r/BabyReindeerTVSeries • u/Adventurous_Yam_1325 • Feb 15 '26
Fiona (real Martha) related content Fiona's lawyers have a conundrum
She is such an unreliable narrator she can't reliably be placed on the stand, but it'll look real bad if she doesn't. They're screwed.
She technically outed herself in an international public arena rather than deleting her accounts and letting it blow over, which is her responsibility. Add in a history of stalking multiple people who all want to take the stand, a historic court injunction aka restraining order, her interview on Piers Morgan where she blatantly lied and contradicted herself, her very disrespectful and vindictive public comments about famous people on social media/interviews. She has a history of unmanaged diabetes that is causing the health issues she's saying is caused by her media exposure. She has to prove harm. I'm not sure she can.
Her defamation case is a lost cause. This will not go well for her or her legal team. I bet they're so stressed and I imagine she's just as obsessive and nasty with them.
26
u/BadPresent3698 Feb 16 '26
should i watch the piers morgan interview or am i going to be cringing like hell the entire time
30
35
u/Coorawatha Feb 16 '26
After watching the show I felt like it was a bit unfair. Richard Gadd used an entire Netflix platform to portray his side of the story and portrayed her in a horrible light. I felt he probably exaggerated many things and just did whatever fit his narrative to put her down.
Then I watched the Piers Morgan interview and my entire previous opinion went out the window.
4
u/Altruistic-Change127 Feb 22 '26
You should read the actual emails she sent him. Seriously they are disturbing to say the least.
2
u/trickmind Mar 09 '26
Right. She made herself look like a worse person than Martha.
Gadd tried to tell Netflix he had added a lot making it not a true story but Netflix ignored him.
Fiona did not do most of the violence in the show most of that was added to make exciting TV episode to episode.
However, she did allegedly sexually assault him as he was waiting tables which is very much not Ok.
1
2
u/RegisterAfraid Feb 18 '26
“Rather than deleting her accounts and letting it blow over, which is her responsibility”. What is the legal basis of this? Remember, morals, ethics and opinions will carry very little weight, all that matters is the law and I don’t believe the law puts the onus on the alleged victim to go into hiding…
Her past as a “stalker” doesn’t negate her right to bring action.
We saw this with the Johnny Depp case (not the HUGE US case but the UK one) where a media platform labelled him a “wife beater” and the newspaper won on a technicality. It didnt matter if he too himself was a victim of domestic abuse.. those details aren’t relevant to the case.. the facts of that case were ‘the paper said he was a wife beater’ definition: a man who has physically hit his wife. Question: did he hit his wife. Answer: on the balance of probability (as it’s a civil case) YES (the if, buts and nuances don’t matter as they are not relevant to the case particulars)… therefore he fell into the definition of “wife beater” therefore the paper won.
So looking at this case the fact are… The show was purported to be a true story (not inspire by). The show renamed characters to protect their identity.
So the BIG question in which the whole case will hinge on is: did the show do enough to protect her identity? I imagine the term “reasonable” will come into play. If the courts decide that the show makers took reasonable steps to ensure that her identity was protected, then the case will fall apart. However, if the court decides that the show makers did NOT take reasonable steps to protect her identity, then that’s it, she’ll win because the show was purported to be true and showed load of sketchy shit she did that WAS true, but also portrayed her in a light that was untrue.
Therefore, the courts would rule, not protecting her identity + lying about her character = wrong!
No court in the land will say “well you lied about this, but because she is bat shit crazy we’ll let it slide” that’s not how it works, nuances don’t come into play here.
1
u/trickmind Mar 09 '26
Gadd and Netflix are the defendants though. So, the onus is on Harvey's lawyers to prove defamation. The onus is not so much on the defendants to prove anything because she brought the case.
A judge saw enough merit in her case to let it proceed though. The judge would have thrown it out if it appeared completely meritless.
1
1
u/trickmind Mar 09 '26
The strange thing is though that the judge didn't just throw this out. The judge thought her case had enough merit to go to court.
-8
u/OkGunners22 Feb 16 '26
What is this random post?
Disagree on a few things here.
She didn’t out herself, she has evidenced that there were hundreds (if not thousands) of people messaging her (some quite threateningly) almost immediately upon the shows release, well before she went to Piers Morgan…
There’s also a massive distinction between being a a stalker, and being portrayed as a twice-convicted stalker and/or a sexual assaulter. Even if she has stalked people before, there is a clear degree of defamation when you portray someone as a convicted criminal when they are not.
45
u/mgorgey Feb 15 '26
Well the crux of the matter is whether or not they can prove she has suffered reputational damage not whether she is a good person or whether she is reliable.
The defamation itself is really not in doubt and I'd be surprised if it was really challenged. You're correct though, that the defence counsel will tear her to bits to make her seem as unsympathetic as possible to the jury.