“She’s Lying, She’s Truthful Or Has A Disorder” Baby Reindeer Interview Verdict
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 05. 2024
- Fiona Harvey's interview with Piers Morgan has created shockwaves across the globe, as the 'real' Martha from hit Netflix show Baby Reindeer claims she never stalked show creator Richard Gadd and that glaring falsehoods have been presented as truth, even leading to death threats being made against her.
Piers and his panel; Piers Morgan Uncensored contributor Esther Krakue, lawyers Paula Rhone-Adrien and Mark Geragos, psychologist Dr Drew and Will Jordan, AKA The Critical Drinker dissect the controversial interview, discussing whether Fiona can be trusted and considering the possibility that Netflix has opened itself up to a legal quagmire.
Watch the full Fiona Harvey interview: • “Richard Gadd is PSYCH...
00.00 - Piers Morgan's verdict on his interview with Fiona
05:20 - Paula’s reaction
08:30 - Is Baby Reindeer true?
11:26 - Does Fiona have a legal case?
16:09 - Dr Drew on stalkers
20:12 - Was Fiona ever ‘convicted’?
23:57 - Duty of care
28:45 - Is Richard Gadd a reliable witness?
31:38 - Should Piers have done the interview?
Subscribe to stay up-to-date on all Uncensored content.
Follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on:
Twitter: / piersuncensored
Instagram: / piersmorganuncensored
Facebook: / piersmorganuncensored
TikTok: / piersmorganuncensored
Follow Piers Morgan on:
Twitter: / piersmorgan
Instagram: / piersmorgan
#babyreindeer #fionaharvey #piersmorgan #interview #debate - Zábava
Vote for Piers Morgan as Best Presenter in this year's TRIC Awards!
poll-tric.org.uk/
no
Don’t tell me what to do
Jog on!!! You tool!!
@@mitchybooooy In fact, everyone can do: Tell you to shut up with your politically driven nonsense-BS.
Yes! The UK and the world need MANY more presenters who calls ut Leftist nonsense and BS.
Fiona:
"I don't know him"
"I don't know where he lives"
"I never sent him any letters"
"I sent one letter to where he lives"
"The behaviour of this woman is nothing like me. I recognised it was me he was referencing in the stage show"
"I never sent him any emails."
"I sent him 5 or 6 emails"
"I sent him 8 -10 emails"
"I never had his number"
"I left him one voicemail"
"I like to keep 6 different phones for no reason"
"I was top of my class at nearly everything because I have a photographic memory"
"I can't remember what grades I got for my law degree. I did alright. Not top of my class or anything"
Piers:
"She's clearly very intelligent and has done a great job defending herself"
😳😅😅😂😂🤣🤣
Love this comment 😂😂😂
Me too, love this comment!
😂😂😂right on dude
Damn, I watched it and didn’t see all this as clearly. Brilliant dude thx! I’ll have to watch again to confirm. I’ll be back
In interviews, Richard Gadd has said emphatically that the "real" Martha did NOT spend any time in jail. That part in the series was fictionalized. He felt sorry for her so did not pursue her to be imprisoned, just a restraining order. Why this is constantly brought up is beyond me.
Id does not matter what he has said in interviews after the fact when suddenly questioned.
If Netflix made the jail part up, she probably has a great law suit because Netflix mentions in the credits that it is a true story. Going to jail is not a minor detail.
Well, it's because Netflix said it was true. They should have said "based off a true story" because that would give them the creative room to change the outcome. Now people doubt whether it's true and they don't believe the guy now. All could of been avoided had the said "based."
@Embeeyin he said it before she came out about. He said it before, when it was a stage play before it was on Netflix
@@catrionaleslie-kelly904 elucidating context
Can we acknowledge how they glossed over the fact that she bombarded a daily mail reporter with 50 calls within a few hours?? That doesn’t ring any alarm??
Angry no doubt lol
Yes my thought to, that is a lot ,yeah no your right that confirms it for me she is lying..👀😵💫
@@stuartsharples9520 Why does it matter if she is lying about things that people have chosen to see as embarrassing? Netflix lied about her in very serious ways.
She definitely has a borderline personality, but he fabricated parts of the story and stated that it's a true story. He has serious emotional problems as well but portrays himself as an innocent victim. In fact, he has victimized her. She has a stong defamation case against him.
@@voices_vary😂 he did not portray himself as innocent. He talks about, in the show, how he was not innocent.
"She's lying, or truthful, or has a disorder..." Brilliant insights, guys.
Are you being sarcastic?
Can literally be applied to any given person in any given situation. Im either lying, truthful or I have a disorder even when I say that. Made me chuckle.
@@aseelabduljawad6800what do you think?
@@TruecrimeAndcommentaryyupp thats Just the world. Either its bullshit, the truth or just insane 😂
@@daffedavidsen6306 did I ask you?
Why are we acting like we don't understand the difference between a dramatized true story vs hard hitting journalistic documentary? This isn't national geographic.
Very simply because real people can and are getting hurt in the process.
Because if you say it is a true story you can't have incorrect events in it and made up stuff about real and still living people.
Because Netflix put 'True Story' at the beginning of the series.
@@brendanrobinson6860 Maybe she shouldn’t have stalked him. Maybe John Doe shouldn’t have raped him. Victims have the right to tell their stories.
@@Glaiket There is a huge difference between being allowed to tell your story and making a Netflix series about it.
We now need Piers to interview Richard Gadd
I agree
Exactly ,bring it on piers
Unfortunately I don't think he's prepared to be challenged mate and he could find himself in a lot of trouble with a few wrong answers....
No we don't.
Yes please
Piers Morgan is not a journalist who listens to find out about facts, he is a spokesperson who talks. And talks. And talks.
oh god, yes. It's the first interview I've ever watched him do, and why does he bother having other people there? I listened to 15 minutes and had to stop, I have better things to do with my time than listen to Piers being unprofessional.
Im surprised he's not gone in and pointed put the show had a sa scene. If that was a female there would be an uproar.
It triggered me a bit cos one of the assaults against me was pinned up to a wall 🤢
Makes me think Richard aint 100% legit... Then she opens her mouth. Classic example of someone who's not as smart as she thinks she is. As a lawyer, she doesnt know about ad hominem? How is constantly attacking putting you in a good light?
@@hannahcallow6374 If that was done to you by a man, it is NOT the same thing. STOP buying into that.
Oh dear. You just described your beloved leftist nonsense-BS-makers! Cute.
I love how Piers invites guests for their opinions and DOESN’T LET THEM TALK.
It literally says at the end of the episode “this program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes”
Seems Netflix highlighted in large font the "true story" aspect and descreetly added the disclaimer,i think they had a greater duty of care to those that were identified (one correctly one incorrectly.)
So you are fine with people making TV shows about you being criminally insane as long as they have some small print at the end stating certain events may not be true. Yeah right...
Of course it does. Netflix is not a local station. I am sure they have a lot of lawyers checking before all that will air. Morgan thinks he did something soo big,he is so proud of himself he would not listen to anyone...
So it’s not real events after all
I think about 15% of it is true, and the other 85% is fiction. Too many trite tropes, and cliches.
I wish Piers would let his guests on the panel speak more. It’s wild that he has 5 people there and when they begin to speak he interrupts them before they finish a thought.
Always!
When you add up the total conversation time, he speaks more than the five put together. It’s as if his ego can’t stand the spotlight being turned off him for more than 30 seconds. Very off putting and unprofessional.
💯
Exactly! Paula could not finished what she was trying to say very time!
He thinks he knows better than experts. Very rude to interrupt
Netflix will make the documentary of the scandal they created.
And then a documentary about the documentary
End credits state that the story is based on real events but fictionalised for dramatic purposes. Let’s review every other movie where that statement has been made shall we!?
“This program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes.”
That’s in the closing credits. Job done
And “incidents” can include the court scene at the end in order to “protect her identity.”
Programme. Not a computer program.😂
@@colinpumpernickel2605 in American English this is the correct spelling. I didn’t misspell it, it’s verbatim from the end credits. Thanks though!
@@stephaniehudson1414 eeeeeexactly. Everyone seems to just be overlooking this disclaimer. Netflix aren’t thick
Because they could easily say the same thing about Law & Order. There were plenty of those episodes that were CLEARLY about real life events, but they knew to have that disclaimer. Netflix is smart to stay quiet and let this woman hang herself by obviously contradicting herself on tv. She may have a case that won’t play in her favor, but it’s definitely worse to go on tv and prove that everything depicted when it comes to how she is as a person is looking spot on.
Imagine making a whole show about the biggest trauma of your life and some mf's just start calling you a liar because some details are different
Well it is lying if literally at the start the show says "this is a true story". They could have left that line out then people would better grasp the fictional medium
But why do people have to put their trauma out there. You open yourself up to criticism and potentially compound your trauma.
Imagine not sharing your biggest trauma with the world??!! If you decide to share than expect you are going to get the good, the bad and the ugly.
@@hterrinbecause of people like you and your miserable thinking, some people took their own lives
People don’t have enough going on in their lives so they need to dissect everything, and social media has become a cesspool for these kinds of personalities.
Piers is right. There is no “my truth” or “your truth”. There’s THE truth. And everyone has their own perspective/opinion of the truth, but that doesn’t change the reality of “truth”.
You know what made me sit up and take notice? You asked her age, she gave it to you and immediately let you know that she knew Piers' age as well. That is stalker code--but I've known stalkers (and had them) but they were more on voyeur side than dangerous stalker.
That to me was so sick.
holy......
If you think about how the actress got so good at impersonating Fiona, she probably had a lot of material to go off, i.e. a shitload of voicemails.
Actually it was a play first… so already a screenplay with stage notes etc
exactly and maybe some videos too
@@deanstyles7311 the point being, he couldn't have made it up
@@pauls7559 you sure about that?
@@deanstyles7311 a screenplay is for the screen oddly enough, the tv. And does nothing for explaining how a character sounds. They’re super minimal in detail. The director tells the actors how they want it to be. In this case Gadd obviously could help since he knows Fiona and clearly it’s her being depicted but he couldn’t very well do her voice etc.
Fiona Harvey outed herself not Netflix. Richard Gadd has said emphatically that she didn't go to jail because he felt sorry for her. It literally says at the end of each episode it says “this program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes.” Netflix should now do Martha's story.
Did Fiona bring it to the big screen or did Netflix
no one will write it.
thank god i found your comment, i’m glad i’m not the only one who can read, everyone is saying that netflix stated in the the show that it was a TRUE story (basically claiming that everything in the show is true), but no one remembers the disclaimer they put in EVERY episode saying that some things are fictionalized. You can tell they all skipped that part because it is incredible to me that after searching many comments, you’re the first one to mention it.
@@val5516so is that a pass? No, she should get some money.
@@laurasc84366 actually legally it is a pass, and even if it wasn’t in there stalkers shouldn’t get any money. Proper vile person
So, Parliament won't discuss excess deaths, or the WHO treaty...but considers a Netflix series their top-priority.
perfect distraction. love how netflox has become judge and jury on serious allagations too.
As someone who is dealing with a stalker, I feel they should be called out, NO OTHER PERSON should be subjected to the harm that a stalker causes and it will deter future stalking incidents because they can be exposed for their horrible and harmful choices. Healthy coping skills is a good thing and providing those is a good strategy. Stalking is a preventative problem I believe. Real consequences are effective. If you don’t want the results, then don’t make the choices that lead to them. Stalkers are also notorious for lying and denying the conscience choices they make. 😔😔😔
@MeanEileen916 - I'm so sorry you're going through this! Stay safe. I sincerely wish you all the very best 🙏
Please don't ever feel bad or guilty for calling authorities over something "small" because it almost ALWAYS escalates, and you are way too important to mess around with ignoring any of their garbage. Too late is too late.
And I'm not saying this part facetiously- just be careful... don't accidentally tell the authorities (as a random example) that you received 41,000 emails when you actually only received 40,999 emails - because then apparently nobody will believe you because you got the specific number wrong, and your stalker might cling to that (oh how they love clinging and latching onto things!), and belabor the fact that you *lied* about that number to make them look bad, or assert that since you lied about that specific number of emails, then none of the rest is true either.
I took a ton of time to type the rest of this reply, and then deleted everything about four or five times, and it's still gonna be "too long"😆
I don't like to talk about my own experiences, so I won't go into detail. Because reliving it is awful. Because it's trauma all over again to have tourists poke around in your life. Being stalked is harrowing, and insidious, and life-altering. But to those who speak out, bless you. And thank you. To say it's not easy is a gross understatement. And I'm so grateful that you're around to speak out! Because too many stalking victims lose their voices permanently.
I'm so disappointed that so many people have rushed out to defend her, when they don't know what actually happened. I'm not defending him either, in particular- because I don't know what actually happened.
What was presented to us is his *dramatized* version of his experience... which is different. And short of streaming a ticker tape at the bottom of the screen during the *entire* episode stating that some events/dialogue have been dramatized... what else can they ask for? Because people can miss the very beginning, people can miss the very end - people don't generally read anything if they don't feel it's strictly necessary anyway. Sometimes not even then, lol.
As much as I'd like to see how these people would deal with it if *they* were in that situation? You're absolutely right, nobody should be subjected to being stalked and all the future ripples of suffering it causes. I truly wouldn't wish it on anyone.
@@Oh-No-Its-Lizzie-Jo Thank You for understanding and putting your voice out there too!! It’s reassuring and I hope to use these examples to effect change because I feel it is necessary and we are seeing the effect of just sweeping it under the carpet. I think the victims, like ourselves, need to be heard and considered too!
Netflix absolutely bombed the marketing. All they had to say was “based on a true story” and they’d be covered legally. It’s a work of art not a fucking documentary.
After black cleopatra, the term « documentary » doesn’t convey the same standard of truth it used to lol
@@lilrawri8446 LMAO
BASED on a true story. Not this IS a true story..
How have they bombed the marketing? Everyone's talking about it
Watched it from overseas, and it said based on a true story, it did not claim to be a documentary.
The whole premise of this is empty, Netflix has a disclaimer at the end of the episode informing that incidents, characters, and dialogue may be fictionalized for dramatic purposes. She has no case and is only making things worse for herself. Piers certainly knows this but wants the money of making a fuss over it.
Not long ago, Netflix made a film of Palestine. It upset Israel so much that they've been trying to discredit the company ever since. Piers works for that lot. He's simply doing what they've asked him to. He's trying to make people think Netlfix are liars and thus anything else they've produced can't be true. If Piers really cared he'd advocate for victims of stalking and get this woman some help.
this.
I think I only watched Piers Morgan once before 🇨🇦
I don't care for the way he interviewed. I could feel he didn't believe her. Sounded more like she was on a witness stand instead of in a interview.
wrong you cannot state its a TRUE story when there are some parts that have FAKE & have been made up.
Spot on.
Why are people debating on this? A true story wouldn’t be potrayed as a Drama Series, it should be a documentary (involving real footages, evidence, etc), innit?
So, if it’s a drama series taken from a true story, it is normal to give some improvements on the story and many aspects to make it enjoyable to watch. And we as the viewers need to understand this basic rules. 😔
The problem is that the audience apparently hunted her down and it’s disrupted her life enough to protest that this was a portrayal of her and wants to sue.
@@icu3869 yep.. she better sue those misleading audiences.
@alittt exactly. So many "True Crime" program's also dramatise episodes. It used to be called Artistic Licence.
Funny thing, Netflix puts a disclaimer in the show that they dramatize the story for fictional purposes and that she did not go to jail.
I think her response to the court room ending was interesting. She was more concerned about being compared to the (unflattering) actress and how she sounded. Rather than a strong emphatic 'that did not happen!' Which I think most normal people would focus on. 🤔
I love that six people are discussing a critically acclaimed television DRAMA as if it were a DOCUMENTARY.
Based on real events obviously lol
Ratings for Piers
Clickbait
I think you are missing the whole point which is the usage of the statement 'This is a true story'. If it is simply a 'DRAMA', a global streaming company such as 'Netflix' needs to take more precautions in how they describe it.
They presented it as a documentary i.e. 100% truth. Had they simply put “based on a true story” there would be no issue.
It makes me SO MAD that they obviously choose to ignore the disclaimer that Netflix put at the end of the show about how the real Martha never went to jail. They said that if she was never convicted then a lot of things from the series could not be true. Personally, I don't think any of them watched the show.
A small disclaimer at the end of the show, that I personally never saw, and I am sure the majority didn't either is punitive when the show opened with this is a true story! The audience were sold this story, the narrative in its entirety, as a true story. They consumed the story as such, which is exactly what Netflix wanted. A tiny disclaimer at the end to cover their ass, looks just to be what it is, a tiny tid bit of fine print they tacked on when they hoped everyone would have already stopped watching and wouldn't see it. Their was no real intent to clarify the information, that actually indicates exactly the opposite, their intent was not to have to clarify anything other than what they had already sold you on.
Richard Gadd had mentioned it in an interview also.
@@bree-arnaharris2437 but that disclaimer will probably be enough in the eyes of the law.
BMF pits that disclaimer at the beginning of the episode so do many other shows. Its sus that they would do that at the end of an episode when none if not all of immediately go to the next episode.
@@sarahwilsonuk That's irrelevant. I haven't seen that interview, but i've watched the series. I only know of that interview because people are mentioning it here. The same will go for most of the millions and millions of other viewers of the show. It wasn't my responsibility to go and find said interview that i didn't know existed right after finishing the series. Me and most others were definately under the impression that it was a true story. If they made the part up about prison, what else have they made up?
I think the point is, that there's a difference between a real life event and a Netflix series that is based on a true story but obviously enhanced for entertainment purposes. Richard Gadd is allowed to tell a story about something that happened in his life. He changed the name of the character. He asked that viewers do not speculate. But why should he have to protect Fiona from herself?? She was found because she has unhinged things posted online. She further outed HERSELF by doing the interview with Piers 🤷♀️
Exactly! We'll said
I'm sick of the whole jail thing. It was already stated she didn't do prison time and the breakdown he had during his show was all fiction. This has been said multiple times. Piers really needed to do his research!!!
You don't understand how lawsuits work. She will go after Netflix not Richard.
I am shocked that no one is talking about that she said that she refused her curtains to be hanged but then she tweeted that she wants her curtains to be hanged
I think we all want to bury that image 😂
Why does it matter, she is not coherent, she says many things that make no sense like her lawyer boyfriend who doesn't exist, why is the focus on a mentally ill woman and not of his abuser rapist man, she is an easy target to exploit.
Exactly 🤷🏼♀️
she framed it as if she was lowkey mocking Gadd whist gently trying to support him. He was a comedian so it's easy to take it as a joke and her trying to make him laugh at how silly he was for bringing it up. Remember that He taught her what it meant, so her tweeting it to him would be a direct reference to the time Gadd tried to bang her.
She's referenceing their last meeting and trying to be funny
58 yo female here.
I've NEVER heard of this term before Baby Reindeer.
I looked for her under her name Fiona Muir-harvey. She caused so much trauma to Scottish members of parliament and their families, all involved had to have security devices. She was fired from a Legal Firm after only a few weeks and went on to terrorise the employers.
I think she is very dangerous.
And Piers just rewarded her behaviour by indirectly telling other pepertrators they are right to do what she did whilst discouraging more victims from speaking up for themselves
Each situation carries nuance. Just because piers has acted a certain way doesn’t mean it will pave the way for future accuser-victim situations to unfold in a certain way. Also, I’m sure if you were to look at the bigger picture a lot of those crooked politicians have some skeletons in their closet which they wouldn’t want showing to the public, making them eligible for harassment as it is
Well thats no different to stalking lisa, so youve gone out of your way to find information on a person that you never knew existed and thats never had any effect on your life just so you can troll her... mmm... Hypocritical stalking a stalker doesnt make anyone any better. 😂 what was the date of the report because i very much doubt you found anything that wasn't dated since the show aired on netflix
Omg she sounds scary crazy
Prove it.
Pretty sure she mentioned in the interview she tweeted him to congratulate him on "the show". Implies either they were in touch when the stage show or netflix show, which she later backtracked on... If I remember correctly.
Sent from my iPhone
The only way to know more is for Piers to Interview Richard Gadd!!!!
I'm amazed Piers did not confront Fiona about her bombarding Neil Sears of the Daily Mail with 51 phone calls and two hours worth of voicemails in four days because she didn't like his article based on his interview with her.
Wow!
What?
What
Because Piers is baiting her to see how little it takes for her to loop out. He will know what she’s been up to.
Some poor producer is about to find out when she doesn’t like something Piers says.
Bring on his ex girlfriend, her mother, his mother, his father and Terri. They all allegedly dealt with her too. You don't just have to hear from Richard Gadd. You can hear from those around him. She may have went to a mental facility not jail and thus they could have sealed the records.
Re: may have went to a mental facility and records sealed - that’s a GREAT point I haven’t heard anyone discussing the possibility of yet. In that case, there would be health and privacy laws protecting her from publicly incriminating documentation
"sealed the records" That isn't how it works.
@@user-oh7vx3zb8y Depending on where you're from, yes it is.
The hard evidence is what we need to see
@@kaitiezheeI'm pretty sure on the show he said she didn't go to prison almost insinuating she went to a mental facility
What if Richard and Fiona planned this together to give the programme so much more exposure 🤷🏻♀️
Exactly!!!
Or in cahoots to sue Netflix….
do you really think Fiona would agree on this series though?
During a 4 year divorce, court hearings with myself and my ex, over custody of our children, myself and my ex were having several arguments via text message. I was arrested at home at 2 am for stalking. Baring in mind i hadnt been to my own 4 bedroom house which i allowed my ex to live in, while i was renting a 1 bedroom flat, and still on the mortgage for my house. And my ex had been calling me daily, and coming to my flat twice a week. I got arrested by 5 police for stalking, put in cells for 24 hours, phone seized, and then given a lift home after interview and an apology, and all charges dropped. No joke, this has happened 5 times to me in 4 years. We now have 50 50 custody. My ex has a 20k legal aid bill, i represented myself and have no legal bills at all. She tried to ruin my life.
Goddamn you said like what exactly happened to my workmate.
Feels like everyone's forgetting that Richard said from the start that the real Martha wasn't convicted, but he wanted Martha to for that chapter of the show to have a resolution
Exactly! He was disguising the “real Martha” by having the character serving jail time.
Jeez - Piers needs to do his research. 🙄
So it's not a true story 😂
Than Netflix shouldn't have billed it at the beginning as "a true story" nor should they have said to the british courts that it is a "true story of a CONVICTED stalker and sex offender" why don't you get that, Netflix have fucked up simple as and gadd allowed them to go through with that.
Yes and that is a problem because he's stated the whole thing is true, even when that part isn't. They're liable for this.
He's a liar and I'm glad he's getting called out. The whole thing was just sick and unbelievable
I'm surprised that no one is talking about the fact that she said she doesn't know where he lives but yet is able to send a single letter to his address. This lie surely means that it's possible she sent more.
she sent it to the theatre he was performing at.....
... and she went to his house 😂
She sent it to a theatre
Good point!!
@@pheb29l 29:12😊
My issue is this: does anyone actually think Netflix would have run this story without Gadd having hard evidence? Wouldn’t Netflix vet the story before they put it on their platform?
I think Netflix HAS the receipts. I don’t think Netflix’s attorneys would EVER let something this huge and specific go forward without FULLY VETTING Gadd’s story. And-Netflix is not providing proof until it goes to court-because, look at all of the huge interest and free publicity. Why would they?
PIers, with all due respect , I want to hear your panel more. Stop cutting them off and interrupting them
She kept saying she never watched it but yet she knows every intricate detail about it !!
I think she has seen it, but she did say that everyone online was telling her what happend also
Because she lived it 😂
Oh we all know she watched it 10 seconds after it came out on Netflix.
I think she loves the attention.
Sounds like she's already latched on to her next victim.
Poor dude.
@@maureenstott5530always trust internet posters
Of course she watched it. 100%! That's what people do. She trips herself up.
I’m shocked how no one is talking about the rape allegations from the guy that drugged him.
💯 agreed
Or that powerful scene where he opened up to his parents. My God I could not stop crying and still haven't 😢 ❤
What if it’s Piers and that’s why he’s attacking Gaad so hard
Me to shocked, rape and drugs not spoken about, What a terrible drama, whatever people want to call it,
Most uncomfortable thing I've watched
Richard never outed her, Fiona outed herself by posting comments about Richard. If someone found her, its her own fault for fitting the image of a stalker.
I find it interesting that “Martha” and Fiona have similar appearances and characteristics. As well as, the person accused to be “Darrien.” I also find it interesting that he absolved the accused “Darrien” but not the accused “Martha.” Especially given the fact he still reached out to “Darrien” in the end and “chopped it up” as if everything was all good. It makes me wonder if he would lie for “Darrien’s” protection. “Darrien” is the real villain!
she contradicted herself so many times during the interview where do I even start… first she said she only met him 1-2 times then it was 5-6 then when asked about the voicemails she said only way he’d have 350 hours of them is if he recorded her at the hawley arms. I thought they only met twice? Something ain’t adding up. She then went on to say they were not friends in any sense of the word then when asked about the emails she said it was friendly banter and they were all friends.. she quite literally says whatever fits her narrative in the moment. Not to mention the “photographic memory” and the “alright grades”. This isn’t her first time either her other victim is front page news saying she’s scared of what Fiona Harvey’s gonna do next. She’s a serial stalker.
Can’t believe no one is talking about this!!!
In an interview Gadd said he didn’t press charges and apparently it was dealt with and the harassment stopped, why did Gadd say in an interview that nothing happened to her and yet in the programme it shows her being charged,found guilty and imprisoned. If someone was stalking/harassing me I’d bloody charge for the safety of everyone. Why did Gadd not press charges ?
She also said she didn't know where he lived but also sent him a written letter
@@zoefree3950 not sure if you watched the series but he stated there that he felt sorry for her, he knew she's mentally ill and needed help, and that he's not faultless either in his interactions with Martha/Fiona. That's why he didn't press charges.
@@ilsavil I did watch it and have also read a lot of the interviews and in one he states the police dropped the case in 2019, but again if he didn’t press charges and the police dropped the case, why in Netflix does she get charged and go to prison for 9 months ?
Esther brought up an excellent point: Why did she see herself in the character back when it was a one-man show? Why would she see herself in the character if she didn’t do a substantial amount of the things Gadd claims she did? If there weren’t similarities then she’d have thought it was someone else.
Yep but logic doesn't seem to be a strong suit of many people
Because it was other people telling her the programme was about her due to cross referencing tweets from it.
yep I had to stop and replay what she had said a couple times over for it to click as it went over my head when first hearing it, I think she's cracked the case here with that observation.
she said right at the beginning of piers’ interview she gave him the baby reindeer nickname. not that hard to connect the dots is it
Yeah but the fact Richard acted out his own story makes me think he wanted her to find him he missed the attention! How obvious could it be that the story was about her even the fact the name was given by her!
To all these "Richard Gadd said in an interview once that she didn't go to prison so it's fine!" people- it's not about Gadd or what he said in an interview. It's about what Netflix, the producers, said by using "is" instead of "based on"/"inspired by". Netflix are the liable ones as publishers.
They literally have a disclaimer about it being based on a true story and have changed names, locations, and events for artistic purposes.
@@ItsMe-cp8xc If you open an article with “X is a criminal” it’s not mitigated by “X may not be a criminal” in the last paragraph. A defamatory statement is a defamatory statement in and of itself.
I do think Netflix should have said "Based on a true story" instead of "A True Story" at the start of the series even though there are disclaimers at the end of episodes. It is obv that most of the show was entirely honest. There are elements that are fictional but there is so much that is genuine and that is why so many people have loved the show.
They pointed out that some characters, scenes, etc. were fictional and everyone is ignoring that....
That contradiction, I believe, gives her a case. Is it true or untrue? that gave the viewers the choice
@@leonoraphillipsjemmott8163 yes that is what I mean about disclaimers in my comment. This is a true story is at the start of each episode and is in large letters on the poster. Most people will not pay attention to the small writing or disclaimers at the end as much as the statement that is a true story (Netflix knew this too and that is why they chose to advertise it this way) IMO.
I was stalked after dating someone for 3 weeks a year ago. She tried to character assassinate me, spreading lies, posting images of her cutting her wrists, emails, texts from 6 numbers, calling me a terrible Christian and how I used her, letters to me and my family, seeing my dying mother in hospital without my permission. People don't seem to take stalking seriously enough. It causes a lot of distress and anxiety for people. Netflix however, should have taken a lot more care before making a show about a real life event.
That happened to me, not similar but it happened. This man went on to do it to other women. NETFLIX shouldve provided helplines or some education for people after it was shown and the police need to take it more seriously irrespective how long after you report it.
@@londonlady227 they did have helplines - it was after every episode.
Fiona: I have a photographic memory
Piers: what grades did you get at university
Fiona: I don’t remember
That bit made me cringe, so awkward 🙈
This killed me too! Yet Piers just walked right by that
@sarahfrith1984 Best one was when she said she has a lawyer bf🤣
She got an ordinary degree not an Honours one so it's a simple pass or fail. She got the degree. That's one of the few things she was probably honest about.
@@sarahmoffett1296 what do you mean he walked right by that? Aside from him repeating that question like 10 times???
Is it true she was only paid £250 for the interview? Morgan can't claim to be concerned about how she's been treated to then only pay her that!
Even as someone who is not a psychologist it was extremely clear that Fiona did not experience reality as it actually was. She either doesn't remember, doesn't want to remember or truly thinks she didn't do any of those things. Either way you could clearly see she's not of sound mind. And then comparing her behavior to that of gadd in interviews he did. He was actually coherent.
I've heard men talk about how they aren't believed, but seeing these people defend Fiona for the most part really drives home what they're saying. Despite Gadd saying the real Martha had never been to jail, and the fact that Netflix has a disclaimer saying that certain aspects have been fictionalized. After seeing the interview, I'm baffled how anyone can defend her other than acknowledging that she's ill and needs a lot of help.
There's no denying that she needs help I think people are just cautious of this story because both his gf and his ex in the series said that he'd a liar and loves attention, the series started off saying it was a true story, and yet the imprisonment was fake and at the end it says that things were added in for drama and some things arnt true. HD knew she was ill yet he put himself in situation that could have been avoided which is also stated by the gf In the series, I think people are cautious that this series makes her out to be way more ill, way more crazy and way more violent than she actually Is and realistically she's just a lonely women with problems identifying reality and now there's people out here wishing her dead
That’s 100% Piers Morgan.
Old white man shaping reality to fit his ‘superior’ narrative.
She’s innocent until proven guilty. Or at least that’s how the law is supposed to work. I’d like to see those 50 emails the journalist alleged she’d sent him. English tabloids aren’t famous for their high ethical standards.
@@jessfaulkner9827ye feel kinda bad for her. But what is this about ex girlfriend and the trans speaking out about him ? Do you remember where ? I have not seen it 😊
@@daffedavidsen6306 in the actual series, the gf tells him he enjoys the attention Martha gives him and that any normal person would just report her but he's quite clearly enjoying the fact she likes him. And his ex gf in the series also tells him that he's a liar and lies alot, he admitted to leading her on multiple times and admitted to mastabating over her photos. If you ask me he enjoyed the attention and when she started to act out through frustration and because of the illness she had that he knew she had he wasn't enjoying it anymore.
She almost held it together. Until the question about her qualifications. Then boom… it all fell apart. Martha’s charachter was closer than we all thought.
Hasn’t it been proved that she worked as a trainee lawyer though? She’s evidently very bright
@@l.jaynepritchard7294 Which is why it was so confusing to me as to why she absolutely avoided the question about her grade
@l.jaynepritchard7294 if you think this is a "bright" lady then maybe you aren't very "bright" yourself 😂😂 every word she said sounded like a lie, no conviction in what she said and she contradicted herself a ton 🤣
Yeah considering she has a photographic memory (when it suits her)and could remember her highers but wouldn’t give her college degree!
But she has a photographic memory lol. Or used to
Even if she did send him all of the emails, letters and tweets and maybe heckled him at one of his shows, if she was never found guilty of stalking and jailed and never attacked Gadd in the canal and never attacked his girlfriend, she's still been really badly defamed, and she should take legal action.
well we dont know yet. She has yet to get to court
A Richard Gadd interview is needed
Thing is...nobody said Fiona was Martha. Fiona is saying she's Martha. Gad, nor Netflix accused her of anything.
It’s enough that sleuths were able to connect her with the character. She had no options than to accept it.
I thought that too
@maydont even then, they are not liable bc a bunch of psychos decided to go after her. The psychos might be liable for harassment. Like...we don't even know for sure if that is who he was talking about. According to her, it's bc she had a baby reindeer that looked like him, she sent him 18 tweets, and the character "looks" like her. That's not exactly hard facts presenting us to believe that this is Martha. Even Piers and a very thorough psychologist I watch is unsure of whether or not it's her. I guess we'll find out when all the evidence is forced into light.
In her interview she says that she called Gadd “Baby Reindeer” because of the Christmas decorations, so she knew it was referring to her because of that.
@@maydont that is not true at all - she could have not commented - stayed completely away from it .
People are always talking about if she has a defamation case. What about the defamatory things she constantly posts? Stating absolute rubbish about Gadd, his family, The Hawley Arms, Laura Wray, Neil from the daily mail etc. literally goes on and on about speculations on their personal lives. Not once has anyone from Baby Reindeer said Martha is Fiona. She did that all herself.
The whole interview seemed calculated and she had clearly researched Morgan to know how old he was......all very odd 🤔🇬🇧
Where does she post this? There is a fake fb page that is not her
@@mandyjg6507 On her real fbook, the one made in 2013.
On her real fbook. The one made in 2013.
Exactly!
Gadd didn't create a true to life biographical screenplay. It's just based on something he says he experienced. Neither Netflix nor Gadd ever said "this a true story", both said "it was based on true events". i don't see where this whole controversy is coming from...
After 50 minutes asking the same question about the emails, anyone would have tried to move on and explored other allegetions of the series. "Even" if she sent emails, that doesn't obscure the fact that it WAS NOT A TRUE STORY. It was not factual; it was clearly fictional, and they labeled it otherwise for monetary gains.
Most SA stories are just that.....stories.
When she watched the snippet from the movie when Martha is in court, did anyone else notice how when the judge was announcing the dates correlated to the crimes and victims, it looked as if Fiona was remembering or recollecting whether those details were correct?
No
Yes! The direction of her eyes suggests she was recalling a memory/details. Cross-checking the dates…
If you are innocent and NEVER watch the show, wouldn't you watch in the same way trying to remember what happened years ago and compare with what they are presented to discern if they misconstrued or invented things?
She didn't react the way I would, or most poeple would seeing yourself portrayed being so strange. It's hard to believe she hadn't seen that. At the least you would have a suprised eyes reaction?! She was just blank like it was no big deal or something?
Yes
We're seven minutes in and Morgan is already interviewing himself.
Piers talking about piers😅
Which is why I can tolerate his narcissism for a few minutes, then I turn him off. He also carries the opinion of what he thinks his audience has. It's tough to watch such a fool
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Yes managing to bring every question to his guests back to himself!. As soon as I saw 5 extra people on the panel I thought, they’re never going to get to say much at all.
41000 emails over a year is only 112 a day, so over three years is less than forty a day…that’s not unbelievable at all!! Especially when they were often one or two words long, detailing every part of her day!
The TV show and movie Fargo opens with the same line. "This is a true story" but no one actually thinks it's a true story.
Gaad never confirmed that Fiona was even the real Martha in the story, people just assumed and so did the media.
She keeping it going on her Facebook though
@@samwahlbergbut do you know it’s her real Facebook, in her interview she said she’s come of Facebook - so many people make fake accounts of ppl like this just to mess around, it’s so hard to tell what’s real and what’s not these days
@@asotiraa Hi Fiona!
@@lucythompson295 im not sticking up for her, I’m just saying ppl create fake accounts all the time, I think she’s lying 100% but like I said previously, it’s so easy to fake social media accounts etc, and who’s to say Fiona is even the real Martha? There was never any confirmation from Richard or anything it’s just speculation.
Look up her name. There's links to her stalking the MP and threatening a child.
It is SO disappointing that they are using Gadd's openness and vulnerability about him being damaged against him to damage his credibility.
Also him "leading her on" or "masturbating to her pictures", god PEOPLE, it's like watching holier than thou church goers get shocked by a rock concert all over again. You know they have done worse things behind closed doors and are only pretending to appear "godly".
My point is - if you get shocked by him being brutally honest about something like this, it shows how little idea you have about how weird, illogical and sometimes sick and/or twisted humans' thoughts, urges and impulses TRULY are. It's disappointing.
Especially considering that Piers is almost 2 times my age and has spoken to hundreds of highly intelligent people with differing opinions. Because of his hard work (let's not forget) he had millions more opportunities to develop his knowledge of the world and worldview, throughout the years. Again, very disappointing Piers.
But hey, what did I expect, it always happens to people that try to employ higher thinking and emotional functions into life - they just get met with an assault of people using their lowest basal instincts to suppress or literally assault them.
Sad, but that's how it always was. So far at least.
Someone I know said to me "Godd is the same pscyho like Martha". Then I realised how this person is a shallow jerk. Like Piers.
Couldn’t agree more.
This all made me very sad to hear. The victim shaming is crazy. This is exactly what happens to people. This is what narcissist and stalkers do to people. I remember my abusive ex husband pushing me and pushing me one day until I finally lost my temper and yelled at him. His whole demeanor changed, he got quiet, and smiled "do you need me to take you to the psych ward?" he says. This is what they do! Someone told me that crazy people make sane people crazy. This is what the abuse did to him. He then acted out in ways he would not have normally and he's open and raw about that.
I totally agree and got the same feeling watching this…and at one point my thoughts even went as far as “ What if Piers is purposefully trying to discredit Gadd, because he knows more about the identity of the “Darien” character…” Just a thought…
lol yal delusional it’s very much important if the person is in a bad condition when the things he claimed true happened he is mentally ill and more more and more even in a court of law this is a very very important thing for witness
I would like this former FBI guy who specialised in body language and lying to analyse Fionas body language.
I have the strong impression that she has severe issues , a distorted view of reality, that she is lying up to the point where she believes her own lies.
I find it hard to believe that Netflix would be that stupid and not have research this particularly now that they're doubling down on this.
Piers Morgan asks his interviewees questions but then proceeds to answer them himself
Yep! He's an idiot 😂
Well yes many times...however I gotta like his content here b/c I've been in a recent situation with being lied about ... not even a little bit. When you have no power and others (in a group) make up crazzzy sht about you.... you will be considered the culprit by anyone who "hears" about it. If this real life "Martha" telling the "overall" truth ... this she should sue Netflix.
Typical narcissist ME ME ...
I think he talked more than the rest of them put together. Because it's 'his show, after all'.
Black woman: there is no one truth…
Piers: SHUT THR FCKCKS AAUUUP!!…white man, what do you think?
White man: I think their perception of what is true will be impacted by their perception of reality.
Piers: Nods in agreement.
All this work towards finding Fiona and figuring her out, yet no one wants to put that work into getting ‘Darrien’ put in jail
A sign of a patriarchal society
The focus of the series was on Fiona. But I get what you’re saying. For your information, the Internet has also found Darrien. His name is Sam (I forgot his last name). Pretty sure he got threats too.
People have found him too. He has allegations against him, it’s the law that’s failing when it comes to him.
@@-BabyValentine- the real one or the guy who was wrongly identified as Darrien?
Probably because Derrian didn't commit an actual crime? Gaad knew what he wanted and continued to go round his place to get off his face on drugs. If anyone should be done for that, it's Gaad himself for soliciting. It was transactional sex because he thought Derrian would help his career.
"You know what's worse? That you exploit a woman who clearly has mental issues to address your personal problems with Netflix and ignore the facts. Everyone has spoken and said that Martha's words are obviously lies, but you don't want to listen because you yourself are not after the truth!"
Intelligent ?!!!!!!! Common dude
Netflix was silly not to have paid Fiona some kind of fee to "own" her story and none of us would be here. Furthermore, all they had to do is say "Based on a true story" and this whole dust-up goes away.
Piers is the first person to interview her since the film aired and he accuses Netflix of exploiting a woman who up until now not many people were sure of. Piers's interview is the one that confirmed that Fiona is Martha. He asked her questions and she responded in true Martha fashion
The irony !!!!
He’s exposed her to millions of people. Many of us didn’t know or believe that Martha was Fiona up until she came on his show. Now it’s confirmed based on her answers
YES HE'S BACK TRACKING NOW I WONDER WHY ?????
I wish I could argue with that
...and I can't!
The reason he can say she was exploted is because she wasnt infromed ect it was done behind her back she wasnt fully protected and no one can find the evidence to back up the story thats been told thats defamation and explotation under the law pierce offerd her an olive branch to talk wich she could decline there for that isnt explotation alowing another side to speek
Netflix never used Fiona’s name so you can’t say Netflix defamed her.
technically this is a true story (however loosely) & in order to disguise people’s identities, you will have to alter certain factoids
Also If you notice Fiona’s body language watching the clip of Martha pleading guilty, her body language is not consistent with someone watching that, going that’s completely False, instead you can see her questioning the dates & charges to see if they coincide with her denial.
This whole panel is missing The whole premise behind the Netflix show, the storyline was a back and forth of who’s the victim, who’s the villain? The show was attempting to show that perceptions are fluid. The show portrayed Martha as both, as well as Gadd.
Based On True Events and This Is A True Story are different things. I do think she's a bit dodgy, but the show makes a claim that's not exactly honest and accurate.
You're not the brightest egg in the basket are you? If you claim something is "true", it needs to be fully true (ie documentary), if you want to disguise the character and add false information, then it is no longer "true", but "based on true".
"Technically" it is not a "true" story as you claim. A true story is a true story, no loose bla bla. You don't even understand the word "true".
They didn’t “use her name” but they made sure the actress spoke in a Scottish accent and had the same body type. They kept the nickname “baby reindeer” and the joke “hang your curtains” making it incredibly easily for her to be identified through her old tweets in a matter of days; the name change did nothing to protect her identity. So making up things she’s did that she didn’t do whether they be onto jail or sexually assault him, well….that’s defamation
@@kellykirk4244 But all the tweets that were mentioned in the series were real tweets from her PUBLIC twitter account. They never mentioned her twitter account or her real name so I don‘t understand what the producers did wrong. People found her account because they googled the tweets, and it directly showed her‘s… They could have said “based on a true story“ because apparently she never went to jail. But why shouldn‘t they hire an actress who resembles her, when it is unofficially „based on a true story“ - I know officially they said „It is a true story“
lol Amber Heard never mentioned Johnny Depps name in her defamation article and she lost that case. So you are just wrong. In fact she tried to use that fact a lot in the trial and it didn't matter
Frustrating how much piers fixated on the quote, ignoring her behaviour patterns and the deeper issue. I also would’ve liked to hear the experts a bit more.
Why does Piers even have attorney Paula Rhone Adriene as a panelist? He cut her off on the multiple reality explanation yet fawns over Dr. Drew when he states the exact same thing. He doesn't let either of the highly qualified females speak their ideas to completion.
How did she send him a letter if she didn't know where he lived 🤯
She sent it to the Theatre
The moment she said she didn't watch it made her credibility very low in my opinion.
I was ready to give her the benefit of the doubt but, a lawyer would never go on a interview with Piers without watching it first 🙄🤦🏼♀️
Couldn’t agree more.
Of course she watched it
Exactly, she had researched so much unimportant information about Piers yet hadn’t watched the series? Only heard about the rape scene that morning ??
Of course she watched it or at least some 😂 she's too narcissistic to not check it out
The thing is that nobody can deny is that she will know how easy the evidence is to acquire and she's still wanting to go ahead and sue. So she's either unbelievable dumb as a lawyer or she has a strong arguement that she's on the truths side.
Isn't it concerning that the media doesn't talk more about Gadd's abuser? While the series mainly focuses on his stalker, it also highlights that Gadd's reaction towards the stalker was significantly influenced by his past trauma from being abused by a known man with power in the TV industry. I think this aspect of his story deserves more attention, as it provides important context to his experiences and actions, shedding light on the pervasive issue of abuse and its long-lasting impact on victims.
He doesn't let these women talk. They are interrupted every time.
theyre talking nonsense for the most part
How would Jessica Gunning have got the accent spot on if there are no voicemails, how would she have perfected the mannerisms like she did without Gadd spending a considerable amount of time around Fiona and being able to relay it
The accents are nothing like each other.
Very valid point ... 👍
Right?!
@@jackjones1249they are similar.
If you were Scottish, you would know they're completely different.
Richard Gadd didn't say she went to prison. In the program she does but that was fictional. He states that the ending what happened in real life he kept confidential!
Yet they claimed it was a true story... for anyone not watching Gaad's every interview wouldn't know that. If that's false, what else could be false? This could genuinely be a massive defamation case against him.
Then they shouldn't have stamped it as a true story.
@@FormOverFlairmore so against Netflix than gadd.
Netflix advertised it a true
Agreed. The problem is really the ‘This is a true story’ which certain parts aren’t. That said, I really don’t like the victim blaming that’s being put on Gadd.
The conversation should realistically be centred around the two central issues and the traumatic damage that they cause. If Gadd were perfectly okay, that would be far more unusual than the reality that he’s damaged.
no court case needed, she is clearly mad shit crazy.. has a photographic memory but cant remember if she has 4-6 email address
Surely the Netflix lawyers would've done their due diligence before making that truth claim
She said she didn't watch it...this is enough for me to make her unbelievable.
YES !!!!!!
I'd like to meet even one of the "friends" she claims told her about virtually every scene in the show she didn't watch.
Netflix said it was a true story, yet she didn’t go to jail. Who can you believe.
Are we all just gonna ignore that she was reaching back through her memory during the court scene to those dates the Judge stated? She was reaching back in her memory to validate if those dates were right!!!
i thought this to be rhe reason he played the clip, but apparently not!
Same 👍 @@martinbross
Agreed she is very manipulative
According to someone above, Gadd has admitted that never happened, so yes, we should just ignore it.
Yes I spotted that her eyes go up and right
I don’t understand why journalists are discussing this - aren’t you guys supposed to be able to access the proof? Feels like this is being dragged out for ratings.
Why is the victim being blamed? Why is the abuser even being given air time?
Who is the victim?
U believe everything that someone says who was on all types drugs dealing with all kind of problems?😅
for someone who said they didn’t watch the series,they seem to know an awful lot about it.
She’s a compulsive liar.. and clearly saw the show.. actually, knowing people like her are walking around amongst us is terrifying.. 😂😂
It was discussed literally everywhere! I knew most of what happened before I watched it too
Pretty sure you would need to see it if you were to bring a case against it. What is she scared of, and her deadpan reaction to seeing it was weird.
You know damn fine she has watched this on repeat obsessively LMAO
@@elainemackenzie9651 I had to laugh that she could see the similarity... apart from the curls, they did a good job IMO.
piers: what did you think of it?
piers: *proceeds to talk over other people and interrupt them*
Especially the women
Omg
He’s frustrating
Just rude
He’s a buffoon.
classic piers lol thats why hes impossible to debate with
Anyone that thinks that truth is a personal opinion based on perspective deserves to be spoken over.
Her level of gaslighting and verbal abuse also had him very destabilised and confused about who he was. He couldnt work out why he was masturbating over her...she would switch between love bombing amd devaluing creating a trauma-bond and deep confusion.
When Fiona was watching the court scene and her eyes flickered, that was her recalling a memory in my opinion.
Who the heck has 6 emails?!? And multiple phones “to keep things separate” - people who play different roles in their life, people who are up to no good.. people who want to keep those different parts from coming together!
Bingo
Yeah it was odd he let that go through to the keeper. Like she’s having endless calls with her utility providers?
Having 6 emails isn't really that weird. You shouldn't use the same email for everything, especially if you use the same or similar passwords.
I have multiple emails… different emails for different things or when one email gets too much junk or becomes irrelevant I’ll just make a new one with no reason to delete the old one
People who want another 30 day free trial, separate work, personal life, then junk email to give to sales people do.😅 That’s like the one point that’s actually not spectacular. Other than that I think she is very dishonest.
This whole discussion is mindblowing to me, what research has been done here? Gadd himself has said that the real "Martha" never went to prison, and alsi that there never was a comedy show where he had a public breakdown which went viral.
But one of the Netflix bosses testified in front of UK parliament that she was a "convicted stalker" that footage was played as part of this video, did you not see that part? Listen to 2:15
When did the truth get in the way of Piers' work? He's a professional sensationalist remember
well, ok. but then please sell the series as a drug addict’s weird far-off perception of reality
@@snowball1988all these idiots defending Netflix missing this point thanks
Plot twist, they were in it together and this is the sequel.
I love the irony of Piers Morgan taking issue with the writer making money out of an alleged “false narrative” 😂
It's absolutely insane that anyone is questioning this. There are tweets where Fiona is clearly harassing Richard, telling him that she sent him a letter and that she'll "be by phone later." She openly admitted to having multiple phones and multiple emails. It's very clear that twitter is not the only place she was harassing him. It's obvious that details were changed to make the pacing work better. It was never framed as a documentary. It's a drama/thriller that was adapted from an hour long live comedy performance. The "true events" are obviously delivered in a dramatic way that will be engaging for the audience. If someone is able to sue for defamation over a series where the identities were never intended to be revealed but stalking cases almost never result in conviction, the UK judicial system is laughable.
I agree with you. It's absolutely taking advantage of a woman who is clearly delusional and now he's trying to turn her delusions into a reality??!! What Piers is missing is that the programme wasn't a documentary. He is telling his story of what happened.
…being Jekyll and Hyde is kind of her MO
She’s gaslighting Piers just like she gaslit BR!
@@MaidenHelll Well shes trying to with Piers. He will have gotten professional advice about it all. He knows. He's creating content. This story will have made a lot of money so keeping it going it all about that.
I was going to say I don’t think it matters in a defamation lawsuit if people online dug up the tweets and found Fiona because they were just including a real life tweet that was sent out and left up for the public to see. Netflix can’t control the acts of others. I’m also shocked this is such a big deal.
@@katrinahagerman1198 Well exactly. Netflix will be happy for this to go to court. She has committed criminal acts. He was a victim of terrible crimes. The programme was about how he rationalised how he got into those situations which led to horrendous things happening to him and made him vulnerable to those dangerous people. He was not in any way responsible for what they did to him though. Careless, irresponsible, very naive, and so much more. Not a criminal though.
For the life of me I cannot understand how anybody could think that Fiona Harvey is telling the truth. Just look at her body language. Every single time PIers asks her an important question, usually about whether she has done one of these alleged incidents, she grabs her glass and has a drink of water. When somebody is nervous and/or lying, their throat dries up, or constricts, therefore you need something to drink. Between that and some of her other body actions, I absolutely believe she did these things.
She could also have used different alliases throughout her life, which would make it hard to find evidence, certainly easily
It's irrelevant to the legal case, there will be a few core questions, but she's definitely not 💯 truthful, but if no jail, that's a big issue for Netflix
I don’t think she is telling “the” truth but is she so out of touch with reality that she is telling “her” truth? And if so, how is the whole world laughing at her going to get her the help Gadd says he hoped she would get if there were “better resources”? This is soooo messy.
@@rugbykliniekit is not a big issue because every single episode had a disclaimer that this was a dramatization based on true events
@@ms.q7445no way she knows
@@jennNjackNY you are still sitting with that emphatic claim by Netflix of "this is a true story" so having another disclaimer might not really help.
My dad always said “there is his side, her side and then the truth”. This case exemplifies this !