This sub will now allow discussion and posts about Fiona Harvey, as she's come forward admitting to be the character on which Martha was based.
However, we will continue to remove speculation, theories and personal identifying information on other characters that haven't been confirmed.
We will update the rules in the sub around this change shortly. Thanks for your patience and understanding.
On one hand she says none of it happened, and on the other hand, the story quotes lawyers saying Gadd should’ve made the story more fictional and less like the real events. So which is it? Doesn’t sound like a very coherent defamation case to me.
What’s that old saying about people who represent themselves in court?
It's just like Schroedinger's Gadd, she doesn't know him yet knows him so well she knows his entire family, it entirely depends on when you check her facebook, lol
But on a serious note: The story was both marketed as a true story AND spoken about as a fictional story based on true events. Then it was found that Martha is a carbon copy as well as Laura Wray's family story, carbon copies with very few changes. We find out from interviews Gadd did that Teri and Keely are real people but we don't know how much has been changed about them. We find out Osman and everyone in the comedy scene knows who Darrien is, so he's also real. We find out Gadd worked at a very prestigious bar, not the crummy shotty place portrayed in the show.
The question therefore is: How much about Martha's story is real? Does she have the right to defend herself from this blurry portrait he made of her? Does she have the capacity to defend herself from this situation since she is clearly disturbed, in one way or the other?
It's an endless sea of grey, just like the show.
Oh yea. That's what I've been saying though. They got away with the lowest legal agreement because they knew the show would perform extremely well. Netflix isn't a bunch of idiots they know exactly what they are doing (i will not be gaslighted into thinking the multibillion corp didn't know the show in this shape wouldn't perform well). Did Gadd himself expect this aftermath though? Don't know.
I’m sure it’s kind of impossible to anticipate this kind of success/attention and everything that goes with it. The fact is though that there are a million based on true events, crime stories like this. It’s not knew in that respect. A lot of the controversy is pretty silly.
I have to agree with this, there are a million docuseries out that don’t get this amount of attention that are based on true events and crimes. Netflix probably hoped it would do well but it’s the people promoting it on social media that blew it up. I never saw it bc of the Netflix app, just TikTok
I’m a little surprised at how much this blew up, I saw a little trailer clip on Netflix and decided to give it a go when I saw “fleabag meets you”. I think it had just dropped. Then a few weeks later it got super popular! Well deserved though. I thought it would be too dark to be this loved…but I guess people love dark shit.
Yeah same. I watched it the first few days it came out. I remember just being blown away when I finished it. Remember thinking it would be a super polarizing show where 50% would love it and 50% would hate it. Definitely didn’t think something so dark and real would blow up and be so popular so quick.
I think if the real Martha was charged and convited of stalking Gadd, then they wouldn't be legally obligated to conceal her identity. The law says 'Justice must be seen to be done' which is why court cases are reported by the media with the defendant's real name, photo etc. This is why true crime documentaries, docufilms are allowed to detail the perpetrator's real name etc. It doesn't seem like the real Martha was convicted in court of any crime against Gadd, or at least we don't know if that happened. (I'm not saying she didn't stalk him, just that we don't know if she was convicted).
We'll have to agree to disagree and it's ok. If the average internet user doesn't know places like kiwifarms and lolcow exist (but even lite versions like tattle or gurugossip or similar), the people at netflix are more than aware. They were aware people would look up the characters when they put "this is a true story" on the forefront of episode 1. I myself after binging it to end, without knowing anything about it, googled "donny dunn" up and discovered it was Gadd himself.
I feel like I’m misunderstanding something; why is it surprising or unusual that when you googled Donny Dunn the name of the actor who portrayed and created him came up?
The laws on privacy and tech are changing every year and are getting better for those who claim victim status. Netflix is not known to be very ethical, so I don't know why people think their attorneys would anticipate this. There are many "true stories" on Netflix that may result in Netflix being sued. They just settle out of court and we never even know about it. If you publish blatant lies about someone without their consent, you risk being sued.
Yes, and absolutely facinating from that perspective. He has the right to tell his story, but it becomes exceedingly murkey when you interrogate the details from there on. Did he change it enough? Should he have to? When does 'your story' become defamation?
I thought Osman and Hyde's podcast on this was a really interesting listen too; talking about Netflix's compliance department and how royally they have screwed up. They basically said that since the show had run in a various guises in Edinburgh, and it was all already out there, that they could risk it.
Netflix likely made the calculation that they could make more money off the story than they could lose in legal fees, if they even get sued.
This is always a risk with memoirs. I’m sure between the legal, accounting and creative departments they were able to weigh the risks.
Also the standard for what constitutes libel or defamation in the UK is higher than in the US. Depending on the jurisdiction, the risk might be worth it.
Totally. It's just so facinating to watch it all unfold. She's giving interviews, is clearly very mentally unwell (deluded?). But some lawyer looking to make a name might take the case on.
Isn't defamation needed to be false and directed at a specific individual reputation? The story being true (specifically what she did) and changing her name seems to cover well their bases. ( from my legally uneducated position)
But the story isn’t all true. It appears, for example, that she didn’t go to court/ get convicted of crimes against Gadd but the show portrays it. He/Netflix took a particularly silly risk by stating ‘this is a true story’ rather than the more usual ‘based on a true story’ which allows a bit of artistic license. There are other things in the show which don’t appear to have happened IRL in quite the same way so there may well be elements of what’s been dramatised that are so heightened/changed that they would be defamation.
The Hawley Arms is definitely not a prestigious bar. It’s pretty similar to the show, just maybe a bit more crowded and dingy. It was a decent place to celeb spot, but still a shit hole.
I assume you've been there, i haven't, i read it was Amy Winehouse's favourite place and that it has a great reputation from multiple people who have been there
She drank there all the time and so did many others. I remember it was a busy spot when the music scene in Camden in the 00s was really buzzy. Nowadays idk, haven't been in London in years but honestly a lot of those pubs lost their charm for me in the aftermath of moments like Amy's death. Looking back, that whole scene and moment in time was fucking grim.
Yes these things are all true but I don’t think amy winehouse was the prestigious bar type. Never saw her there but saw Chris moyles and comedy Dave a few times when they were a thing
No, what does she have to defend herself from? A knowingly fictionalized portrait of who she is? He never once made a claim that it was an accurate and perfect depiction of her. That’s literally the opposite of defamation.
From the article:
>Rory Lynch, a lawyer specialising in defamation and privacy at Gateley Legal, believes Harvey may have grounds to sue for defamation because people found out her identity using a method known as “jigsaw identification”.
So this guy is saying there are grounds for her to sue, whether this is credible or not, i have no idea, just reading the article
The show starts with the statement ‘this is a true story’. Not ‘Based on a true story’ or ‘inspired by real events’. So even though there are fictionalised elements and things that did not happen, one can easily show that the showrunner/producer is claiming things to be true that are false. It’s kinda nuts when you think about it, based on/inspired by would have given them a fair bit of protection .
This is a total aside, but I am curious if anyone was actually assaulted at the Hawley Arms. I’ve been there once, in like 2011 or 2012. Richard Ayoade from the IT Crowd was also in the bar. I was side-eyeing the hell out of the show when his bar said they didn’t have security cameras. I just can’t see a “Martha” situation happening there irl.
I have a billion questions. Because if we are presented with a dramatized version of reality through Richard Gadd's lenses, we really don't know if the light he chose to portray himself in is truthful. reality about him could be so much better than what he showed us, or so much worse.
All of this could have been avoided by immediately saying this was only based on a true story and simple changes to prevent the immediate identification of Martha. Changing the curtains thing would have been enough to throw many off the scent. It was there on display for anyone that dared to search "richard gadd curtains".
People been destroying me for saying that. It’s Richard’s perspective, of course he will be the victim lol. But really we will never know the full truth.
I made the mistake of looking on her facebook.
She states she never knew Gadd then she only went into the pub a few times. Then she can name all the staff who were working there while Gadd did and then she seems to know all about Gadd’s family.
Her aggressive attacks on the actress playing Martha are clear projection.
She has recently posted about finding bodies in the canal which is something Martha says.
She is even accusing Gadd of giving the press her telephone number suggesting she believes he would have reason to have it.
It’s not defamation if it’s true and from what she is publicly saying it seems very much true.
She's changed her story a million times in her endless rants on FB too. At one point she said she had never met Gadd and then later claimed they dated.
In the same post she said she never knew him or met and also said he asked her out and she said no. She's clearly very unwell but if she takes a defamation case, it will all come out about what she actually did.
it’s pretty obvious that it *did* happen and that she *is* mentally unwell. she doesn’t like that the story is out for everyone to see and is grasping at a few small details that were probably exaggerated in the show. like, gadd said himself in an interview, before the internet found her, that she *did not* go to jail and he doesn’t know what happened to her. her doing jail time is literally such a weird thing to be caught up on, cause it’s irrelevant to the plot of the show
with that said, people shouldn’t have found her. gadd asked in *multiple* interviews not to seek out the real people from the show. she should’ve been left alone. that woman needs help, and being harassed by hundreds of strangers will only antagonize her even more
This is part of the problem she’d run into with attempting any kind of law suit
She ran to the Daily Mail and did an interview, and was fine with them publishing her name and photograph— they just opted not to because they felt it wasn’t ethical
One could argue that even interviewing her— a mentally ill woman who is on her way to ruining her own life at this point— wasn’t ethical, but she consented and hasn’t been found to be incapable of consent so legally there’s nothing there that holds water. As far as how easy she was to find, it’s because of tweets *she made and chose to never delete* that people could find her, and that’s ultimately on her for using a public platform to make public statements
It’s very dystopian— I adore the show, but the firestorm starting since she was identified feels very much like a modern Bradbury story and opens up a lot of questions about the ethics of public disclosure via art
Feels like it's very adjacent to the true crime craze of the last few years too. People taking it upon themselves to become amateur "sleuths" and such.
>like, gadd said himself in an interview, before the internet found her, that she did not go to jail and he doesn’t know what happened to her. her doing jail time is literally such a weird thing to be caught up on, cause it’s irrelevant to the plot of the show
It’s not a weird thing at all to be caught up on for a few reasons:
1. She’s a lawyer. Going to prison would mean she’d be definitely struck off and not able to practice. Being her lawyer is very central to her sense of identity, so of course it’s going to bother her that he implied she was convicted of criminal offences.
2. It is relevant to the plot of the show, it gives it closure which he instigated, so it’s empowering for his character. Perhaps she herself chose to stop (unlikely but let’s bear with me) - I can understand how him saying she went to jail would rile her.
>gadd asked in multiple interviews not to seek out the real people from the show.
I think this was disingenuous of him tbh, performative. It’s also shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. I don’t agree with people contacting her or interacting with her posts in any way, but it’s human nature to be curious when you’re specifically told it’s a true story. Gadd could have used other wording to suggest he used creative licence, and he could have done A LOT more to separate the fictional persona from the real inspiration, including not using a specific real phrase that she used in an old tweet.
The problem for Netflix and Gadd is going to be that they state “this is a true story”. They should have given themselves the chance to say they used artistic license by saying “based on actual events”, or words to that effect. Because if she hasn’t been to prison, as she claims (and who knows with her?) then she *will* have a case if Netflix and Gadd claimed that that is true.
Having hold of 41,000 emails and 350hours of voicemails is going to kick any defamation claim to the curb.
She did all that.
Changing her name and adding in criminal convictions (which are public record) actually gives her protection. It can’t be her because she never went to prision right?
On her facebook she has mentioned she never assaulted Gadd and is getting very cross about the 2 events.
The canal assault was not witnessed so is his word vs hers.
The show tells us clearly that the glassing was not reported and gives reasons why no records so again his word vs hers.
I believe if she brings a case against Gadd she would need prove these things didn’t happen…how will she do this?
That’s the thing though, Gadd/Netflix stated that “This is a true story”. Thereby stating that all these events happened. Gadd can 100% prove the stalking - he has the receipts. But if “Martha” decides to sue based on the claims she served time for previous stalking convictions and for stalking Gadd, and that turns out *not* to be true, then she does indeed have a case.
While I agree Netflix could have made it more prominent it’s very obviously a dramatisation of events.
Gadd and Netflix have never said FH went to prision. They said a fictional character called Martha went to prision.
FH through her own public actions linked herself to this fictional character.
For a defamation case to be successful you need to show a mistruth was clearly directed at an individual.
Gadd and Netflix have not clearly said FH went to prision therefore no case.
💯. I keep wondering who in their legal signed off on this. There's a reason that stories have pretty precise disclaimers. You rarely see a flat out "true story" -- imo they are inviting a defamation lawsuit.
Because Netflix so clearly stated that “this is a true story” and not “based on a true story” or “based on actual events”, then if the real life “Martha” can disprove *any* of Gadds claims, then she will have a case. It’s unreal they didn’t give themselves the excuse of artistic freedom .
>she says none of it happened
I think you're confused about what she said. She didn't say "none" of it happened or that nothing on the show is accurate. She was speaking about the claim that she went to prison and said "none of this happened." That was specifically about the claim she went to prison. In that context "this" is "going to prison" not denying everything on the show.
I'm surprised this post has so many upvotes when you clearly didn't understand what she said.
I feel like this can't go anywhere good.. Especially if she's going to go on TV. Let's not turn a mentally ill person into a spectacle of ridicule, regardless of what she's done in the past
This is my thoughts exactly and perhaps I'm delusional but I think this is also the only ethically sound comment here. Yet, alas, I don't think we're in for an ethical ride here.
I’m more worried about her being glorified and fanned over like Gypsy Rose Blanchard. America has a habit of putting bad people on pedestals and worshiping them.
Here in the US?? Don’t have a clue what you’re talking about putting shit people up on pedestals and worshipping them! Wait. Ooohhhh… yeah. We need to knock that shit off.
There is already a Fiona Harvey Supporters group on Facebook. They even linked her real profile. Unbelievable. I didn’t join it but was able to view it.
I was bored at work and clicked on her profile when it popped up and noticed she went from like a few hundred likes to just a handful. It’s almost like people realized she shouldn’t be messed with. For a second I wondered if she was on this sub, but it would be pretty obvious she was on this sub based off how she writes… let’s hope she doesn’t learn how to use reddit 😂
Agreed. "Martha" as she is portrayed on the show appears to have some very narcissistic traits to her personality as well as a complex system of grandiose delusions.
These, at least the narcissistic traits, have appeared to play out in the real life "Martha" as well.
Also, I'm from the U.S., so my legal framework may be different and if it is different in Britain hopefully there is a Brit who can educate me, but in the U.S. if someone becomes involved in the justice system as an adult, be it an arrest or conviction or a protective/restraining order or what have you, that is public record. So I was confused as to why everyone was saying don't out Martha don't out Martha when her involvement with the politician and his wife and son were, again AFAIK as an American, public record.
I truly believe she would have outed herself if the internet had not found her and I suspect she's enjoying the attention. I just hope she is not going to profit from her abuse and harassment of Gadd and others that is continuing to go on daily in her FB rants.
they don’t really look alike, aside from being heavy (and the actor for martha is much more heavier than irl martha) and having grown out roots. he could have changed more things, yes, but at the end of the day it’s his very personal story and i don’t think anyone, especially the victim, should go out of their way to protect the identity of their stalker more than what’s necessary.
he changed names and appearance, it’s not his fault people on the internet have so much time on their hands to find the real person the character is inspired by. especially because, specifically with martha, there were too many elements that were extremely relevant to the core of the story and changing them would have made it feel less genuine and raw.
They do look alike, they gave the actress playing Martha the same hair, the same makeup and fashion. They made her Scottish. They made her a law graduate. The script has lines that match what the real Martha posted on her Twitter. They did everything they could to make her resemble the real Martha.
I don’t see any resemblance aside from both being heavier-set? To me that’s like casting Daniel Radcliffe to play Jared Leto, and saying they’re identical because both have dark hair and striking blue eyes
Except the old colleague who looks exactly like the actor cast to play his rapist is apparently not the rapist. If that doesn’t give people pause about this whole thing, I don’t know what will. That is a shocking thing to do.
Agreed. Also there are details that suggest the sexual abuser could be 2 or 3 other different people Gadd worked with. He should really have been careful to make sure either that all ‘clues’ indicated the real sexual abuser, or that they didn’t indicate any of the people in position of power that he’s worked with.
The biggest issue for me is that everyone now knows that the stalker character was very like the real stalker, her former victims were presented almost exactly as they were, so of course people will think it’s the guy who looks exactly like the actor in the show. It’s such an irresponsible and concerning thing to do.
That’s really just scratching the surface of the issues IMO. The more you look, the more issues there are.
I would never advocate reaching out to Harvey- particularly threatening her- but I can't say I'm bothered that much that it's happening.
She has spent years making other people's lives hell. Gaad and the Wrays are the ones we know about but stalkers don't usually just stop. We only know about those two cases because one was an MP and one wrote a bloody netflix show... I imagine there are people who aren't as high profile who suffered too.
So now she's getting a taste of what it's like to have your privacy violated, to live in a state of anxiety, to get constant unwanted attention and panic every time your phone goes off.
Again, I'm not a crazy person, so I'm not going to ever message a stranger and harass them. Nor would I encourage others too.
But am I supposed to feel sorry for her? I don't.
If you see her social media she targets neighbors constantly. One guy walks his dog in a courtyard her apartment overlooked and she accuses him constantly of being a drug dealer. She photographs neighbors across the street and accuses them of being illegal immigrants and makes comments about whether the cops should be called because they hang out on their stoop. I don’t know if she’s aware of the Pandora’s box she’s opening but part of me thinks she enjoys the attention.
I can understand why Richard Gadd wrote that Martha went to prison while in reality she did not, likely as a sort of catharsis. I had a backstabbing ex-friend-turned stalker (not Martha's extreme) that really left some trauma so I once wrote a fake apology letter from her perspective (which I never got in reality, she kept self-victimizing and wanted an apology from *me* for "ghosting" her) to help move on which I have
baby reindeer book 2019
I'm not sure how much the book has changed from reality.
(He claims to have changed Certain details have been changed to protect the identities of those involved - oh.. really?)
.
.
She is not allowed to contact me directly anymore otherwise she goes to jail.
So instead, she rings me off an unknown number and hag up every day. Instead, she harasses my parents at work address. Instead, she sends racist messages to my gf on twitter. Instead, she reports the bar to the licensing police for thing they haven’t done
About the bar, I found it to be similar. with what she posted on Facebook (slander bar , drugs etc.)
This show(stand up show) doesn’t have a conclusion. Sometimes I question whether it will ever have one. She needs help but the system cannot give her help unless she proves herself to be a physical threat to someone else –
or herself so they just let it continue
There is a woman in an article online talking about Martha and how the police cannot do anything. That was 2003. Here we are sixteen years later and nothing has changed. So my life is a waiting game, waiting for something to happen.
.
.
I think, as audience members, we expect art to be virtuous and tell the truth isn’t always virtuous. sometime the truth is messy and morally complicated. It wouldn’t be fair to paint myself as the perfect victim because I wasn’t. it wouldn’t be fair to paint her as a remorseless psychopath because she wasn’t. it’s somewhere in the middle
(( I really don't know how true that is.)))
What does this lady do for money? How can she support herself and have time for so much harassment of others? I sincerely hope she’s not a practicing lawyer
I don't know, but I suspect she is receiving some type of disability governmental help. I seriously doubt she is able to hold a job for more than a week
I don’t know what the burden of proof is in England or Scotland but considering she had a pretty hefty online footprint targeting many different people, she may be digging herself a hole she can’t climb out of.
She’s digging herself a massive hole, because the burden of proof would be on *her* to prove the things alleged in the series *didn’t happen*— not on Gadd to prove they *did*
I’m repeating myself a bit because I said this elsewhere but a fair comparison is the Johnny Depp vs The Sun case. He lost because he wasn’t able to prove he’s NOT a wife-beater so the court said “Sorry m8, but you ARE A WIFE BEATER and the Sun did nothing wrong by saying you are”
Did she think he stalked him? Probably not. Does she think she did anything wrong? Also not. The media should not have interviewed her. People should not have found her and egged her on- the fb posts I’ve seen posted everywhere of her being 1 minute not knowing anything about him to the next heavily detailing every bit of his life and family etc. It highlights that she is not mentally well, and likely has a personality disorder/ delusional disorder. She’s a vulnerable adult and the internet/ media are taking advantage of her, and it’s not going to end well for her.
I don’t know why but this quote made me laugh out loud. I couldn’t help to hear Martha’s voice
“It’s a load of rubbish. I don’t have any money but I’m a perfectly capable lawyer so I will represent myself.”
Yeah so maybe that was a change he made to her character to disguise her? She can’t be mad about being exposed and then mad about him changing features of her and the story. Oh, but she likes all the attention so I guess she’s going to have to be good with what she’s getting.
She’s unhinged.
The changes made were about things that are publicly available information— the moment she was identified via her old tweets, anyone who wanted to could have gotten records of any court cases or arrests she’s been a part of
It literally *protects* her identity that no such records allegedly exist, and if she hadn’t run to the press she wouldn’t be getting any attention whatsoever. She may be severely mentally ill, but she’s lighting the firestorm right now; not Gadd, and not Netflix
Because a serial stalker who was identified by HER OWN POSTS stalking Gadd doesn’t get to demand protection and out herself in the media for attention. She either wants privacy or she doesn’t.
So, if someone in your life wrote a fictionalised account of their relationship with you, but added in that you were convicted of a serious crime when you weren't, and millions of people on the internet thought that was true, you wouldn't have a problem with that?
Sidebar I’m finding it a bit weird how so many articles seem to calling Martha the baby reindeer when one of the basic facts of the show is that that’s what she starts calling Donny incessantly, lol.
I don’t think the headline is trying to refer to her as the baby reindeer, “Baby Reindeer Martha” is tabloid headline shorthand for “Martha from Baby Reindeer.” You see it all the time where they try to cut down the number of words in the headline as much as possible, cutting out all the connecting words that string a sentence together. Makes for a lot of headlines that are almost incomprehensible (and very grammatically incorrect!).
It's likely something terrible happened in her life which caused her to become who she is today.
I sympathize with her becoming this mentally ill, but some mental illnesses simply can't be healed. She should be in a closed asylum for her own safety, if you ask me.
I think the journalist probably hounded her, egged her on and helped feed her narrative which she is clearly vulnerable towards….feeling victimized etc.
I really hope she doesn't some how profit from her harassment and abuse that's still occuring every day. This article noted she was not paid but I'm sure others will consider it.
I can't get over how similar she looks to Martha in the show. All his talk of her not being able to recognise herself? The biographical details are barely changed and she looks the spit of her!
I don't even know what to think of it any more, this post-show chapter is stranger than the show itself.
I don't think she looks much similar to the Martha in the show, aside from being a middle-aged white woman with some weight on her. That being said, reading the article I could basically hear the voice of the actress Jessica Gunning giving those sound pieces. I'd say he nailed her voice in the show.
I don't see how she could sue Netflix or the production company. Nobody has come out and said that the character represents her and if a few people online piece it together based on her very own social media posts, it is pretty much her own fault. Using a line that she tweeted to him years ago is hardly ground for a lawsuit. All it really says is you should be careful with your online activity.
Personally, I also think trying to identify the people in the story is out of line. It's obviously a fictionalised account of what happened to Gadd and the point of the entire show is basically how he is both a victim, but also an initiator of his experiences. It's about mental health, sexual shame, the fragility of masculinity, and empathy for other people even if they are toxic. The entire show is about the complexities of the human experience and looks beyond mere villains that need to be punished.
>Rory Lynch, a lawyer specialising in defamation and privacy at Gateley Legal, believes Harvey may have grounds to sue for defamation because people found out her identity using a method known as “jigsaw identification”.
This is what caught my attention from the article, would love to learn more if someone knows about this concept
It seems to me like Martha outed herself. Like if all of her unhinged social media posts are still up, even after she knew the play character was based on her….i mean….like she wanted to be found out.
She's mentally ill. Like seriously, did the show not clarify that enough? She's a vulnerable person and now millions of people are conflating her with a fictionalised version of her, which takes some pretty significant liberties with the actual facts. For instance, she wasn't convicted a crime.
Does she have the capacity to remove messages and delete accounts though? She doesn't even seem to be able to open the comments on her facebook. We don't know anything except what we see.
The thing is, of course she’d be able to recognise herself as Gadd, her victim, played himself. It doesn’t matter if they used the most different looking actress in the world; she’d know it was about her. The whole thing is so difficult ethically, and Gadd does have a right to tell his story in one form or another, but one thing is for sure, she would be able to recognise herself on this point alone.
Any UK lawyers here? I am curious to hear if she has grounds to sue Netflix over a fictional story for defamation.
If so, there are other series based on real crime too… Off the top of my head, The Watcher, Burning Body and possibly the newest one, Asunta
Defamation is spreading things that are untrue with the aim to damage the reputation of the other party causing them harm for example loss of work.
For her to bring a case against Gadd she would need to show he caused her a loss and that the claim she stalked him is untrue.
She posted those tweets. She has the ability to delete them so she has left them as public knowledge so finding her is well and truly on her.
She is continuing to post obsessively about Gadd on her social media.
I am imagining they have the 41,000 emails and 350 hours of voicemails which is very good evidence of her previous stalking behaviour.
He changed her name which is an effort to protect her identity. It’s also been stated that the netflix show is based on a true story but not a biopic.
I am getting the feeling she isn’t going to miss out on work because of these allegations.
Finally just to start the process she is going to need a good £10k..which again I don’t think she has in her pack pocket.
I could see some attorney willing to take the case on pro bono just for the name recognition alone…happens all the time. They would probably angle for a settlement.
Still needs to show that Gadd is telling lies with the aim to damage her reputation and cause her loss.
She sent 41000 emails and 350 hours of voicemails…thats stalking.
However, he portrayed her as being convicted and incarcerated for it when she wasn't. With the tag line, "This is a true story". Not "inspired by" or "based on", but "a true story".
Pretty easy argument that was to give her a protection from being publicly outed and making it clear Martha is not 100% representation of the real person.
It looks like she isn’t denying the stalking claims anymore, just denying the prison claims. Falsely claiming somebody went to prison could be defamation in itself as it would cause a huge loss.
At what point has Gadd said Fiona Harvey went to prison though?
By saying Martha went to prision he gave a level of deniably to her. Convictions being a matter of public record this clearly shows Martha is not a biography of a real person but a character based on a person.
He hasn’t named her. She has been found purely through her own actions.
And again do we really think this woman is losing anything because of this?
The Gadd stuff has stiff competition from her racist facebook posts when it comes to the woman’s “reputation”.
People very much do want to find the real Darrien.
It’s just that he’s not easily discoverable and, although he’s an evil sod, he is not crazy- so he won’t publicly ‘out’ himself for obvious reasons.
The real life Darrien has the financial means to legally fight back which is probably why nothing has happened to him. "Martha" is just a mentally-ill fame-seeking person who craves attention, but the lawsuit aspect is a means to an end with her.
If you look into it, the real Darien has been known especially in the film industry for a long time. There was talk about it long before Baby Reindeer was even a Netflix idea.
Gadd cannot, based on everything we know, prove that “Darrien” actually did those things. There’s no proof anywhere that we’re aware of, unless there’s audio/video of the assaults that Gadd has kept private
He has repeatedly said he changed a lot of the details and aspects of what happened, and that the point of the show was the emotional journey because that was what was 100% reflective of the truth. I can understand why this loon doesn’t get it - she’s not sane, absolutely everybody knows that. She’s hyper focusing on small, irrelevant details. You know. Sort of like the character on the show.
But I don’t understand the conversational discourse among viewers. It’s been extremely clearly explained that this is not a beat for beat biographical depiction of what happened. That’s not why he made it.
But yes, let’s twist and doubt what happened to a victim because he made a fictionalized version of real events.
It’s kind of a shame it was found out who she is. I would have preferred it if the real person and story had remained a mystery, so we could have just admired the show and pondered its themes without getting into what is or isn’t real. I don’t think she will win any lawsuit, (surely?) but I do think they could have done a better job of changing the character. When Richard Gadd said something along the lines of how they had to change everything about her, I really believed that and assumed the real person must be completely different to Martha, in terms of looks and everything else. I was surprised to discover how similar she is.
Netflix will give us a season 2 of baby reindeer with Martha, I mean Fiona’s backing featuring her story so she won’t sue for defamation.
It will be fire 🔥, I’m eagerly awaiting to binge.
I am absolutely baffled by anyone taking her word on *anything*, or taking her word at anything beyond face value.
I don't think Gadd is perfect by a long shot, damaged people damage people, but she contracts herself almost constantly and is clearly very, very ill.
I have my theories that he secretly wanted this, considering how obsessed he clearly became later on, and he never portrayed any sort of recovery in the show.
She needs leaving well alone and ignoring. She is dangerous and I hate that we're seeing the sequel play out in the papers.
This should never have come this far. Netflix have well and truly fucked the pooch on this one.
I know we shouldn’t be giving her attention or making her life a misery given her mental issues, but I’m so curious. I wish I knew what was wrong with her, like whether she has a diagnosis. I also wonder if she has any friends or family, and whether she’s stalked other people. I know she didn’t go to jail, but I’m not clear why not, especially if she was at times lashing out or threatening violence. I wish Gadd would make a Baby Reindeer website and release the emails, voicemails etc. along with a real timeline of everything that happened. Or I wish there had been a court case and we could look up the evidence or something. I know that wouldn’t be great for her or maybe for him either, but it would be immensely satisfying to know what really happened. Regardless, I love the show and am curious but wary to see how things develop.
I'm surprised more people haven't mentioned the most important part of this article. She not only says she didn't go to prison but that he is lying about the restraining order as well.
>There are no restraining orders, injunctions or interdicts anywhere.
But I saw an article that mentioned the restraining order expiring in 2022. If they lied about the real Martha going to prison and Gadd getting a restraining order but then opened the show with "this is a true story" that is a problem and I can't imagine there won't be a lawsuit.
When I posted that it was possible she had a defamation case last week on the television sub I was attacked, massively downvoted, called an idiot, a :"dumb bitch" and provided legal analysis from the gamers on the sub such as their claim that she can't sue if they changed her name on the show.
Now a lawyer has confirmed the same opinion.
>Rory Lynch, a lawyer specializing in defamation and privacy at Gateley Legal, believes Harvey may have grounds to sue for defamation because people found out her identity using a method known as “jigsaw identification”.
Also since she had identified herself publicly it's ridiculous that people can't use her name on this sub.
Rory Lynch is talking bollocks. Identification is not the issue. Thats now what defamation is about. Truth is an ABSOLUTE defence to any defamation action. Gadd is bombproof in that regard.
The creator and comedian himself, doesn’t know where the whereabouts of the real-life Martha. He had a restraining order against her but did not want her to go to prison. According to an interview with The Times UK, he “didn’t want to throw someone who was that level of mentally unwell in prison.” He felt “mixed feelings about it” but that the situation was now “resolved.”
https://stylecaster.com/entertainment/tv-movies/1767201/fiona-harvey-richard-gadd/
I don’t get it. They didn’t ask her before making a show about her?! So all the other characters are also based on real people? Were they aware of the show coming out?
Richard Gadd would know if his stalker did jail time. He also said he disguised her. His show seems more and more to me like a way to manipulate his stalker and get her to expose herself. It is a fine piece of manipulative revenge and she is playing into it. He doesn’t have to prove anything, she is literally exposing herself through keeping the discussion going. It might be unsafe. It is not something I would do to another person, but I also do not have problems with confrontation or telling people to back off and leave me alone. An angry introvert who has been abused and has self trust/self loathing? Yeah. I can see this, especially since he has access to the process and has been able to tell his story on stage multiple times and put some distance between it, a little detachment.
I enjoyed this show as much as anyone could “enjoy” it. I found myself wondering how these people get away with living without repercussions. His show was a way for him to forgive himself while also exposing people’s bad behaviors and apologizing to folks for not owning his own IMO.
I honestly find it refreshing when people can clap back at their oppressors and I wish there were more stories about so many women who probably deal with this on the daily, and have no recourse. But holy moly, if everyone had access to sweet revenge? And we gave the transgressors all the rope? Maybe we would have fewer of them.
This sub will now allow discussion and posts about Fiona Harvey, as she's come forward admitting to be the character on which Martha was based. However, we will continue to remove speculation, theories and personal identifying information on other characters that haven't been confirmed. We will update the rules in the sub around this change shortly. Thanks for your patience and understanding.
On one hand she says none of it happened, and on the other hand, the story quotes lawyers saying Gadd should’ve made the story more fictional and less like the real events. So which is it? Doesn’t sound like a very coherent defamation case to me. What’s that old saying about people who represent themselves in court?
It's just like Schroedinger's Gadd, she doesn't know him yet knows him so well she knows his entire family, it entirely depends on when you check her facebook, lol But on a serious note: The story was both marketed as a true story AND spoken about as a fictional story based on true events. Then it was found that Martha is a carbon copy as well as Laura Wray's family story, carbon copies with very few changes. We find out from interviews Gadd did that Teri and Keely are real people but we don't know how much has been changed about them. We find out Osman and everyone in the comedy scene knows who Darrien is, so he's also real. We find out Gadd worked at a very prestigious bar, not the crummy shotty place portrayed in the show. The question therefore is: How much about Martha's story is real? Does she have the right to defend herself from this blurry portrait he made of her? Does she have the capacity to defend herself from this situation since she is clearly disturbed, in one way or the other? It's an endless sea of grey, just like the show.
I’d be willing to bet the story has been changed exactly enough to indemnify Netflix from legal action. They are hardly new at this.
This is what Law & Order: SVU does. Says they aren't based on real events but clearly are.
A long time ago they used to advertise Law and Order as “ripped from the headlines.” A couple lawsuits and that was the end of that!
Reminds me of "Joan Is Awful" from Black Mirror(season 6)
Oh yea. That's what I've been saying though. They got away with the lowest legal agreement because they knew the show would perform extremely well. Netflix isn't a bunch of idiots they know exactly what they are doing (i will not be gaslighted into thinking the multibillion corp didn't know the show in this shape wouldn't perform well). Did Gadd himself expect this aftermath though? Don't know.
I’m sure it’s kind of impossible to anticipate this kind of success/attention and everything that goes with it. The fact is though that there are a million based on true events, crime stories like this. It’s not knew in that respect. A lot of the controversy is pretty silly.
I have to agree with this, there are a million docuseries out that don’t get this amount of attention that are based on true events and crimes. Netflix probably hoped it would do well but it’s the people promoting it on social media that blew it up. I never saw it bc of the Netflix app, just TikTok
I’m a little surprised at how much this blew up, I saw a little trailer clip on Netflix and decided to give it a go when I saw “fleabag meets you”. I think it had just dropped. Then a few weeks later it got super popular! Well deserved though. I thought it would be too dark to be this loved…but I guess people love dark shit.
Yeah same. I watched it the first few days it came out. I remember just being blown away when I finished it. Remember thinking it would be a super polarizing show where 50% would love it and 50% would hate it. Definitely didn’t think something so dark and real would blow up and be so popular so quick.
I think if the real Martha was charged and convited of stalking Gadd, then they wouldn't be legally obligated to conceal her identity. The law says 'Justice must be seen to be done' which is why court cases are reported by the media with the defendant's real name, photo etc. This is why true crime documentaries, docufilms are allowed to detail the perpetrator's real name etc. It doesn't seem like the real Martha was convicted in court of any crime against Gadd, or at least we don't know if that happened. (I'm not saying she didn't stalk him, just that we don't know if she was convicted).
We'll have to agree to disagree and it's ok. If the average internet user doesn't know places like kiwifarms and lolcow exist (but even lite versions like tattle or gurugossip or similar), the people at netflix are more than aware. They were aware people would look up the characters when they put "this is a true story" on the forefront of episode 1. I myself after binging it to end, without knowing anything about it, googled "donny dunn" up and discovered it was Gadd himself.
I feel like I’m misunderstanding something; why is it surprising or unusual that when you googled Donny Dunn the name of the actor who portrayed and created him came up?
It's not surprising that he came up, I'm making the point that i looked up the characters after i was done
The laws on privacy and tech are changing every year and are getting better for those who claim victim status. Netflix is not known to be very ethical, so I don't know why people think their attorneys would anticipate this. There are many "true stories" on Netflix that may result in Netflix being sued. They just settle out of court and we never even know about it. If you publish blatant lies about someone without their consent, you risk being sued.
Yes, and absolutely facinating from that perspective. He has the right to tell his story, but it becomes exceedingly murkey when you interrogate the details from there on. Did he change it enough? Should he have to? When does 'your story' become defamation? I thought Osman and Hyde's podcast on this was a really interesting listen too; talking about Netflix's compliance department and how royally they have screwed up. They basically said that since the show had run in a various guises in Edinburgh, and it was all already out there, that they could risk it.
Netflix likely made the calculation that they could make more money off the story than they could lose in legal fees, if they even get sued. This is always a risk with memoirs. I’m sure between the legal, accounting and creative departments they were able to weigh the risks. Also the standard for what constitutes libel or defamation in the UK is higher than in the US. Depending on the jurisdiction, the risk might be worth it.
Totally. It's just so facinating to watch it all unfold. She's giving interviews, is clearly very mentally unwell (deluded?). But some lawyer looking to make a name might take the case on.
Isn't defamation needed to be false and directed at a specific individual reputation? The story being true (specifically what she did) and changing her name seems to cover well their bases. ( from my legally uneducated position)
But the story isn’t all true. It appears, for example, that she didn’t go to court/ get convicted of crimes against Gadd but the show portrays it. He/Netflix took a particularly silly risk by stating ‘this is a true story’ rather than the more usual ‘based on a true story’ which allows a bit of artistic license. There are other things in the show which don’t appear to have happened IRL in quite the same way so there may well be elements of what’s been dramatised that are so heightened/changed that they would be defamation.
The Hawley Arms is definitely not a prestigious bar. It’s pretty similar to the show, just maybe a bit more crowded and dingy. It was a decent place to celeb spot, but still a shit hole.
I assume you've been there, i haven't, i read it was Amy Winehouse's favourite place and that it has a great reputation from multiple people who have been there
She drank there all the time and so did many others. I remember it was a busy spot when the music scene in Camden in the 00s was really buzzy. Nowadays idk, haven't been in London in years but honestly a lot of those pubs lost their charm for me in the aftermath of moments like Amy's death. Looking back, that whole scene and moment in time was fucking grim.
Yes these things are all true but I don’t think amy winehouse was the prestigious bar type. Never saw her there but saw Chris moyles and comedy Dave a few times when they were a thing
No, what does she have to defend herself from? A knowingly fictionalized portrait of who she is? He never once made a claim that it was an accurate and perfect depiction of her. That’s literally the opposite of defamation.
From the article: >Rory Lynch, a lawyer specialising in defamation and privacy at Gateley Legal, believes Harvey may have grounds to sue for defamation because people found out her identity using a method known as “jigsaw identification”. So this guy is saying there are grounds for her to sue, whether this is credible or not, i have no idea, just reading the article
The show starts with the statement ‘this is a true story’. Not ‘Based on a true story’ or ‘inspired by real events’. So even though there are fictionalised elements and things that did not happen, one can easily show that the showrunner/producer is claiming things to be true that are false. It’s kinda nuts when you think about it, based on/inspired by would have given them a fair bit of protection .
This is a total aside, but I am curious if anyone was actually assaulted at the Hawley Arms. I’ve been there once, in like 2011 or 2012. Richard Ayoade from the IT Crowd was also in the bar. I was side-eyeing the hell out of the show when his bar said they didn’t have security cameras. I just can’t see a “Martha” situation happening there irl.
I have a billion questions. Because if we are presented with a dramatized version of reality through Richard Gadd's lenses, we really don't know if the light he chose to portray himself in is truthful. reality about him could be so much better than what he showed us, or so much worse. All of this could have been avoided by immediately saying this was only based on a true story and simple changes to prevent the immediate identification of Martha. Changing the curtains thing would have been enough to throw many off the scent. It was there on display for anyone that dared to search "richard gadd curtains".
People been destroying me for saying that. It’s Richard’s perspective, of course he will be the victim lol. But really we will never know the full truth.
I made the mistake of looking on her facebook. She states she never knew Gadd then she only went into the pub a few times. Then she can name all the staff who were working there while Gadd did and then she seems to know all about Gadd’s family. Her aggressive attacks on the actress playing Martha are clear projection. She has recently posted about finding bodies in the canal which is something Martha says. She is even accusing Gadd of giving the press her telephone number suggesting she believes he would have reason to have it. It’s not defamation if it’s true and from what she is publicly saying it seems very much true.
She's changed her story a million times in her endless rants on FB too. At one point she said she had never met Gadd and then later claimed they dated.
In the same post she said she never knew him or met and also said he asked her out and she said no. She's clearly very unwell but if she takes a defamation case, it will all come out about what she actually did.
it’s pretty obvious that it *did* happen and that she *is* mentally unwell. she doesn’t like that the story is out for everyone to see and is grasping at a few small details that were probably exaggerated in the show. like, gadd said himself in an interview, before the internet found her, that she *did not* go to jail and he doesn’t know what happened to her. her doing jail time is literally such a weird thing to be caught up on, cause it’s irrelevant to the plot of the show with that said, people shouldn’t have found her. gadd asked in *multiple* interviews not to seek out the real people from the show. she should’ve been left alone. that woman needs help, and being harassed by hundreds of strangers will only antagonize her even more
I think she would have outed herself if people didn't find her but I agree people should have honored his request and left it alone.
This is part of the problem she’d run into with attempting any kind of law suit She ran to the Daily Mail and did an interview, and was fine with them publishing her name and photograph— they just opted not to because they felt it wasn’t ethical One could argue that even interviewing her— a mentally ill woman who is on her way to ruining her own life at this point— wasn’t ethical, but she consented and hasn’t been found to be incapable of consent so legally there’s nothing there that holds water. As far as how easy she was to find, it’s because of tweets *she made and chose to never delete* that people could find her, and that’s ultimately on her for using a public platform to make public statements
Christ when the Daily Mail says something is unethical then it must be pretty bad…
I agree completely that people should not have gone looking for her. It’s shocking tbh.
It’s very dystopian— I adore the show, but the firestorm starting since she was identified feels very much like a modern Bradbury story and opens up a lot of questions about the ethics of public disclosure via art
Feels like it's very adjacent to the true crime craze of the last few years too. People taking it upon themselves to become amateur "sleuths" and such.
>like, gadd said himself in an interview, before the internet found her, that she did not go to jail and he doesn’t know what happened to her. her doing jail time is literally such a weird thing to be caught up on, cause it’s irrelevant to the plot of the show It’s not a weird thing at all to be caught up on for a few reasons: 1. She’s a lawyer. Going to prison would mean she’d be definitely struck off and not able to practice. Being her lawyer is very central to her sense of identity, so of course it’s going to bother her that he implied she was convicted of criminal offences. 2. It is relevant to the plot of the show, it gives it closure which he instigated, so it’s empowering for his character. Perhaps she herself chose to stop (unlikely but let’s bear with me) - I can understand how him saying she went to jail would rile her. >gadd asked in multiple interviews not to seek out the real people from the show. I think this was disingenuous of him tbh, performative. It’s also shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. I don’t agree with people contacting her or interacting with her posts in any way, but it’s human nature to be curious when you’re specifically told it’s a true story. Gadd could have used other wording to suggest he used creative licence, and he could have done A LOT more to separate the fictional persona from the real inspiration, including not using a specific real phrase that she used in an old tweet.
Surely an old tweet is public domain though?
Yes it is, that’s my point. Easily found. He clearly used a phrase in the show that was real between them.
not surprised that the mentally ill stalker woman is incoherent and makes no sense
It’s interesting that the proof that she is Martha are her own messages she sent while stalking Richard.
The problem for Netflix and Gadd is going to be that they state “this is a true story”. They should have given themselves the chance to say they used artistic license by saying “based on actual events”, or words to that effect. Because if she hasn’t been to prison, as she claims (and who knows with her?) then she *will* have a case if Netflix and Gadd claimed that that is true.
Having hold of 41,000 emails and 350hours of voicemails is going to kick any defamation claim to the curb. She did all that. Changing her name and adding in criminal convictions (which are public record) actually gives her protection. It can’t be her because she never went to prision right? On her facebook she has mentioned she never assaulted Gadd and is getting very cross about the 2 events. The canal assault was not witnessed so is his word vs hers. The show tells us clearly that the glassing was not reported and gives reasons why no records so again his word vs hers. I believe if she brings a case against Gadd she would need prove these things didn’t happen…how will she do this?
That’s the thing though, Gadd/Netflix stated that “This is a true story”. Thereby stating that all these events happened. Gadd can 100% prove the stalking - he has the receipts. But if “Martha” decides to sue based on the claims she served time for previous stalking convictions and for stalking Gadd, and that turns out *not* to be true, then she does indeed have a case.
While I agree Netflix could have made it more prominent it’s very obviously a dramatisation of events. Gadd and Netflix have never said FH went to prision. They said a fictional character called Martha went to prision. FH through her own public actions linked herself to this fictional character. For a defamation case to be successful you need to show a mistruth was clearly directed at an individual. Gadd and Netflix have not clearly said FH went to prision therefore no case.
💯. I keep wondering who in their legal signed off on this. There's a reason that stories have pretty precise disclaimers. You rarely see a flat out "true story" -- imo they are inviting a defamation lawsuit.
Because Netflix so clearly stated that “this is a true story” and not “based on a true story” or “based on actual events”, then if the real life “Martha” can disprove *any* of Gadds claims, then she will have a case. It’s unreal they didn’t give themselves the excuse of artistic freedom .
>she says none of it happened I think you're confused about what she said. She didn't say "none" of it happened or that nothing on the show is accurate. She was speaking about the claim that she went to prison and said "none of this happened." That was specifically about the claim she went to prison. In that context "this" is "going to prison" not denying everything on the show. I'm surprised this post has so many upvotes when you clearly didn't understand what she said.
I feel like this can't go anywhere good.. Especially if she's going to go on TV. Let's not turn a mentally ill person into a spectacle of ridicule, regardless of what she's done in the past
This is my thoughts exactly and perhaps I'm delusional but I think this is also the only ethically sound comment here. Yet, alas, I don't think we're in for an ethical ride here.
I think you’re about 3 weeks late for that
I’m more worried about her being glorified and fanned over like Gypsy Rose Blanchard. America has a habit of putting bad people on pedestals and worshiping them.
Here in the US?? Don’t have a clue what you’re talking about putting shit people up on pedestals and worshipping them! Wait. Ooohhhh… yeah. We need to knock that shit off.
There is already a Fiona Harvey Supporters group on Facebook. They even linked her real profile. Unbelievable. I didn’t join it but was able to view it.
I feel like this is an entirely different situation and not really comparable. I am afraid people will get too obsessed with her though
Too late for that. It’s entertainment fodder now, unfortunately.
Deep down, I’m sure she’s enjoying the attention.
I feel like this is the real reason she’s come out publicly and started engaging with media. She likes the attention.
I think she is loving every second of it tbh. I am glad less people are reacting to her posts than they were when she was first identified.
I was bored at work and clicked on her profile when it popped up and noticed she went from like a few hundred likes to just a handful. It’s almost like people realized she shouldn’t be messed with. For a second I wondered if she was on this sub, but it would be pretty obvious she was on this sub based off how she writes… let’s hope she doesn’t learn how to use reddit 😂
It’s because reading them is exhausting, if we feel like this after a few days imagine how unnerving it is for the people she has stalked eg Gadd
It is exhausting and terrifying! A couple from yesterday really made me cringe.
She’s loving the attention AND hating being exposed in front of millions of people. As paradoxical as that is.
All while constantly confirming on FB that she is capable of harassment and abuse of the people who have accused her of harassment and abuse.
Agreed. "Martha" as she is portrayed on the show appears to have some very narcissistic traits to her personality as well as a complex system of grandiose delusions. These, at least the narcissistic traits, have appeared to play out in the real life "Martha" as well. Also, I'm from the U.S., so my legal framework may be different and if it is different in Britain hopefully there is a Brit who can educate me, but in the U.S. if someone becomes involved in the justice system as an adult, be it an arrest or conviction or a protective/restraining order or what have you, that is public record. So I was confused as to why everyone was saying don't out Martha don't out Martha when her involvement with the politician and his wife and son were, again AFAIK as an American, public record.
[удалено]
I missed everything about a support group! (Edit grammar)
Eyup. Notice she says she’s about to make a major tv appearance? Maybe she’ll come out with a book next
I truly believe she would have outed herself if the internet had not found her and I suspect she's enjoying the attention. I just hope she is not going to profit from her abuse and harassment of Gadd and others that is continuing to go on daily in her FB rants.
[удалено]
Probably a red herring
they don’t really look alike, aside from being heavy (and the actor for martha is much more heavier than irl martha) and having grown out roots. he could have changed more things, yes, but at the end of the day it’s his very personal story and i don’t think anyone, especially the victim, should go out of their way to protect the identity of their stalker more than what’s necessary. he changed names and appearance, it’s not his fault people on the internet have so much time on their hands to find the real person the character is inspired by. especially because, specifically with martha, there were too many elements that were extremely relevant to the core of the story and changing them would have made it feel less genuine and raw.
They do look alike, they gave the actress playing Martha the same hair, the same makeup and fashion. They made her Scottish. They made her a law graduate. The script has lines that match what the real Martha posted on her Twitter. They did everything they could to make her resemble the real Martha.
I don’t see any resemblance aside from both being heavier-set? To me that’s like casting Daniel Radcliffe to play Jared Leto, and saying they’re identical because both have dark hair and striking blue eyes
Exactly . Folk make out because they are both over weight they look the same . They don’t
Except the old colleague who looks exactly like the actor cast to play his rapist is apparently not the rapist. If that doesn’t give people pause about this whole thing, I don’t know what will. That is a shocking thing to do.
Agreed. Also there are details that suggest the sexual abuser could be 2 or 3 other different people Gadd worked with. He should really have been careful to make sure either that all ‘clues’ indicated the real sexual abuser, or that they didn’t indicate any of the people in position of power that he’s worked with.
The biggest issue for me is that everyone now knows that the stalker character was very like the real stalker, her former victims were presented almost exactly as they were, so of course people will think it’s the guy who looks exactly like the actor in the show. It’s such an irresponsible and concerning thing to do. That’s really just scratching the surface of the issues IMO. The more you look, the more issues there are.
[удалено]
What about the time he casted Richard Gadd to play Donny Dunne. That actor looks a lot like the real guy!
I would never advocate reaching out to Harvey- particularly threatening her- but I can't say I'm bothered that much that it's happening. She has spent years making other people's lives hell. Gaad and the Wrays are the ones we know about but stalkers don't usually just stop. We only know about those two cases because one was an MP and one wrote a bloody netflix show... I imagine there are people who aren't as high profile who suffered too. So now she's getting a taste of what it's like to have your privacy violated, to live in a state of anxiety, to get constant unwanted attention and panic every time your phone goes off. Again, I'm not a crazy person, so I'm not going to ever message a stranger and harass them. Nor would I encourage others too. But am I supposed to feel sorry for her? I don't.
If you see her social media she targets neighbors constantly. One guy walks his dog in a courtyard her apartment overlooked and she accuses him constantly of being a drug dealer. She photographs neighbors across the street and accuses them of being illegal immigrants and makes comments about whether the cops should be called because they hang out on their stoop. I don’t know if she’s aware of the Pandora’s box she’s opening but part of me thinks she enjoys the attention.
I think she's loving every second of it. I am glad that less and less people are reacting to her posts.
I agree, it’s like poetic justice
I can understand why Richard Gadd wrote that Martha went to prison while in reality she did not, likely as a sort of catharsis. I had a backstabbing ex-friend-turned stalker (not Martha's extreme) that really left some trauma so I once wrote a fake apology letter from her perspective (which I never got in reality, she kept self-victimizing and wanted an apology from *me* for "ghosting" her) to help move on which I have
baby reindeer book 2019 I'm not sure how much the book has changed from reality. (He claims to have changed Certain details have been changed to protect the identities of those involved - oh.. really?) . . She is not allowed to contact me directly anymore otherwise she goes to jail. So instead, she rings me off an unknown number and hag up every day. Instead, she harasses my parents at work address. Instead, she sends racist messages to my gf on twitter. Instead, she reports the bar to the licensing police for thing they haven’t done About the bar, I found it to be similar. with what she posted on Facebook (slander bar , drugs etc.) This show(stand up show) doesn’t have a conclusion. Sometimes I question whether it will ever have one. She needs help but the system cannot give her help unless she proves herself to be a physical threat to someone else – or herself so they just let it continue There is a woman in an article online talking about Martha and how the police cannot do anything. That was 2003. Here we are sixteen years later and nothing has changed. So my life is a waiting game, waiting for something to happen. . . I think, as audience members, we expect art to be virtuous and tell the truth isn’t always virtuous. sometime the truth is messy and morally complicated. It wouldn’t be fair to paint myself as the perfect victim because I wasn’t. it wouldn’t be fair to paint her as a remorseless psychopath because she wasn’t. it’s somewhere in the middle (( I really don't know how true that is.)))
What does this lady do for money? How can she support herself and have time for so much harassment of others? I sincerely hope she’s not a practicing lawyer
I assumed she’s on the dole thanks to her mental instability.
I don't know, but I suspect she is receiving some type of disability governmental help. I seriously doubt she is able to hold a job for more than a week
I don’t know what the burden of proof is in England or Scotland but considering she had a pretty hefty online footprint targeting many different people, she may be digging herself a hole she can’t climb out of.
Every time I scroll through some of her posts I hope whoever she's fixated on at the moment is taking note of whenever they are mentioned!
She’s digging herself a massive hole, because the burden of proof would be on *her* to prove the things alleged in the series *didn’t happen*— not on Gadd to prove they *did* I’m repeating myself a bit because I said this elsewhere but a fair comparison is the Johnny Depp vs The Sun case. He lost because he wasn’t able to prove he’s NOT a wife-beater so the court said “Sorry m8, but you ARE A WIFE BEATER and the Sun did nothing wrong by saying you are”
Did she think he stalked him? Probably not. Does she think she did anything wrong? Also not. The media should not have interviewed her. People should not have found her and egged her on- the fb posts I’ve seen posted everywhere of her being 1 minute not knowing anything about him to the next heavily detailing every bit of his life and family etc. It highlights that she is not mentally well, and likely has a personality disorder/ delusional disorder. She’s a vulnerable adult and the internet/ media are taking advantage of her, and it’s not going to end well for her.
oh lord she’s planning on representing herself? yea i think Gadd will be fine.
I don’t know why but this quote made me laugh out loud. I couldn’t help to hear Martha’s voice “It’s a load of rubbish. I don’t have any money but I’m a perfectly capable lawyer so I will represent myself.”
Wow she is really hung up on the her going to prison storyline.
It’s cause she hasn’t really watched it. She’s going off what others tell her happened in the show and she’s trying to discredit Gadd.
You don’t think she’s watched it, potentially over and over and over?
I will say, though, with how often she posts on FB, it would be hard to be watching it.
That’s fair; how would one even *find the time*?
Hahahaha
It’s okay she’s a very competent lawyer and can represent herself
The fact that it's the only thing she really disputes makes me think the rest was 100% the truth.
Well, she didn't go to prison, so you can hardly blame her.
Yeah so maybe that was a change he made to her character to disguise her? She can’t be mad about being exposed and then mad about him changing features of her and the story. Oh, but she likes all the attention so I guess she’s going to have to be good with what she’s getting. She’s unhinged.
>She can’t be mad about being exposed and then mad about him changing features of her and the story Why not?
The changes made were about things that are publicly available information— the moment she was identified via her old tweets, anyone who wanted to could have gotten records of any court cases or arrests she’s been a part of It literally *protects* her identity that no such records allegedly exist, and if she hadn’t run to the press she wouldn’t be getting any attention whatsoever. She may be severely mentally ill, but she’s lighting the firestorm right now; not Gadd, and not Netflix
Because a serial stalker who was identified by HER OWN POSTS stalking Gadd doesn’t get to demand protection and out herself in the media for attention. She either wants privacy or she doesn’t.
So, if someone in your life wrote a fictionalised account of their relationship with you, but added in that you were convicted of a serious crime when you weren't, and millions of people on the internet thought that was true, you wouldn't have a problem with that?
She did do those things though, she harassed and stalked people, there’s tons of evidence. Consequences of her actions.
"Martha" harasses the journalist who did the first interview with her. Good luck to authors of the second one
The only travesty here is she didn’t go to jail like she did on the series
Maybe that's about to change. She seems like a ticking time bomb.
She’ll be on the next series of Im A Celeb at this rate.
Did everybody read her quotes in her Martha Voice from the show? Or was that just me?
Sidebar I’m finding it a bit weird how so many articles seem to calling Martha the baby reindeer when one of the basic facts of the show is that that’s what she starts calling Donny incessantly, lol.
Yea like referring to the monster as Frankenstein
I don’t think the headline is trying to refer to her as the baby reindeer, “Baby Reindeer Martha” is tabloid headline shorthand for “Martha from Baby Reindeer.” You see it all the time where they try to cut down the number of words in the headline as much as possible, cutting out all the connecting words that string a sentence together. Makes for a lot of headlines that are almost incomprehensible (and very grammatically incorrect!).
I still don't understand how she has a law degree when she cannot spell or use grammar and punctuation correctly.
It's likely something terrible happened in her life which caused her to become who she is today. I sympathize with her becoming this mentally ill, but some mental illnesses simply can't be healed. She should be in a closed asylum for her own safety, if you ask me.
I think the journalist probably hounded her, egged her on and helped feed her narrative which she is clearly vulnerable towards….feeling victimized etc.
I really hate this..why is the media giving this woman the attention she craves.
I really hope she doesn't some how profit from her harassment and abuse that's still occuring every day. This article noted she was not paid but I'm sure others will consider it.
I can't get over how similar she looks to Martha in the show. All his talk of her not being able to recognise herself? The biographical details are barely changed and she looks the spit of her! I don't even know what to think of it any more, this post-show chapter is stranger than the show itself.
I don't think she looks much similar to the Martha in the show, aside from being a middle-aged white woman with some weight on her. That being said, reading the article I could basically hear the voice of the actress Jessica Gunning giving those sound pieces. I'd say he nailed her voice in the show. I don't see how she could sue Netflix or the production company. Nobody has come out and said that the character represents her and if a few people online piece it together based on her very own social media posts, it is pretty much her own fault. Using a line that she tweeted to him years ago is hardly ground for a lawsuit. All it really says is you should be careful with your online activity. Personally, I also think trying to identify the people in the story is out of line. It's obviously a fictionalised account of what happened to Gadd and the point of the entire show is basically how he is both a victim, but also an initiator of his experiences. It's about mental health, sexual shame, the fragility of masculinity, and empathy for other people even if they are toxic. The entire show is about the complexities of the human experience and looks beyond mere villains that need to be punished.
>Rory Lynch, a lawyer specialising in defamation and privacy at Gateley Legal, believes Harvey may have grounds to sue for defamation because people found out her identity using a method known as “jigsaw identification”. This is what caught my attention from the article, would love to learn more if someone knows about this concept
It seems to me like Martha outed herself. Like if all of her unhinged social media posts are still up, even after she knew the play character was based on her….i mean….like she wanted to be found out.
I think she would have outed herself even if no one pieced her identity together.
Exactly
She's mentally ill. Like seriously, did the show not clarify that enough? She's a vulnerable person and now millions of people are conflating her with a fictionalised version of her, which takes some pretty significant liberties with the actual facts. For instance, she wasn't convicted a crime.
Does she have the capacity to remove messages and delete accounts though? She doesn't even seem to be able to open the comments on her facebook. We don't know anything except what we see.
She turned commenting off on her posts so I am sure she knows how to navigate FB at least a little bit.
Maybe a social worker set her profile up this way, idk. I really don't know.
I truly hope she does have someone like that in her life.
The UK is way stricter on this so it’s definitely possible
Casting Jessica Gunning was being polite. I’m trying to be diplomatic here.
Gunning is a pretty woman.
Agreed.
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but it doesn't do him any favors
The thing is, of course she’d be able to recognise herself as Gadd, her victim, played himself. It doesn’t matter if they used the most different looking actress in the world; she’d know it was about her. The whole thing is so difficult ethically, and Gadd does have a right to tell his story in one form or another, but one thing is for sure, she would be able to recognise herself on this point alone.
Any UK lawyers here? I am curious to hear if she has grounds to sue Netflix over a fictional story for defamation. If so, there are other series based on real crime too… Off the top of my head, The Watcher, Burning Body and possibly the newest one, Asunta
Defamation is spreading things that are untrue with the aim to damage the reputation of the other party causing them harm for example loss of work. For her to bring a case against Gadd she would need to show he caused her a loss and that the claim she stalked him is untrue. She posted those tweets. She has the ability to delete them so she has left them as public knowledge so finding her is well and truly on her. She is continuing to post obsessively about Gadd on her social media. I am imagining they have the 41,000 emails and 350 hours of voicemails which is very good evidence of her previous stalking behaviour. He changed her name which is an effort to protect her identity. It’s also been stated that the netflix show is based on a true story but not a biopic. I am getting the feeling she isn’t going to miss out on work because of these allegations. Finally just to start the process she is going to need a good £10k..which again I don’t think she has in her pack pocket.
I could see some attorney willing to take the case on pro bono just for the name recognition alone…happens all the time. They would probably angle for a settlement.
But in the UK the loser in cases like this has to pay the winning partner’s legal fees (I believe).
Still needs to show that Gadd is telling lies with the aim to damage her reputation and cause her loss. She sent 41000 emails and 350 hours of voicemails…thats stalking.
To put that in perspective, it would take less time (319) hours to watch all 35 seasons of The Simpsons. 350 hours of voicemail is insane.
However, he portrayed her as being convicted and incarcerated for it when she wasn't. With the tag line, "This is a true story". Not "inspired by" or "based on", but "a true story".
Pretty easy argument that was to give her a protection from being publicly outed and making it clear Martha is not 100% representation of the real person.
It looks like she isn’t denying the stalking claims anymore, just denying the prison claims. Falsely claiming somebody went to prison could be defamation in itself as it would cause a huge loss.
At what point has Gadd said Fiona Harvey went to prison though? By saying Martha went to prision he gave a level of deniably to her. Convictions being a matter of public record this clearly shows Martha is not a biography of a real person but a character based on a person. He hasn’t named her. She has been found purely through her own actions. And again do we really think this woman is losing anything because of this? The Gadd stuff has stiff competition from her racist facebook posts when it comes to the woman’s “reputation”.
For the love of GOD don’t give this woman attention
We are witnessing live the 2nd season, which will be a documentary of the repercutions from the first season. Mark my words.
[удалено]
This feels kind of fucked up
She bangs on about the prison thing way too much. Which only makes it look like an admission the rest of it IS true!
I think it's probably confirmation that the rest is true. She's be pointing other things out like she is that.
Casting was spot on.
For gods sake she’s loving the attention. At last.
This lady needs to be left alone.
Just when you think that British journalism couldn't sink any lower. Manipulating a mentally ill woman for a story.
Makes me wonder: why didn’t people want to find the real Darrien? He’s as much of the story as Martha.
People very much do want to find the real Darrien. It’s just that he’s not easily discoverable and, although he’s an evil sod, he is not crazy- so he won’t publicly ‘out’ himself for obvious reasons.
The real life Darrien has the financial means to legally fight back which is probably why nothing has happened to him. "Martha" is just a mentally-ill fame-seeking person who craves attention, but the lawsuit aspect is a means to an end with her.
If you look into it, the real Darien has been known especially in the film industry for a long time. There was talk about it long before Baby Reindeer was even a Netflix idea.
Ah. Personally, i don’t want to delve into Martha or anyone else’s story because it’s not my business but good to know!
Honestly I agree, Martha is mentally ill while Darrien is a criminal and manipulator who takes advantage of Donny… Darrien needs to go to jail
Gadd cannot, based on everything we know, prove that “Darrien” actually did those things. There’s no proof anywhere that we’re aware of, unless there’s audio/video of the assaults that Gadd has kept private
He has repeatedly said he changed a lot of the details and aspects of what happened, and that the point of the show was the emotional journey because that was what was 100% reflective of the truth. I can understand why this loon doesn’t get it - she’s not sane, absolutely everybody knows that. She’s hyper focusing on small, irrelevant details. You know. Sort of like the character on the show. But I don’t understand the conversational discourse among viewers. It’s been extremely clearly explained that this is not a beat for beat biographical depiction of what happened. That’s not why he made it. But yes, let’s twist and doubt what happened to a victim because he made a fictionalized version of real events.
I don’t believe her for one second!!!
It’s kind of a shame it was found out who she is. I would have preferred it if the real person and story had remained a mystery, so we could have just admired the show and pondered its themes without getting into what is or isn’t real. I don’t think she will win any lawsuit, (surely?) but I do think they could have done a better job of changing the character. When Richard Gadd said something along the lines of how they had to change everything about her, I really believed that and assumed the real person must be completely different to Martha, in terms of looks and everything else. I was surprised to discover how similar she is.
I don’t believe a word of it! More delusions
Netflix will give us a season 2 of baby reindeer with Martha, I mean Fiona’s backing featuring her story so she won’t sue for defamation. It will be fire 🔥, I’m eagerly awaiting to binge.
She looks like Martha in the show.
Of course. The obsessive psycho wants to be internationally known be it on a bad way
I really hope she doesn't somehow profit from her abuse of Gadd and LW.
I am absolutely baffled by anyone taking her word on *anything*, or taking her word at anything beyond face value. I don't think Gadd is perfect by a long shot, damaged people damage people, but she contracts herself almost constantly and is clearly very, very ill. I have my theories that he secretly wanted this, considering how obsessed he clearly became later on, and he never portrayed any sort of recovery in the show. She needs leaving well alone and ignoring. She is dangerous and I hate that we're seeing the sequel play out in the papers. This should never have come this far. Netflix have well and truly fucked the pooch on this one.
From her perspective nothing weird has happened.. i am not buying this
I know we shouldn’t be giving her attention or making her life a misery given her mental issues, but I’m so curious. I wish I knew what was wrong with her, like whether she has a diagnosis. I also wonder if she has any friends or family, and whether she’s stalked other people. I know she didn’t go to jail, but I’m not clear why not, especially if she was at times lashing out or threatening violence. I wish Gadd would make a Baby Reindeer website and release the emails, voicemails etc. along with a real timeline of everything that happened. Or I wish there had been a court case and we could look up the evidence or something. I know that wouldn’t be great for her or maybe for him either, but it would be immensely satisfying to know what really happened. Regardless, I love the show and am curious but wary to see how things develop.
I'm surprised more people haven't mentioned the most important part of this article. She not only says she didn't go to prison but that he is lying about the restraining order as well. >There are no restraining orders, injunctions or interdicts anywhere. But I saw an article that mentioned the restraining order expiring in 2022. If they lied about the real Martha going to prison and Gadd getting a restraining order but then opened the show with "this is a true story" that is a problem and I can't imagine there won't be a lawsuit. When I posted that it was possible she had a defamation case last week on the television sub I was attacked, massively downvoted, called an idiot, a :"dumb bitch" and provided legal analysis from the gamers on the sub such as their claim that she can't sue if they changed her name on the show. Now a lawyer has confirmed the same opinion. >Rory Lynch, a lawyer specializing in defamation and privacy at Gateley Legal, believes Harvey may have grounds to sue for defamation because people found out her identity using a method known as “jigsaw identification”. Also since she had identified herself publicly it's ridiculous that people can't use her name on this sub.
Rory Lynch is talking bollocks. Identification is not the issue. Thats now what defamation is about. Truth is an ABSOLUTE defence to any defamation action. Gadd is bombproof in that regard.
The creator and comedian himself, doesn’t know where the whereabouts of the real-life Martha. He had a restraining order against her but did not want her to go to prison. According to an interview with The Times UK, he “didn’t want to throw someone who was that level of mentally unwell in prison.” He felt “mixed feelings about it” but that the situation was now “resolved.” https://stylecaster.com/entertainment/tv-movies/1767201/fiona-harvey-richard-gadd/
I don’t get it. They didn’t ask her before making a show about her?! So all the other characters are also based on real people? Were they aware of the show coming out?
Richard Gadd would know if his stalker did jail time. He also said he disguised her. His show seems more and more to me like a way to manipulate his stalker and get her to expose herself. It is a fine piece of manipulative revenge and she is playing into it. He doesn’t have to prove anything, she is literally exposing herself through keeping the discussion going. It might be unsafe. It is not something I would do to another person, but I also do not have problems with confrontation or telling people to back off and leave me alone. An angry introvert who has been abused and has self trust/self loathing? Yeah. I can see this, especially since he has access to the process and has been able to tell his story on stage multiple times and put some distance between it, a little detachment. I enjoyed this show as much as anyone could “enjoy” it. I found myself wondering how these people get away with living without repercussions. His show was a way for him to forgive himself while also exposing people’s bad behaviors and apologizing to folks for not owning his own IMO. I honestly find it refreshing when people can clap back at their oppressors and I wish there were more stories about so many women who probably deal with this on the daily, and have no recourse. But holy moly, if everyone had access to sweet revenge? And we gave the transgressors all the rope? Maybe we would have fewer of them.
I think she is a narcissist and has to be in the spotlight. She doesn’t want someone else taking the credit.
If it’s not true then it’s not her, if it’s is true then it’s her and she’s unhappy how she’s been represented. You can’t have it both ways.