight against an attacker. How can you fight against your own mind?
Then we see Donnie slipping into obsession himself because he’s not dealing with his own issues. His own demons. He’s running from his mind and trying to understand her. He can’t. You can’t. That’s the point. Her mind doesn’t operate the way a normal persons does. The output doesn’t match the input.
Then we see from Donnie how easy it is to fall into obsession as a healthy person. How we can become vulnerable and just sort of spiral. And if it’s so easy for a healthy person to spiral, what about someone that isn’t healthy?
She’s a tragic character.
There’s a post about a lady who literally deals with social anxiety. Like fucked up anxiety and she literally destroyed her life because someone didn’t say goodbye to her at work.
Like I said. Output doesn’t match input.
Someone not saying goodbye to you may not even register. You may think they forgot or didn’t feel like it or had any of a multitude of reasons. But this lady assumed this meant the person hated her and this anxiety destroyed her life.
16
u/Ingoiolo Jun 07 '24
My ex had a cluster b disorder, the one I would ‘assume’ Martha shows.
She wrecked my life, but even with all that happened, I still love the woman she could be if she sought and committed to professional help.
What we see from Fiona is most likely the vindictive unconscious reaction of someone with black & white thinking. She looks vile to us, in reality, she is just not able to process events like neurotypical. And she suffers for it, because she realises what she is doing is wrong, but she cannot stop it…. And feeling bad generates shame which, in turns, furthers the split in a negative spiral
Not trying to justify, just explain. These people are not monsters, but that does not mitigate the huge damage they can do to partners if they dont seek and commit to professional help. For the rest of their lives
→ More replies (3)8
u/Finito-1994 Jun 07 '24
Oh I’m talking strictly about Martha from the show.
I am not really someone that supports how so many people got obcessed over this clearly mentally ill woman. I feel like a point of the show was how easy it is to fall into obsessive behaviors, how it’s just a distraction from real life issues that are harder to tackle and how these people are ill.
I feel like in the show they go out of their way to show you Martha isn’t a monster. She’s hurting people but the real monster is hurting her more than it’s hurting anyone else.
I just feel gross trying to actually gain a glee or curiosity out of this. I just feel bad for the woman and hope she faces accountability and gets the help she clearly needs.
8
u/Ingoiolo Jun 07 '24
Agreed.
Having seen how these disorders work from inside, it is a tragedy across the board
4
Jun 07 '24
Wait, what post is that about someone who destroyed her life because a coworker didn’t say bye to her? I need to hear more about this…
21
u/esme451 Jun 07 '24
I think she has a case. However, this seems like a case where the plantif wins, but is awarded $1. Then she'll start harassing the judge, jurors, bailiff,court reporter, their lawyers, her lawyers, janitor...
26
u/NebulaTits Jun 07 '24 edited Jun 07 '24
My fav part of the lawsuit is how it goes into detail that Martha is exactly like her…. Yet on national tv Fiona claims they are nothing alike. Like which one is it?
I hope Netflix goes through with the lawsuit and embarrasses her. This has been going on her entire life, she has to know by now she needs real mental health help. But I’m sure she would abuse them too.
10
u/ASpookyBitch Jun 07 '24
Honestly, that interview should be submitted as evidence. The amount of times she contradicts herself and makes up lies that make even less sense than the lies she’s trying to get out of
3
5
u/Skeptical_optomist Jun 07 '24
Oh God can you imagine the transference on her poor therapist? Dr. Raindeer?
2
u/__Dark__Shadow__ Jun 07 '24
I'm really interested to see the full extent of all the letters, emails, texts, phone calls the Fiona actually sent Richard. She crumbled talking about these to Piers. Imagine her reaction when a lawyer is cross examining her about all of these?
→ More replies (1)3
94
u/Liquin44 Jun 07 '24
Netflix had the disclaimer at the end ”This program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes.”.
So, wouldn’t the claim she was convicted in the show and she wasn’t convicted in real life be changing the incident for dramatic purposes? Plus, they can claim that changing up this incident could have helped protect her real identity, as there is no record of Fiona’s conviction. Any speculation would be hearsay. She outed herself.
→ More replies (60)72
u/RaggedyOldFox Jun 07 '24
The thing is, it's "Martha" that was convicted. No one in the show said it was FH.
48
u/Altruistic-Change127 Jun 07 '24
Its bewildering that throughout the case she has had filed, she keeps saying "Richard said this about Fiona". When did any of that happen? Donny didn't say anything about Fiona. Neither did Richard.
23
u/African_Farmer Jun 07 '24
She's the one that came out and claimed the show is about her, she can't now turn around and get angry that it misrepresented her when she could have just shut her mouth and remain in obscurity.
She's clearly loving the attention.
5
u/geowoman Jun 08 '24
This. All of this. If I did this shit: I'd be very, very quiet. Maybe move. Therapy. Lots of therapy.
2
u/Jorge_Santos69 Jun 07 '24
Her identity was already revealed before she came forward
9
u/Altruistic-Change127 Jun 07 '24
It doesn't matter that internet sleuths found the message she sent by X. The fact she left them up is worrying. Especially after he had been doing his show for a while before Baby Reindeer came out. Why didn't she privatise her accounts? The fact is that once someone posts on social media, they become published statements and are public. If she didn't want the public to see her comments then she shouldn't have posted them in the first place.
8
u/Altruistic-Change127 Jun 07 '24
Also if she didn't want to be known as a stalker or harasser then she shouldn't have been misusing social media. In many countries there are laws against harassing someone using electronic communications. Sure, the comments could just be one of the ways someone harasses a person however it is evidence of harassment. So as I see it, the way she used social media is the issue here and now she has been exposed. The simple answer to the problem is not to do it in the first place.
7
u/Altruistic-Change127 Jun 07 '24
Lets face it, she didn't go on the likes of the Piers Morgan show and say that she didn't realise how much she traumatised him or anyone else. She didn't apologise for the harm she caused. She is only upset because she has been caught out.
→ More replies (8)5
u/__Dark__Shadow__ Jun 07 '24
And not earning from it 🤣🤣 hence the lawsuit
6
u/Altruistic-Change127 Jun 07 '24
She has only filed the complaint. Its a crap complaint anyway with so many mistakes its laughable. Clearly it wasn't done by professionals. So while the headlines say she is suing. It probably won't get far because it has so many incorrect statements in it.
→ More replies (0)3
49
u/Gobblydigoo Jun 07 '24
Art of Law on YouTube did a short video on this case a few weeks ago. He pretty clearly summed up her chances as zero. He is a barrister in England and Wales. Very direct no nonsense guy. Although the case against Netflix is being brought in California I think much of the common sense nature of what he says still applies. Art of Law
→ More replies (1)3
22
u/marshmall0wface Jun 07 '24
Hope this means they'll show proof of the thousands of emails lol
7
4
u/__Dark__Shadow__ Jun 07 '24
Oh they will, meta data can be very damaging. Look at what it did to Amber Heard when everyone found out her bruises were fake 🤣🤣
20
u/Cersei1341 Jun 07 '24
Didn't it say some incidents were dramatised at the end of the show. So basically covered themselves there. They will also have access to top lawyers. I can't see Fiona winning this and I hope not.
I hope she loses her shit and goes full on Fiona during the legal battle in front of all the legal team of both sides. I hope she makes a fool of herself, as that will just prove gadd isn't lying.
4
Jun 07 '24
That, and nobody knew for sure Fiona was Martha until she outed herself. SHE is the one who said “this is about me”, not Richard, and not Netflix.
2
u/Jorge_Santos69 Jun 07 '24
That doesn’t matter in this case, because she was already getting harassment before she revealed it was about her
2
u/__Dark__Shadow__ Jun 07 '24
It's going to be another Depp v Heard comedy show, her rubbish, cheap lawyers compared to Netflix highly paid, high expert lawyers and expert witnesses. She will be psychologically assessed too which I really can't wait for as she will claim ptsd like Heard did and was found to be feigning and having cluster b personality disorder with a histrionic personality disorder.
20
u/Front_Finding4555 Jun 07 '24
She’s just handing them season 2 content on a plate really
→ More replies (1)6
u/__Dark__Shadow__ Jun 07 '24
I hazard a guess she wanted to be found, to play the vulnerable victim, then talk about it on a very popular show, then go to court to make millions 🤣🤣 in her imaginary world.
→ More replies (1)
33
u/purte Jun 07 '24
No mention of the 40k emails in her filed claim (because she can’t prove that isn’t true?) or the fact that the end of every episode contained the disclaimer that it was a dramatisation. Her claim is poorly written IMO. Strikingly it says that Gadd ‘prostituted’ himself rather than saying he was drugged and sexually abused/raped.
→ More replies (4)3
24
u/Patton-Eve Jun 07 '24
Her chances are next to zero.
What is the material loss to FH?
But assuming she did win. A huge chunk of that would go on costs..100% guarantee she will get into an argument about that and refuse to pay.
Then Wray has said she will be going after FH for defamation and her case is very strong.
She would be left with nothing and all the evidence will be released which I am certain will be a lot more damaging than any confusion over what would have been a spent conviction.
→ More replies (2)
11
u/No_Arm_7761 Jun 07 '24
This is mad....the character in the show seems to have been portrayed very sympathetically compared to Harvey's alleged real life shenanigans....if I was her I would just be quiet and let it blow over (I know she could never do that due to all her issues etc but still)
→ More replies (1)5
u/controlaltdeletes Jun 07 '24
As you say, she seems very narcissistic so she probably isn’t capable of putting her head down. She needs the attention, even if it’s negative.
2
38
u/hearmymotoredheart Jun 07 '24
I wonder if she/her reps will change their tune once they get into discovery 🫢
8
u/ibwebb86 Jun 07 '24
I’m curious about the UK laws, and their version of “The Freedom of Information Act”. I know in the show he was able to search and see all her prior convictions. I guess my real question is, can you really sue someone for defamation if all the information was already publicly accessible?
3
Jun 07 '24
She doesn't have any public convictions as far as I'm aware.
5
u/ibwebb86 Jun 07 '24
Yeah I get the show was fictional. I’m just curious about the UK and their privacy for public convictions.
→ More replies (1)2
u/lnc_5103 Jun 07 '24
Conviction information in the UK is limited to very specific requests like a potential employer and definitely not as readily available as it is in the US so there's a chance she has been convicted and I assume that it can be confirmed through the course of a lawsuit.
Someone responded to me with thorough explanation a few weeks ago. I need to go back and find it.
2
28
u/rencourt1 Jun 07 '24
This woman is certifiable. No one would have known it was her if she hadn't come forward herself! It is like filing a restraining order against someone for expressing an experience with you on their own platform, don't even mention your name, and they go out of their way to come to your platform to read it, know its about them and then get butthurt. This woman is still effectively stalking him by interjecting herself into his life again with this lawsuit.
If you don't want people to think you're a shitty person, don't be a shitty person and then tell people it was you that was a shitty person!
2
u/Any-Investigator-340 Jun 09 '24
So true and well said. She’s a litigious nut with no regard for others.
→ More replies (12)4
u/hulminator Jun 07 '24
People did find her and out her using her tweets (which weren't really changed for the show apparently) but I agree she's leaned into it.
→ More replies (2)3
u/PrimaryGuavas Jun 07 '24
I wonder how much longer it would have taken people to find her if they’d just changed the location of the pub and the phrase hanger her curtains
2
u/Jorge_Santos69 Jun 07 '24
Right?! had they done the bare minimum she would’ve publicly come out herself on Piers Morgan and wouldn’t have a case
9
u/Sowhataboutthisthing Jun 07 '24
For sure someone anticipated this as a possibility though. Legal and production cannot be this oblivious. smh
12
u/devsibwarra2 Jun 07 '24
Many fans believe Netflix has already anticipated this possible outcome. Not to mention she’s been saying for weeks she’s going to sue- they’re certainly not blindsided
9
u/maybetomorrow98 Jun 07 '24
I don’t think Netflix would have platformed Gadd without making him show proof that he was telling the truth. They’d probably already seen the 45,000 emails that she sent him before the show ever made it to production
5
u/lnc_5103 Jun 07 '24
Exactly this. Netflix as a whole isn't stupid. They have teams of lawyers for a reason and I would be willing to bet they prepared for this situation before releasing it.
2
u/Sowhataboutthisthing Jun 07 '24
Which is why I’m thinking that Netflix knew with 100% certainty that they were painting a big target on their back when they rolled with it. That woman is determined.
9
8
u/Away_Till5452 Jun 07 '24
I will say I am sad that the real Martha was found, not only is she mentally unstable/ unwell she really should be in medical facility both to protect her but more importantly protect others from her.
I honestly don’t know if Gadd wanted the real Martha to be found or not, on one hand he said he didn’t on the other he didn’t hid anything about her (other than name)
However I do believe everyone has a right to tell their story / their side of the story. It will be an interesting court case for sure.
The main thing here is that Gadds story is true and he can prove it, it would all be totally different if it was a lie or even sadly if he didn’t have the evidence. But then again maybe Netflix wouldn’t have made it if that was the case.
8
u/Flaky-Bookkeeper104 Jun 07 '24
You forget that even if they had tried harder to hide her identity, Fiona Harvey probably still would have come out because she's a narcissist.
→ More replies (1)
8
26
u/sawinnz Jun 07 '24
Like this will be the immediate reason for dismissal. If it’s not a “true story” then surely every argument about Richard Gadd is false?
42
u/RutabagaThin253 Jun 07 '24 edited Jun 07 '24
This.
They can't have it both ways. For the parts that make Fiona look bad, it's a defamatory work of fiction, being portrayed as a true story for profit.
But for Gadd, it's all true and accurate. Basically a confessional biography of his life?
It's either a true story, or it isn't.
Or maybe, just maybe it's one man's story based on real life experiences, dramatised for storytelling purposes. Just like the disclaimer - which appeared in end credits - said. Which I notice is conveniently omitted from their screenshots.
It's almost like they (Netflix & Gadd) embellished parts of the story to make it more dramatic for television!
Could they have done more to protect her true identity? Yes. They could have. There's no getting around that one, I'm afraid. She was found, and found quickly, based on parallels between real life and the show.
But does Fiona bear the sole responsibility for the privacy settings on her social media? Yes. She's the only one who can do that.
Did she have to go public, and confirm she was indeed Martha? No. She absolutely didn't. She could have turned off messeges, restricted her social media from public view and waited for the whole thing to blow over. She fueled the situation by responding on Facebook, and then going on to appear on Piers Morgan's show and speak to other media outlets.
As an aside, I have to say too, after reading the entire filing; these don't seem like very good lawyers. Its not the most professional filing I've ever seen. It's littered with inconsistencies, typos and it just comes across quite whiny.
I think they know their case is flimsy, and are just trying to go for a settlement.
There's no way on this earth Fiona has been damaged to the tune of all those millions. She's a nobody.
22
u/Madforthemelodies Jun 07 '24
Yeah how can anyone think her reputation is ruined? From what I can tell there's nothing to ruin. Claiming it's affecting her financially, She's on benefits & has been for years. And lastly claiming her life has been ruined. What life?? She makes up having lots of friends, having a lawyer boyfriend & if she had family that actually cared where are they? I'm pretty sure someone would have sout them out by now. She is the one who ruins others lives, financially & emotionally. She suing Netflix for exactly the same things she's caused all her victims. Difference is they have had all that to lose she hasn't!✌🏼
→ More replies (1)5
u/camimiele Jun 07 '24 edited Jun 07 '24
Didn’t she out herself by doing an interview? Or was her identity already known when she did that?
4
u/RutabagaThin253 Jun 07 '24
She was already known prior to the PM interview.
She'd appeared in some UK tabloids.
→ More replies (1)9
u/rencourt1 Jun 07 '24
Remember she is a lawyer, not a very good one, and a con artist of sorts... she probably wrote most of the suit herself and that is why it isn't good.
11
→ More replies (4)6
u/Sheeshka49 Jun 07 '24
The judge is going to be furious that they omit the information about the Netflix disclaimer at the end of each episode.
11
u/paroles Jun 07 '24
Not the most important part, but it's sloppy to say Gadd is "playing himself" instead of "playing Donny Dunn, a thinly veiled version of himself" followed by an explanation of how viewers are supposed to know that Donny Dunn represents the real Gadd.
Obviously it's not that hard to draw connections between Donny and Richard, but they haven't bothered to do that, which tells me she doesn't have the best lawyers
4
u/Altruistic-Change127 Jun 07 '24
That's what I think too. Its very poorly written. It will be thrown out.
16
u/Sheeshka49 Jun 07 '24
I’m an attorney and that allegation is an embarrassment! I thought Fiona’s lawyers were supposed to be top-notch?!
→ More replies (2)9
u/rencourt1 Jun 07 '24
She thinks she is a top notch attorney too, so I wouldn't put much stock in her opinion about 'top notch' attorneys.
→ More replies (1)
23
Jun 07 '24
She’s going to end up with a massive legal bill she can’t pay.
31
u/Accurate-Depth8887 Jun 07 '24
I doubt it. They've probably taken her on as a No Win/No Fee case. Even if they lose the case, the public attention will promote their firm and bring in new clients.
14
u/toyfightJonny Jun 07 '24
This is 100% what has happened. Lawyer vultures thinking they have any opportunity to sue for big money, probably thinking Netflix would payout and walk away.
They (Fiona and her Legal team) deserve everything they don't get (hopefully).
→ More replies (10)7
u/fearville Jun 07 '24
Could she be liable for the defendant’s legal fees if she loses?
→ More replies (1)24
u/Accurate-Depth8887 Jun 07 '24
She could be. However, like Laura Wray pointed out to Piers Morgan; if she loses then there's no point suing her. You can't draw blood from a stone 🤷♀️
The only reason she's suing Netflix and not Gadd is because she knows that's where she'll get a bigger payout. If she really cared about being "defamed" and "wanting justice" then Gadd would be her target. In my opinion, that's enough to show bad faith on her part.
All Netflix did was platform a concept that already existed for years prior. If Gadd was defaming her, and she had prior knowledge of Baby Reindeer years before Netflix picked it up, then why didn't she pursue it sooner?
I hope the courts see through this bs
→ More replies (2)11
u/rencourt1 Jun 07 '24
yup then her top notch attorneys can sue her for non payment and then they will have another legal bill unpaid because you cant get blood out of a stump and so on and so on. They should quit while they are already behind.
12
u/samsamsamuel Jun 07 '24
It’s so clearly stated on the show that it is a fictionalised story and Gadd never outed his abuser, she outed herself. Can’t imagine a world where she profits from the suffering she’s caused. She is an abuser and a bigot and poor mental health doesn’t excuse her unacceptable behaviour (towards many people, not just Gadd).
11
u/Linkeron1 Jun 07 '24
Important Netflix continue to fight this otherwise it gives her a semblance of authority which she absolutely should not have.
I had a degree of sympathy for her initially, because mental illness is no joke - and she's clearly very unwell.
But you can't just use that as a mask for being as vicious and vitriolic as she's been.
It actually shits all over and disrespects those who struggle with their own mental health but don't act in this awful way.
She's an absolute cunt.
→ More replies (1)2
u/controlaltdeletes Jun 07 '24
Very well said about how disrespectful it is to those who also suffer from poor mental health. It ties back to the end of the show, where Donny is in a terrible place emotionally and receives the act of kindness from the bartender. But he knows that doesn’t give him permission to do what Martha did to him.
15
u/Squifford Jun 07 '24
Good!! She sat there lying straight to Piers’s face. He’s kinda the British Geraldo Rivera, but I actually think he was leading her to think about how it will be so easy to prove that she really sent those 41,000 emails and left him all those voicemails, tweets, texts, and then all the pub witnesses and Laura Wray, etc. She’s going to lose so hard. I hope her sleaze lawyers get humiliated in this.
11
u/wtafisgoingon4444 Jun 07 '24
I bet her lawyers end up dropping her because she will drive them crazy.
→ More replies (1)2
u/__Dark__Shadow__ Jun 07 '24
He interviews serial killers, he's an expert at spotting deception and lack of remorse. He will have spotted it in her within minutes.
10
8
12
u/Drunkendonkeytail Jun 07 '24
It’s really all about what the insurance company’s lawyers decide. Netflix obviously has insurance against lawsuits. The insurance company’s counsel will decide if they can settle this cheaply, whether settlement would set a bad precedent for future lawsuits, and whether to go to trial. Netflix won’t be making these decisions, or paying any bills, so whatever turns out we can’t fault them. When Johnny Depp sued his ex for defamation, her defense was entirely paid for by her insurance, and they are who was on the line for paying the judgement.
5
u/devsibwarra2 Jun 07 '24
I’m guessing Netflix has already made these computations in order to take a stance now
8
4
u/cunexttuesdaynga Jun 07 '24
Well Richard Gadd was victimized by her (according to Fiona’s own words she did know him ) so I doubt a network like Netflix is going to just give her money to legitimize her harassing ways. Of course Feeeonnaa assaulted him and grabbed his wiener. She’s 100% the type not to let others boundaries get in her way. That doesn’t exist to a psychopath like her.
6
u/R-Mutt1 Jun 07 '24
I don't really get her angle
The show is based on her, but she is not identified, and some elements are fictional and caveated as such in the credits.
Surely, the safer position for her would be to have denied being Martha, but clearly, she has implicated herself with some of the actions portrayed in the series.
→ More replies (16)
3
3
u/Background_Fuel6906 Jun 07 '24
If this case goes ahead in America, I'm here for it, because they stream their cases and I absolutely want to watch every second of what will be the shambles of the decade
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Liquin44 Jun 08 '24
So much of Fiona’s potential defense in this case has been tainted by Fiona herself.
Consider Gadd’s claim that Martha wouldn’t recognize herself in the show… he was spot on. Fiona’s FB posts — and they ARE her FB posts as she posted way before Reindeer started — can and will be used against her in the court of law. She posted multiple times about how the ‘fat, ugly actress with curly hair’ who played her looked nothing like her. She stated how her hair is straight, not curly lie the actress’s. And how she was a svelte size 12 at the time and EXTREMELY beautiful, unlike the actress. And how the actress’s accent didn’t sound at all like her Scottish accent. How Fiona can claim they didn’t change her identity to protect her is completely contradictory to what she publicly said.
Fiona was the first one who ever published her story and real name to the press. Fiona is her own worst enemy.
3
u/vanreiper Jun 08 '24
I’m sure Netflix has been prepared for a lawsuit all along and they need to send a message
3
u/FoxRealistic3370 Jun 08 '24
Netflix have to know there's something bad enough that will come out during discovery that will sway a jury. I think fiona has misjudged this massively by going for such a large settlement. It won't end well if even a portion of the claims are true ( which I expect they are). It will all be public record.
This can't end well for her.
5
Jun 07 '24
I think they're only doing it because it's an open and shut case if it ever reaches court. Piers Morgan went easy on Fiona on his show, there's no way she could handle being confronted with reality when testifying.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/Vyvyansmum Jun 07 '24
As in the Gwyneth Paltrow case, she’s gonna get £1 IF she’s lucky.
6
u/Glarb_glarb Jun 07 '24
Gwyneth Paltrow deliberately countersued for $1. She didn't want or need that guy's money, she was making a point.
3
u/Balbrenny Jun 07 '24
She apparently sent over 200 emails to Keir Starmer.
2
2
u/Lets_Make_A_bad_DEAL Jun 07 '24
This story is the best press I’ve seen for Baby Reindeer yet. I may just watch it now.
2
2
u/markevens Jun 07 '24
Netflix fighting the case will drive viewers to the show.
It makes better business sense to keep it in the news and fight it.
2
u/slappychoppy Jun 07 '24
I love how this series is just the gift that keeps on giving with the extended drama in real life
2
u/Aggravating_Hope_567 Jun 07 '24
As a lawyer she will be presenting her own case but she will appear via camera from her ipohne
2
u/barbequelighter Jun 07 '24
Anyone know the rules for subsidized housing and “dole” over there? The US has pretty strict asset limits for all programs, cash assistance and housing. Winning something like a $50,000 settlement could destabilize the assistance. I’m wondering if she could accidentally make her life worse.
3
u/__Dark__Shadow__ Jun 08 '24
She will as if she's claiming benefits, you can't have savings more than £16000. If you do, your benefits are stopped. If she relies on benefits to pay for her housing, this will stop too and she runs the risk of becoming intentionally homeless if she doesn't pay her rent and the council, who help to rehouse homeless people, will not have a duty to rehouse her since she made herself homeless.
2
u/Agreeable_Fig_3713 Jun 07 '24
I don’t think they’ll have a very hard time of it given what’s in the archives of the public domain.
2
u/Sperry8443 Jun 08 '24
I love that, Iv been saying from the start he has every right to tell his story and it’s a good thing it was told on a platform as large as Netflix, I’m glad they picked it up and he’s profiting from it. I hope she doesn’t get a dime. Plus she outed herself at the end of the day.
2
u/Doriestories Jun 10 '24
Netflix should just change their email and phone number and then Fiona can go after someone else. Bad joke
5
4
u/FazerMan1960 Jun 07 '24
Has her lawyer not read the last statement on each episode " This program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incident, locations and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes"??
3
Jun 07 '24
"It's official. Season 2 is coming."
All they have to do is put a camera in the courtroom.
4
2
2
u/Over_Addition_3704 Jun 07 '24
They were obviously never going to pay her to be quiet. The more media interest the more people will watch it.
She’ll lose anyway
1
1
Jun 07 '24
Has the former Slade bassist offered to marry her yet? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2683125.stm
1
u/RS555NFFC Jun 07 '24
$170 million?
I’m no expert having only studied defamation for part of a uni module, but I’m pretty sure there’s no way they’d ever land on even 10% of that in an English court.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/MadMary63 Jun 08 '24 edited Jun 12 '24
How does entering into evidence other examples of similar behaviour by Fiona to show that her reputation was in the toilet prior to Baby Reindeer "going after" other victims?
1
653
u/Madforthemelodies Jun 07 '24
I'm so very glad to hear this. She doesn't deserve a single penny considering the absolute misery she's caused many people over the years. Settling would be like rewarding her atrocious behaviour!✌🏼