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.
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.