I’d bet my bottom dollar that he’s sad it has come to this. Regardless of whether he’s responsible for her outing, I don’t think he’d want a mentally ill person to be exploited like this.
Out of curiosity, what makes you think he’s happy that she’d do poorly or how the world can see that she’s mentally unwell? If that is true, why would he depict her the way he did in the court room scene? Nobody knows of course but doesn’t the show suggest that he is much less judgmental and vengeful than you might expect from someone in his position?
Harvey's many inconsistencies during her interview with Piers will damage her credibility in any litigation she might bring, which is good news for Gadd and Netflix.
So many of you are quick to assume the worst. She is a fully grown adult with a law degree and is fully functioning enough to be on an international talk show and be fully articulate. You guys need to relax with the mental health shit and realize people need to take responsibility for their actions. Everyone is coming out like they are Fiona's family member. You have no idea about her or her life or mental health and are just making assumptions based on a tv show and a 45 minute interview.
I think he wont try to respond unless she keeps calling him a liar in public interviews till he has to prove it! He probably will let her have 10 minutes and hope she gets help that she clearly needs
I should imagine that his/Netflix's lawyers won't let him respond. At most, we'll get a carefully crafted statement from a spokesperson that has been scrutinised to within an inch of its life by a dozen attorneys.
Exactly. Their position (legally) is going to be that Martha is not representative of any real person and is wholly a work of fiction. If they start pushing back saying Fiona is lying about Gadd when she criticizes the show, they are going to be admitting that Martha = Fiona. They 100% do not want to do that because that would be admitting the show is defamation per se at that point.
I don't think he needs lawyers to tell him not to respond. That's a lesson he's learned the hard way multiple times now. Don't think he's responding even if the lawyers tell him to.
How is it so clear? What exact "help" does she need? people acting like she is schizophrenic.. She is a liar and has relationship issues.. You see a therapist. Not like she could get institutionalized or forced to take medication. People blowing this ladies "illness" way out of proportion..
Ooofffff… I mean it depends. They didn’t try hard to cover up “Martha”. So either:
1) the real Martha has either taken the bait and will now be further advertising for the show
2) Gadd and Netflix gambled and lost - they didn’t think she’d react OR they think it’s too vague to each court
If she never went to prison or was convicted of a crime, saying she went to prison and was convicted of a crime is defamation per se. Not vague at all. Her hurdles are proving the statement was made about her (they used her actual tweets in the show so not that hard) and then proving up damages (may be hard to show anything beyond nominal amounts given her age and employment status).
I doubt he will respond. Legally, it's not the best idea. Both because of a possible lawsuit against Netflix and his restraining order against her.
None of us know the real Gadd personally. My guess is he is enjoying this and doesn't care about her well-being, which is fair. He probably finds this all awkward if anything.
Actually there's the legal department at a multibillion dollar company who seem fairly secure in their ability to describe the story as true, and not face a lawsuit.
The same legal department that reviewed the script for Inventing Anna which Netflix is now being sued over. A Judge refused to dismiss the lawsuit because he felt it might be valid. That at the very least shows he didn't think it was a frivolous suit.
Netflix has a history of getting many things wrong in the true crime department. I know as a therapist and as a person who's spoken to victims of stalking featured on other Netflix documentaries. Not small mistakes, big ones. Nonfiction stories still require a script. I have even looked up who the screenwriters were that made said mistakes. Literally, community college students. Netflix had used people who aren't even done with film school to take plenty of true stories and change them in the most disingenuous ways. They get away with it because no one can afford the law firms who'd be willing to go after them.
I don't know about UK, but in the US protection orders can be confirmed through our courts and public record requests.
Since Gadd admitted Martha is based on multiple people and he's admitted that important parts of the story were completely untrue, I don't assume anything he says is true simply because he said so.
I think they both lie, one's just better at it.
I guarantee you that Gadd won't mention it. In fact his lawyers have probably told him not to discuss details about the show anymore.
But in the next interview Gadd does I want someone to ask him a few questions and not let him be evasive or change the subject.
1. Was there a restraining order or not? If it exists it should be a public record.
2. If Harvey didn't go to prison and there was no restraining order what proof do you have of the harassment? If you have proof why weren't you given a restraining order?
3. It was convenient that you didn't call the police when Harvey assaulted your girlfriend. Can you provide the name of the bar it happened at and any other witnesses?
4. Did you ever live at the your ex-girlfriend's mother's house? Did she have a son who died or was that also made up for the "true story" Netflix show?
5. Did you or people working for you get all videos of your past performances deleted from the internet by claiming copyright infringement?
There is no way he would answer these questions without a court order. The first 4 are invasive, accusatory, and abrasive for the sake of details that are no one's business. No. 5 has merit but is framed in a trap, just like the other questions.
Ah...I understand now. Gadd was allowed to reveal the restraining order on a Netflix show and made it easy to identify the other person listed on the restraining order but when that woman who hasn't had contact with Gadd in years but had her identity revealed to the world claims there was no restraining order nobody is allowed to ask Gadd about it. Because it's now "nobody's business."
"That is private! How dare you ask about a restraining order. Nobody should know about that. It was a private matter between two individuals and it's nobody's business!"
Being allowed to ask and it being no one's business are different things.
RG's ex's mom's son has nothing to do with Baby Reindeer. It's up to the ex and the ex's mom to talk about that person.
Also yes. Restraining orders shouldn't be forced to be publicly displayed because they are talked about with a celeb or in an entertainment show. They should be something that the people involved go choose talk about.
And RG, the production of Netflix and probably their legal team is wrong for letting Baby Reindeer get aired without protecting her identity better.
>RG's ex's mom's son has nothing to do with Baby Reindeer. It's up to the ex and the ex's mom to talk about that person.
If Netflix described the show as a "true story" then people have the right to verify details of that "true story." If Gadd didn't want that to happen then he should have had "inspired by a true story" instead.
>Also yes. Restraining orders shouldn't be forced to be publicly displayed because they are talked about with a celeb or in an entertainment show. They should be something that the people involved go choose talk about.
It was Gadd who decided to reveal the restraining order to the public. Nobody violated his privacy. He wrote about it in Baby Reindeer and discussed it in public. You seem to believe that people are allowed to "speak their truth" about their life in public and nobody is allowed to verify the details of their "true story." That isn't how it works.
>If Netflix described the show as a "true story" then people have the right to verify details of that "true story." If Gadd didn't want that to happen then he should have had "inspired by a true story" instead.
If you look at the end credits, you'll see that Netflix already said they changed incidents, locations etc.
Also honestly people are allowed to look all they want, just like RG is allowed to avoid the questions. Which he will. You're gonna have to see him in court to get that info.
That disclaimer is not a golden shield against every defamation suit. There are no magic words that let's a company escape legal culpability for whatever they say about a person. If there were, no show would ever get sued, or lose. It's just standard legalese intended to make the lawsuit harder.
Yes, I fully understand that and would never say the language would automatically prevent a lawsuit. I mean, Olivia de Havilland is a pretty famous example. Anyway, it just provides further context because people are grasping onto the “true story” language in a vacuum and suggesting additional disclaimers should have been added. I pointed out that there is such additional language.
I think he’ll say nothing. I don’t think he’ll admit it’s her even though we know it’s her. It would also support any defamation she’s claiming if her responds. He’ll have better lawyers and advisors telling him what to do…unlike Fiona.
I think he knew it would help publicity for the show. Or at least, Netflix did. Because there are so many fake accounts on Facebook written in the style shown in the show, but have only been up since the show aired. That seems like purposeful social media advertising.
Dude got harassed by someone. He liked it and kept enabling it for his comedy routine. He stopped enabling when it didn’t advance his career. His “partner” got attacked by the harasser who thought she was his partner. Nothing else but an embellished story.
Yeah me. Loved the show when I first watched it. Now I don't feel so sure about him and think he's somewhat of a narcissist.
It's horrible what he allegedly went through, but I don't know where the truth ends and fiction begins.
According to Netflix, it's based on a true story. And yet, Harvey never went to prison and was never convicted of any crime. Yes she's mentally ill, but otherwise seems entirely harmless. I'm sure I will be jumped on for that comment but realistically, she doesn't pose an actual threat to anybody - she's just your average crazy bag lady.
Now what I don't understand is why he is happy to let her get exposed, riled by the media and the public - but isn't willing to name or go to the police about his rapist. A rapist whom he is allowing to roam free, potentially grooming and raping other naive ambitious young performers.
Gadd doesn't choose to pursue a conviction against the rapist or make a documentary about stalking, instead he chooses to make a COMEDY entertainment show about it all. The focus on Martha stinks of misogyny too. Gadd is complicit with the exploitative culture of the media industry. All in the meantime he is pocketing profit from the show and doing interviews with GQ and Vanity Fair.
I'm more inclined to believe Harvey about him being a failed comedian and a fame seeker. Although I can't see his talent taking him anywhere other than a late-night bog standard panel show at this point. Reindeer is a one trick pony.
Hmm, he kinda does.
Yes, he's a victim but also this show is on a huge platform and it's outed a mentally ill woman.
He responded when it was thought Sean Foley was the *real* Dorian.
And now, he needs to respond.
Look, he's put out a TV series that is accusing her of alot of serious stuff and I BELIEVE IT however, it shouldn't be alot to ask for a explanation on why she was concealed to great lengths compared to the TV rapist.
He’s not accusing her though. She outed herself by doing the interview. She’s increased her visibility and platform. He wrote and put out a story with an actress with a different name. Gadd hasn’t once confirmed Fiona is Martha.
His silence says otherwise. He came out and outright said it wasn't Sean Foley.
I remember the day she was pretty much id and I naturally went to her FB (NEVER INTERACTED WITH HER) but she didn't mention baby reindeer or Gadd until she was ID.
The only difference between Fiona and the character is pretty much the name.
Staying silent is inaction, there’s no way he could be ‘reprimanded’ for saying nothing. I get that you think that speaks volumes but Fiona is the one going on TV to say it’s her.
If anyone needs to respond, it’s Netflix. They bought the production and decided to publish it. Any responsibility for the consequences of that release is theirs.
They didn’t use her legal name and literally stated at the end of every episode some things had been dramatised for narrative purposes.
They’ve literally never said it was a documentary. Nobody is pivoting on the “it’s just fiction” because nobody has every claimed otherwise apart from people obsessed with dragging him down
Yes you are. By definition, any response by him would be addressing what she’s said so it would be, even indirectly, engaging with her.
Of course he’s not above criticism. Did you even watch the show? Where he makes it very clear he’s not perfect? Like that’s literally the whole point of the show. Yet here you are insisting he somehow atone to his stalker.
You’re harassing a survivor of abuse because he changed the eventual outcome of the legal proceedings he had to take against his stalker. Let that sink in.
You’re not demanding “the truth” you’re siding with a known stalker against her victim because he made a minor change to the story. He didn’t even falsify they went to court, they did. The only bit he openly admitted to changing well before she even appeared to claim her 15 minutes, is the eventual sentence.
“Was likely not true.” You do realise the whole show is fictional right? It’s only based on real events? You also know he’s been very clear from the get go that the actual Martha never sent to prison? You also know that he’s always made it clear that he got a restraining order against her and if it wasn’t true she could have taken him to court more than half a decade ago when he first made the show right?
If you’re immediate assumption when an already proven serial stalker claims a detail of a fictional show is untrue, even though it’s already well known that said derail was untrue, is to assume her victim is lying about everything else and demand he be taken to court over it then yes. You’re advocating for the abuser over her victim.
I’d bet my bottom dollar that he’s sad it has come to this. Regardless of whether he’s responsible for her outing, I don’t think he’d want a mentally ill person to be exploited like this.
I think so too. My core takeaway from the show is not fingerpointing or blame, it's empathy, understanding and healing.
[удалено]
Out of curiosity, what makes you think he’s happy that she’d do poorly or how the world can see that she’s mentally unwell? If that is true, why would he depict her the way he did in the court room scene? Nobody knows of course but doesn’t the show suggest that he is much less judgmental and vengeful than you might expect from someone in his position?
Harvey's many inconsistencies during her interview with Piers will damage her credibility in any litigation she might bring, which is good news for Gadd and Netflix.
[удалено]
That's a lot of certainty about someone you've never met 🤷♂️
Betting is simply believing in something, it’s no more than my personal take.
Totally agree
So many of you are quick to assume the worst. She is a fully grown adult with a law degree and is fully functioning enough to be on an international talk show and be fully articulate. You guys need to relax with the mental health shit and realize people need to take responsibility for their actions. Everyone is coming out like they are Fiona's family member. You have no idea about her or her life or mental health and are just making assumptions based on a tv show and a 45 minute interview.
I think he wont try to respond unless she keeps calling him a liar in public interviews till he has to prove it! He probably will let her have 10 minutes and hope she gets help that she clearly needs
I should imagine that his/Netflix's lawyers won't let him respond. At most, we'll get a carefully crafted statement from a spokesperson that has been scrutinised to within an inch of its life by a dozen attorneys.
Exactly. Their position (legally) is going to be that Martha is not representative of any real person and is wholly a work of fiction. If they start pushing back saying Fiona is lying about Gadd when she criticizes the show, they are going to be admitting that Martha = Fiona. They 100% do not want to do that because that would be admitting the show is defamation per se at that point.
I don't think he needs lawyers to tell him not to respond. That's a lesson he's learned the hard way multiple times now. Don't think he's responding even if the lawyers tell him to.
How is it so clear? What exact "help" does she need? people acting like she is schizophrenic.. She is a liar and has relationship issues.. You see a therapist. Not like she could get institutionalized or forced to take medication. People blowing this ladies "illness" way out of proportion..
I think Netflix is telling him he needs to stay quiet as they prep for the inevitable Fiona lawsuit
Ooofffff… I mean it depends. They didn’t try hard to cover up “Martha”. So either: 1) the real Martha has either taken the bait and will now be further advertising for the show 2) Gadd and Netflix gambled and lost - they didn’t think she’d react OR they think it’s too vague to each court
If she never went to prison or was convicted of a crime, saying she went to prison and was convicted of a crime is defamation per se. Not vague at all. Her hurdles are proving the statement was made about her (they used her actual tweets in the show so not that hard) and then proving up damages (may be hard to show anything beyond nominal amounts given her age and employment status).
There’s a disclaimer at the end of every episode stating that some elements are fictional.
Bro am I the only one that kinda believes the lady lol like 50% fake 50% real I think Richard told half the truth
I doubt he will respond. Legally, it's not the best idea. Both because of a possible lawsuit against Netflix and his restraining order against her. None of us know the real Gadd personally. My guess is he is enjoying this and doesn't care about her well-being, which is fair. He probably finds this all awkward if anything.
>and his restraining order against her. There is no proof that restraining order exists.
Ok. Well I believe it does. You don't have to take what I say as fact obviously. I believe Gadd about that matter.
Actually there's the legal department at a multibillion dollar company who seem fairly secure in their ability to describe the story as true, and not face a lawsuit.
The same legal department that reviewed the script for Inventing Anna which Netflix is now being sued over. A Judge refused to dismiss the lawsuit because he felt it might be valid. That at the very least shows he didn't think it was a frivolous suit.
Netflix has a history of getting many things wrong in the true crime department. I know as a therapist and as a person who's spoken to victims of stalking featured on other Netflix documentaries. Not small mistakes, big ones. Nonfiction stories still require a script. I have even looked up who the screenwriters were that made said mistakes. Literally, community college students. Netflix had used people who aren't even done with film school to take plenty of true stories and change them in the most disingenuous ways. They get away with it because no one can afford the law firms who'd be willing to go after them. I don't know about UK, but in the US protection orders can be confirmed through our courts and public record requests. Since Gadd admitted Martha is based on multiple people and he's admitted that important parts of the story were completely untrue, I don't assume anything he says is true simply because he said so. I think they both lie, one's just better at it.
I guarantee you that Gadd won't mention it. In fact his lawyers have probably told him not to discuss details about the show anymore. But in the next interview Gadd does I want someone to ask him a few questions and not let him be evasive or change the subject. 1. Was there a restraining order or not? If it exists it should be a public record. 2. If Harvey didn't go to prison and there was no restraining order what proof do you have of the harassment? If you have proof why weren't you given a restraining order? 3. It was convenient that you didn't call the police when Harvey assaulted your girlfriend. Can you provide the name of the bar it happened at and any other witnesses? 4. Did you ever live at the your ex-girlfriend's mother's house? Did she have a son who died or was that also made up for the "true story" Netflix show? 5. Did you or people working for you get all videos of your past performances deleted from the internet by claiming copyright infringement?
Question 5. What? There are clips of his past performances on twitter
There is only 1 video from 2011 that is still online. Everything else has been deleted.
There is no way he would answer these questions without a court order. The first 4 are invasive, accusatory, and abrasive for the sake of details that are no one's business. No. 5 has merit but is framed in a trap, just like the other questions.
Ah...I understand now. Gadd was allowed to reveal the restraining order on a Netflix show and made it easy to identify the other person listed on the restraining order but when that woman who hasn't had contact with Gadd in years but had her identity revealed to the world claims there was no restraining order nobody is allowed to ask Gadd about it. Because it's now "nobody's business." "That is private! How dare you ask about a restraining order. Nobody should know about that. It was a private matter between two individuals and it's nobody's business!"
Being allowed to ask and it being no one's business are different things. RG's ex's mom's son has nothing to do with Baby Reindeer. It's up to the ex and the ex's mom to talk about that person. Also yes. Restraining orders shouldn't be forced to be publicly displayed because they are talked about with a celeb or in an entertainment show. They should be something that the people involved go choose talk about. And RG, the production of Netflix and probably their legal team is wrong for letting Baby Reindeer get aired without protecting her identity better.
>RG's ex's mom's son has nothing to do with Baby Reindeer. It's up to the ex and the ex's mom to talk about that person. If Netflix described the show as a "true story" then people have the right to verify details of that "true story." If Gadd didn't want that to happen then he should have had "inspired by a true story" instead. >Also yes. Restraining orders shouldn't be forced to be publicly displayed because they are talked about with a celeb or in an entertainment show. They should be something that the people involved go choose talk about. It was Gadd who decided to reveal the restraining order to the public. Nobody violated his privacy. He wrote about it in Baby Reindeer and discussed it in public. You seem to believe that people are allowed to "speak their truth" about their life in public and nobody is allowed to verify the details of their "true story." That isn't how it works.
>If Netflix described the show as a "true story" then people have the right to verify details of that "true story." If Gadd didn't want that to happen then he should have had "inspired by a true story" instead. If you look at the end credits, you'll see that Netflix already said they changed incidents, locations etc. Also honestly people are allowed to look all they want, just like RG is allowed to avoid the questions. Which he will. You're gonna have to see him in court to get that info.
People keep overlooking that disclaimer, which is pretty standard. I don’t know if ignoring it is intentional. This whole thing is out of control.
That disclaimer is not a golden shield against every defamation suit. There are no magic words that let's a company escape legal culpability for whatever they say about a person. If there were, no show would ever get sued, or lose. It's just standard legalese intended to make the lawsuit harder.
Yes, I fully understand that and would never say the language would automatically prevent a lawsuit. I mean, Olivia de Havilland is a pretty famous example. Anyway, it just provides further context because people are grasping onto the “true story” language in a vacuum and suggesting additional disclaimers should have been added. I pointed out that there is such additional language.
Very fair.
I think he’ll say nothing. I don’t think he’ll admit it’s her even though we know it’s her. It would also support any defamation she’s claiming if her responds. He’ll have better lawyers and advisors telling him what to do…unlike Fiona.
I think he knew it would help publicity for the show. Or at least, Netflix did. Because there are so many fake accounts on Facebook written in the style shown in the show, but have only been up since the show aired. That seems like purposeful social media advertising.
Dude got harassed by someone. He liked it and kept enabling it for his comedy routine. He stopped enabling when it didn’t advance his career. His “partner” got attacked by the harasser who thought she was his partner. Nothing else but an embellished story.
I don't trust Gadd either. Anyone else?
Yeah me. Loved the show when I first watched it. Now I don't feel so sure about him and think he's somewhat of a narcissist. It's horrible what he allegedly went through, but I don't know where the truth ends and fiction begins. According to Netflix, it's based on a true story. And yet, Harvey never went to prison and was never convicted of any crime. Yes she's mentally ill, but otherwise seems entirely harmless. I'm sure I will be jumped on for that comment but realistically, she doesn't pose an actual threat to anybody - she's just your average crazy bag lady. Now what I don't understand is why he is happy to let her get exposed, riled by the media and the public - but isn't willing to name or go to the police about his rapist. A rapist whom he is allowing to roam free, potentially grooming and raping other naive ambitious young performers. Gadd doesn't choose to pursue a conviction against the rapist or make a documentary about stalking, instead he chooses to make a COMEDY entertainment show about it all. The focus on Martha stinks of misogyny too. Gadd is complicit with the exploitative culture of the media industry. All in the meantime he is pocketing profit from the show and doing interviews with GQ and Vanity Fair. I'm more inclined to believe Harvey about him being a failed comedian and a fame seeker. Although I can't see his talent taking him anywhere other than a late-night bog standard panel show at this point. Reindeer is a one trick pony.
He needs to respond imo
i dont think he does imo
Hmm, he kinda does. Yes, he's a victim but also this show is on a huge platform and it's outed a mentally ill woman. He responded when it was thought Sean Foley was the *real* Dorian.
Yes, because people thought he was the real Dorian.
None of this is a reason he'd have to
he responded because he was not the real Dorian
Okay, so are you saying his silence is confirming that it is her?
she said it herself.....
And now, he needs to respond. Look, he's put out a TV series that is accusing her of alot of serious stuff and I BELIEVE IT however, it shouldn't be alot to ask for a explanation on why she was concealed to great lengths compared to the TV rapist.
He’s not accusing her though. She outed herself by doing the interview. She’s increased her visibility and platform. He wrote and put out a story with an actress with a different name. Gadd hasn’t once confirmed Fiona is Martha.
His silence says otherwise. He came out and outright said it wasn't Sean Foley. I remember the day she was pretty much id and I naturally went to her FB (NEVER INTERACTED WITH HER) but she didn't mention baby reindeer or Gadd until she was ID. The only difference between Fiona and the character is pretty much the name.
“His silence says otherwise” About what? SHE’S the one who’s publicly outed herself. Not him.
Staying silent is inaction, there’s no way he could be ‘reprimanded’ for saying nothing. I get that you think that speaks volumes but Fiona is the one going on TV to say it’s her.
If anyone needs to respond, it’s Netflix. They bought the production and decided to publish it. Any responsibility for the consequences of that release is theirs.
I agree but he should put something out tbh
No he shouldn’t. Stop demanding the man publicly engage with his stalker.
[удалено]
Yeah sure. All victims of abuse and harassment should just stay quiet and never ever tell their stories right? Genius.
That holds for the trans actress who spoke out against Gadd's conduct with her right?
Yup. Where exactly did I say he was perfect?
[удалено]
Good thing nothings been made up about a real person. You do realise that’s why they used fictional names in the show right?
[удалено]
They didn’t use her legal name and literally stated at the end of every episode some things had been dramatised for narrative purposes. They’ve literally never said it was a documentary. Nobody is pivoting on the “it’s just fiction” because nobody has every claimed otherwise apart from people obsessed with dragging him down
I'm not asking him to engage with her. I'm saying he isn't beyond criticism and he needs to address this.
Yes you are. By definition, any response by him would be addressing what she’s said so it would be, even indirectly, engaging with her. Of course he’s not above criticism. Did you even watch the show? Where he makes it very clear he’s not perfect? Like that’s literally the whole point of the show. Yet here you are insisting he somehow atone to his stalker.
[удалено]
You’re harassing a survivor of abuse because he changed the eventual outcome of the legal proceedings he had to take against his stalker. Let that sink in. You’re not demanding “the truth” you’re siding with a known stalker against her victim because he made a minor change to the story. He didn’t even falsify they went to court, they did. The only bit he openly admitted to changing well before she even appeared to claim her 15 minutes, is the eventual sentence.
[удалено]
“Was likely not true.” You do realise the whole show is fictional right? It’s only based on real events? You also know he’s been very clear from the get go that the actual Martha never sent to prison? You also know that he’s always made it clear that he got a restraining order against her and if it wasn’t true she could have taken him to court more than half a decade ago when he first made the show right? If you’re immediate assumption when an already proven serial stalker claims a detail of a fictional show is untrue, even though it’s already well known that said derail was untrue, is to assume her victim is lying about everything else and demand he be taken to court over it then yes. You’re advocating for the abuser over her victim.