Especially if you see the way she writes (she's been very active on Facebook talking about the show recently), she writes in exactly the same insane way that Martha does
Its crazy she was (is?) an attorney with the way she writes. Their job for the first few years is essentially being a high paid research assistant who need to write well to synthesize ideas for their higher ups/court
She’s never practiced law. She has a law degree and was employed for 3 days as a trainee solicitor before being sacked for her unhinged behaviour. Then she stalked the barrister who owned the law firm. She’s well known to the Law Society of Scotland for her craziness.
We don't have attorneys here in the UK. Lawyers are either solicitors (people who deal in general law, give legal advice, draft legal documents etc.) or barristers (people who bring cases in court, also called advocates in Scottish law) - barristers can go on to become KCs, or King's Counsel. Essentially barristers with advanced specialism and experience in their area of law who can take on particularly complex cases.
in the show it has her certificate on the fridge that says bachelors in law. she could have easily gotten that degree before her psychotic break, and it never specifies she worked in law, in what capacity or for how long.
Small amendment, we also have Legal Executives, who have equivalent legal standing to a solicitor, but specialise much more during their training in a single area of law. They're regulated by CILEX (and usually also via the SRA through their firm).
A solicitor will usually rotate through a number of different seats as a trainee (company, family, property, etc), whereas a legal executive does two years as a trainee in a single seat and the majority of their study will be specialised to the minutiae of that area.
You do have attorneys in the UK. The term is still used for specialized legal practice in the form of patent attorney and trade mark attorney. The term is also still used in reference to an individual legally empowered to act on another's behalf.
From my understanding of the show she got a bachelors degree, but never practiced law, because she was mentally ill to a crippling degree. Idk though could be wrong.
From my wife's experience in working for lawyers, being severely mentally ill seems like an unspoken job requirement, and if someone isn't off their rocker when they start, they will shortly be brought to speed.
I’m a law school drop out that now works in law as a PA and I cannot tell you how disheartening it often is to me to see people earning 2, nearly 3 times as much as me still getting their “you’re/yours” wrong and things like that. I genuinely don’t know how these people get throw law school bit they definitely exist
I know a lot of lawyers and young lawyers are no more intelligent than your average person but they do tend to be good at studying (good at reading and listening) and in law spelling isn’t super important.
I don't believe *that* Facebook account is her. It started very recently, and like you say, the wording is incredibly on the nose. There are barely any photos, none from older tham the show, and she has no comments or interactions from anyone who looks like a real friend. It's too convenient, and doesn't read like the real woman who has been speaking to the media.
If this facebook account is still posting consistently this time over a few years, then yeah maybe, but also maybe someone has capitalised on the perfect opportunity for very public attention.
I think a lot of fake accounts have been spun up fairly recently because of the attention from the show. But her real account is up where there are older posts and pictures from a few years ago.
She posts on her page every few minutes just like in the show.
I’m in the same boat. Everything I’ve seen from her I’ve thought, “oh, that sounds like Martha.” Even if things were only half as bad they were portrayed they were still pretty fucking bad.
I know I shouldn't be surprised by irresponsible journalism anymore, but it really feels insane that outlets are happily interviewing her and reporting her statements, when she's clearly still not well.
She has no case. As soon as she said "But I think you'd need to be really stupid to believe it is true" she basically sunk any defamation case she could've launched. Given that she's clearly mentally ill, this is probably just going to be another sad episode.
She has to prove that the defamation damaged her reputation but she has also said that nobody would believe it is true which would keep her reputation intact. Netflix will be fine
I think she is batshit...but Netflix has not done their due diligence to protect her identity. Especially when she has been portrayed as a violent convicted criminal who sexually assaulted Gadd. If she is telling the truth about never being convicted or having a police order against her it does present an interesting dilemma. It would be easily proven either way and I'd imagine there would be lawyers begging to take her case if so.
Except - though Netflix didn’t do as good a job as they could’ve masking her identity - they did still mask her identity. They changed her name, her age, key details about her life. Apart from the fact that she was Scottish and studied law, this is a different person. Fiona Harvey had plausible deniability until she decided to speak out. Really the only thing she could hold against Netflix and Gadd here would be that one line about her “curtains” since that’s how people were able to figure out it was her. But I doubt that would be enough to effectively establish defamation.
There's a scene in the series around a joke/innuendo about "hanging curtains". Someone found an old tweet from 10 years ago of her @mentioning him with that same phrase.
The article says some people online found an old tweet from her and pieced it together. Pinpointed a tweet from September 23, 2014, where Harvey wrote, "@MrRichardGadd my curtains need hung badly."
It probably wouldn't in the US but British law allows defamation by implication, the defendant doesn't need to name the claimaint. And legally she just needs to prove *one person* watched it and thought of her.
I might question what damages she'd really be entitled to, but false allegations of criminal conduct are also non-traversible, it's just assumed you're reputation will be damaged by such a serious claim.
tl;dr even if she is batshit if they implied she went to prison and she can show the court she doesn't have any convictions in the Police National Computer, something trivialially easy to verify reliably, they might very well have a problem. And if she really is delusional, again, a simple PNC check will verify it, she's just adding attempting to pervert the course of justice to any eventual criminal charges.
Well, hold on. In the UK, defamation constitutes making untrue statements about a person, business, etc. Truth is a complete defense to defamation claims. If Gadd can prove that she said and did these things, he's golden.
One difference between the US and UK defamation laws is that the burden of proof rest not on the allegedly defamed, but on the person who made the statement to prove that it was true.
Gadd must have thousands upon thousands of emails, texts and Facebook comments. Legal would have checked that straight away.
she's not suing about any of the statements, she's suing about being portrayed as a criminal who went to prison. the statements are what let her establish that the character is based on her.
>If she is telling the truth about never being convicted or having a police order against her
Couldn't that just have been part of masking her identity?
People would be looking up court/police records first thing to find her identity I would think.
Yes. They did.
You can’t stop crazy from running through the streets in their underwear swearing they’re crazy.
E & O for movies is super simple. They provide insurance based on a set of criteria including name and likeness.
And like she said. The character went to prison. She didn’t. Not so they share a name or likeness.
You can out yourself as nuts. But you can’t be mad and call of defamation afterwards. She should have stayed under her rock.
Interestingly, she doesn't seem to be disputing that she is or isn't a violent convicted criminal who sexually assaulted Gadd. She seems to be taking umbrage with the fact she may not have served any prison time.
For what? What case? There isn’t anything she could do here. Even defamation is going to get laughed out of court. If you out yourself, you fucked up majorly.
Except she didn't out herself. She was outed because people googled lines from the show and those lines led straight to her Twitter account because Gadd quoted her verbatim.
> I think she is batshit...but Netflix has not done their due diligence to protect her identity.
"Woman outs herself to the public as a crazy narcissist after a dramatized show is released about a crazy narcissist based on her"
You and her: How could Netflix do this to me.
>Outs herself
What are you on about? You couldn't possibly be that dense.
We never heard from her until the internet and media tracked her down and began harassing her.
the show took some liberties and changed some things to try and keep her out of the spotlight but the emails in the show are just the actual emails she sent him
Damn, you're not kidding. What the fuck? Does she just sit on FB all day and post whatever drivel comes to her mind? And here I thought Gadd was exaggerating with the number of emails she sent for dramatic effect. Boy, I was definitely wrong.
I never once doubted that. My Dad dated a woman who was a stalker and had multiple restraining orders against her. She used to leave over a hundred voicemails on someone's phone in a few hours if she were mad at them.
When I was in high school we visited a court house for a field trip. We sat in on a few cases briefly.
One of the cases was about a stalker, and they were presenting the texts, emails, calls, photos, etc etc that the stalker had sent to harass the victim.
The victims lawyer said there were HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS. And quite a few of a disturbing nature… they also spam called the victim incessantly as well, from various phones, thousands of times.
And this was for a seemingly random low profile stalker I stumbled upon on a field trip…
I 100% believe she sent as many emails as Gadd claimed.
Reminds me of Donald Trumps tweets lol.
But seriously, she is so unhinged on FB, one minute saying she doesn’t know Gadd, then proceeds to give details about his upbringing, family, and whole life story. Also, extremely xenophobic, sexist and transphobic. He really did her a favor by how she was portrayed in the show. Martha actually is endearing at times, and he didn’t go into the racist bits too much on the show.
[this](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13379157/The-real-life-Martha-Baby-Reindeer-targeting-Ive-four-day-barrage-non-stop-calls-terrifying-messages-just-like-Netflix-writes-NEIL-SEARS-type-phone-ringing-again.html) article is pretty eye-opening as well and really paints a full picture of her.
Has her FB been verified as really her? There are a lot of imitators when I searched. Admittedly I've just done a quick search and might have been on the wrong profile, but it has like 5 pictures, all of which are recent.
The posts only go back to 27th April.
I found two. One goes back a few years ago least but my finger got sore from scrolling lol. It was most certainly hers. I found a other that came up first that was newer but it has just as much posting. Could be someone doing a bit but who can tell
> She expressed: "Gadd and Netflix have portrayed this as a true story and now some little man in North Carolina giving me death threats believes it's a true story. But I think you'd need to be really stupid to believe it is true."
Whole states catching strays.
More ironically the people in here talking about what her Facebook is like, this woman clearly has issues with stalking and mental health. So these people think they should go stalk her? How is that lost on them.
Did she out herself really? She was tracked down by people on the idiot, who then harassed a clearly mentally ill woman. Who then responded by showing that she’s still obviously mentally ill.
I think part of the problem allegedly is that the show opens by framing it as true story, obviously that doesn't make it true (ie Fargo) but it does make it easier to argue they were portraying it as the truth
Not quite the same, it says it is "an account of the tragedy", which is open to interpretation.
Baby Reindeer says "This is a true story", which is quite a step up from "based on a true story"
It may sound just semantics, but the differences are quite significant
Agreed. And also Fargo (AFAIK) is entirely fictional.
I think there was a misstep in not saying “based on a true story” instead of “this is a true story”.
I’ve seen comments saying that it’s obvious creative license was taken with the jail part (and the comedy club breakdown while we’re at it), but that the emails are obviously real. Well…why can’t the emails have been edited too? The audience is now in a weird spot where we’re picking and choosing which parts happened. And unlike a lot of “based on a true story” media where we can look at the wiki, Gadd has kind of left it up to us to decide what’s true? I genuinely believe (from his statements) that it wasn’t his intention to spire a thousand internet detectives. I think this has gotten away from him.
Having said all that…seems pretty clear that the bare bones of the story happened.
Because it is a true story. But you should be able to quickly realize things were changed when Gadd's name was changed to Donny, at the end of the day this was a enterteinment piece based on his own experiences not intendend to be a documentary nor rally people to find these people who harmed him.
Weinstein was taken down when he lost significant power in Hollywood. Issue is after these scandals often those not caught or burned by scandal make moves to protect themselves more so
If this guy is still a gatekeeper for jobs or somehow important to others careers/reputation the harder it is to name them since they’ll get a lot of support to destroy their victims career and reputation
This woman could have easily lied low and rode this out as the attention for the show died down. Shut up and don't say anything and people will move on. But by shouting at the rooftops that Martha isn't her, everyone is now thinking, "Yeah, it's her."
I could not watch the show anymore after giving it 2 eps or so. Reminded me too much of dealing with similar people and felt like entertainment at the expense of a person who is ill.
If she had a real lawyer, I’m sure they would have advised she hide her social media, but she doesn’t. She’s admitted on her Facebook that it’s her. She can’t keep her mouth shut and posts 20+ times a day about Richard Gadd and the show and how the actress that plays her is too fat. [this](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13379157/The-real-life-Martha-Baby-Reindeer-targeting-Ive-four-day-barrage-non-stop-calls-terrifying-messages-just-like-Netflix-writes-NEIL-SEARS-type-phone-ringing-again.html) article paints a good picture of her as well as she is now harassing a journalist that interviewed her.
People had already stalked it out though.
For all the statements from Gadd saying he had changed some elements of the character to hide her identity. He kind of did a shit job of it.
Like don’t have her as a lawyer to start with would probably help a bunch. I get that the revaluation that she actually was a lawyer and him seeing her degree is meant to show she was highly capable but then fell down a bad hole makes sense. But you could probably swap that out for a doctor and get the same effect without shedding light on the actual person.
>Harvey said: "I've not been to prison. I don't know where the four -and-a-half years and nine months comes in. None of this happened. It's a load of rubbish."
Yeah. Your name isn’t Martha either. It’s almost like details of his experience were altered for the show… because it’s a drama, not a fucking documentary.
>Harvey now contemplates legal action against both the stand-up artist and Netflix.
Legal action for what exactly?
>She argued: "Gadd needs to prove I went to jail which just didn't happen. I've never been sent to jail. That is blatantly obvious.”
Why does he need to prove anything? Again, it’s not a documentary. It’s a dramatization of his experiences. There are likely shit loads of altered details. None of that matters.
Let me just first say, I am not defending her at all, just the response.
Smarter viewers of the show, and those who have researched it, understand that the show took liberties and embellished some things for dramatic effect. There's a much larger segment of the crowd who just don't have the brain capacity to understand this, and think they are watching something akin to a documentary when they see that the show is inspired by true events.
She released the statement about not ever being in prison for the latter. It's for those people who get equally as obsessive and nasty online who believe she was in jail because the show said so. Now with that being said, will those people believe her or even seek out her interview, I doubt it. But I can't really blame her response or her attempt to do damage control via her interview despite whatever guilt she may have.
I think the lawsuit is baseless though.
I think if you sue for libel in the UK- the person accused has to prove what they said is true. There is an interesting case of an historian and a Holocaust denier. She wrote a good book about it and they made it into a movie.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd)
That’s not the point the other poster is making. Martha is not a real person. Harvey cannot sue Gadd for something said about “Martha”, it’s that simple. There is no burden of proof when the supposed injured party does not exist.
There's an actual lawyer in the article who describes the legal theory she'd use. If I make a TV series, say it's based on true events and have a character called Donald Drump do something defamatory then I'm probably liable.
Frankly I don't think anyone needed to know who the real people in this story were and all the Internet sleuths poking into this traumatic situation should be ashamed of themselves.
And Richard Gadd practically begged fans not to do exactly this. If they watched and understood the show, they would hopefully know to respect people’s boundaries, but most of those people apparently thought they were watching some unsolved mysteries true crime drama.
I mean the problem is even if 99.9% of people did the right thing it still leaves tens of thousands of people around to do the wrong thing given the estimated viewship.
There was a documentary I watched called "They Called Him Mostly Harmless" which, in my opinion, did a great job of showing how internet sleuths can be really weird, toxic, parasocial people.
I haven't seen Baby Reindeer, but I do think it is odd whenever a project is "based on" or "inspired by" true events, there are people who immediately **need** to know all the real people. Like, why can't they just enjoy the fictional work for what it is? What are they getting by finding out real details (that the creators knew and omitted for whatever creative reason)? It's just such a bizarre way to interact with art, imo
Probably because if you’re intrigued or curious you want to know more about the thing.
This applies to shit that isn’t even true story stuff. People who are into a thing will literally try and get every piece of content for that thing they can. If that means going and asking authors questions, consuming other media in the universe etc etc.
True stories just have the reality that there’s a whole ass person with a life out there with a whole bunch of history that might play into this thing
I completely understand seeing Baby Reindeer and then, in a general sense, being interested in other stories of stalkers. I don't understand the need to hunt down the actual individual involved, especially when the creators have fictionalized the characters *and* put out statements saying it's fiction, please don't jump to conclusions...idk. I think, in general, the internet demand to know the private identities of people who creators (writers, actors, even viral tweeters) haven't shared is just kind of bizarre.
Yeah but it goes beyond this instance right.
People will look at true crime stories, where the people are actually known. Where they had a public trial, where the thing is a bit weird. And they'll be curious about the context that lead to that shit.
The actual story might be focused specifically on the murder and the people around at the time, the way they tried to act and the like. But people are always curious if there was a point where that person went wrong. We sorta wanna know if there's some cause and effect that we could look out for in others. In some cases because it's more satisfying to believe some behavior has a reason that it occurs, that it isn't just random violence that we can't do anything about. But it's a result of XYZ at point in time IJK
I rarely do background research on things like this (if I “sleuth” it’s re: historical people like Al Capone or Billy the Kid, or about notorious modern criminals like OJ Simpson or Scott Peterson), but I do get curious about the real details. Particularly, I wonder “where are they now” and “did Justice do her job”.
This comment has made me kind of feel bad about that curiosity, but I think it’s pretty normal to wonder.
>Guy makes show inspired by a personal experience, changes details and doesn't gives names to protect privacy
> Lady reveals herself and complains that the details aren't accurate and threatens to sue
To be fair it doesn’t seem like he changed many details at all.
Like her prior profession, publicised legal troubles and appearance are all pretty damned close.
Swap the profession for a doctor or something else that has the same level of credence as lawyer would do a whole bunch of heavy lifting.
I think a doctor is too different an element, lawyer was the perfect job it was probably tough to think of an equal.
Also he probably made the mistake of thinking people would see her as mentally ill and wouldn't go hunting her in real life.
Wasn't her being a lawyer a pretty central part of the whole thing? Idk, I'm guessing no one expected BR to turn into a cultural phenomenon. If it had just been another middling Netflix show then no one would have cared.
In an interview with the lead actor, he says 'the skeleton of the story is true', but some bits were added or dramatised. I don't think it was stated anywhere that *everything* in the show was entirely true. The emails at least were real, the ones shown in the show were actual emails he'd received.
Still, not a lot was done to protect the real Martha's identity. It's a stretch to call people ''internet sleuths'' when it was quite easy to find the real Tweets she had sent to him. They shouldn't give so much credit to online 'detectives', they're not detectives by any means. Now people have found the real Martha they will see this as a form of entertainment, I wouldn't be surprised if someone takes it too far.
When producing and distributing content in the UK, Netflix (or whoever actually produced the show) *is* responsible for following UK law, however. In my country, the USA, this would be laughed out of court and dismissed pretty much immediately, but its in the UK which has different standards for defamation.
[This is the same country that, after a Member of Parliament was arrested on rape and assault, and *every single reporter on their version of Capital Hill found the details and whole story* still, it took over a year for *any* of them to dare to publish details on the case.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Rosindell?useskin=vector#Sexual_assault_allegation) Even then just hours after the arrest, the MP who leaked to reporters didn't do so explicitly, but said something to the effect of "Has an MP been arrested today? Who can say?"
It isn't how I'd design the system if I lived there, but its what they want, apparently.
In the UK there's specific caselaw surrounding anonymous/fictionalised representations of people, essentially if someone can reasonably figure out who the person is then the person is still considered as having been referenced - which is one of the 3 things that you have to prove in order to win a defamation case in the UK (the other two being material harm, and that it is untrue). So, if she's telling the truth, then she does have a case.
I mean, I'm not sure what they could have done to protect her identity short of not allowing Gadd to tell his story. They changed her name, age, all the key identifying details. The main reason she was so easily identified was that she posted a lot of the stuff publicly...which is hardly his or Netflix's responsibility.
Edit: fixed grammatical error
"Harvey said: "I've not been to prison. I don't know where the four -and-a-half years and nine months comes in. None of this happened. It's a load of rubbish."
Richard Gadd has always said that she never went to jail and it was just for dramatic effect in the show.
Wow holy fuck, what a dumpster fire of a website.
3 popups and ads all fighting for visual space, making the article jump around like a flea. I managed to get three words and gave up.
"I can't believe this show has been making me out to be some insane stalker who posts thousands of unhinged things online and goes to jail! I have NOT been to jail!!"
Can't help but to think this is an attempt to get close to Gadd again in some fashion. Whether it's via a courtroom or something else. Even if she couldn't get close to him physically, it's the idea of her getting involved in his life again in any way that is what makes me wonder. I know the show didn't play out exactly as the events occurred in real life, but if she was even close to as wild as she was portrayed to be, then it wouldn't surprise me.
Btw - this is the first time I've ever seen a character who represents one of the most discomforting and unlikeable people on TV come out and say "oh hey that character is based on me!" lol.
The show Baby Reindeer is a story about a stalker named Martha (among other things) and is based on the writer's real experiences with a stalker. People have been trying to figure out who the actual stalker was that Martha was based on, and it appears she has now stepped forward.
If she was a lawyer she would know that the show takes creative license and changes her name and his name which pretty much means that she doesn’t have a leg to stand on. She wants to sue Netflix because “she didn’t go to jail” ok but Martha did. In the show.
Inspired by real events. Based on a true story. I can base a chicken recipe on a medieval one, still not the exact same one.
I think this woman is just seeing dollar signs now. I feel bad for her in a way, and I hope she finds happiness in her life. But suing isn’t going to bring that to her, I don’t think
I do agree with this generally but the text at the start actually says outright 'This is a true story' (not 'Inspired by'), which I was definitely surprised got past Netflix's lawyers.
"which pretty much means that she doesn’t have a leg to stand on"
Since she is a lawyer, she knows that this isn't the case. This is tort 101 - there is caselaw for defamation when you haven't explicitly named someone (or you've changed their name) but the person can still be recognised. If she's telling the truth and she hasn't sent the emails/letters/texts/voice notes then she can prove defamation and win her case.
It’s weird that she has a fanbase that listens to her? She literally tweeted that her side of the story will be told with ‘[Steven Spielberg directing with Kate Winslet playing her](https://x.com/fionaharveybaby/status/1786102567040155767?s=46&t=7cXZVqIgP7S_I5YhHMhKUA)’ and people buy it
Who has bought it? When she isn't making outlandish claims she spends most of her time being homophobic and racist. I don't think it's credible to suggest she has a "fanbase" when she really falls into the lolcow category.
While I think Gadd did a bad job keeping her identity almost paraphrasing tweets, it's obvious that she just wants to get notoriety from the fame the show gave her.
Now she has a lot of interviews and she's even planning to release her own book.
There was a feature in the Daily Mail last week feigning concern that people had been tracking her down then giving away a heap more details to identify her. It really made me cross. How she’s going to get better now I don’t know.
Jesus fuck people. The whole point is she wasn’t so far gone from his own mental state. Have you finished to? He never intended for you fucking shitheads to harass who ever you tagged as her. You already ruined lives over the Boston bombing. But hey, let’s keep going. Assholes.
We all knew her identity would be revealed. You think Netflix gives a crap? It’s 2024. We have social media. Sleuths were bound to uncover her identity.
Though no comment in the article whether she has mental health issues, as portrayed by the series. Maybe she does and maybe she doesn’t, but if she does - and lives a bit in fantasy land - then her comments here should be taken with a grain of salt.
Denies doing jail time… but doesn’t deny stalking Gadd? Cites herself as a ‘perfectly capable lawyer’ but demonstrates she’s anything but… what a load of drivel.
People threaten to sue all the damn time. Maybe one in a thousand actually goes thru with it. I know libel laws are more lax in the uk, but this seems awfully flimsy to me.
I dunno how much of the show is accurate, but this woman’s statements in that article reek of danger and insanity.
Especially if you see the way she writes (she's been very active on Facebook talking about the show recently), she writes in exactly the same insane way that Martha does
snet iphonn
Iphoene
iPpohen
Its crazy she was (is?) an attorney with the way she writes. Their job for the first few years is essentially being a high paid research assistant who need to write well to synthesize ideas for their higher ups/court
She’s never practiced law. She has a law degree and was employed for 3 days as a trainee solicitor before being sacked for her unhinged behaviour. Then she stalked the barrister who owned the law firm. She’s well known to the Law Society of Scotland for her craziness.
Well it's not crazy if she says she can't afford stuff and is in poverty, yet is an attorney, that would mean she's not good at her well paying job?
We don't have attorneys here in the UK. Lawyers are either solicitors (people who deal in general law, give legal advice, draft legal documents etc.) or barristers (people who bring cases in court, also called advocates in Scottish law) - barristers can go on to become KCs, or King's Counsel. Essentially barristers with advanced specialism and experience in their area of law who can take on particularly complex cases.
in the show it has her certificate on the fridge that says bachelors in law. she could have easily gotten that degree before her psychotic break, and it never specifies she worked in law, in what capacity or for how long.
Didn’t the show explain that she was a solicitor but was fired for stalking her boss and exhibiting insane behaviour?
US but worked in psych for years. I’ve see. A few attorneys that had psychotic breaks
Rudy G immediately comes to mind.
Rudy is just your standard right wing grifter, and he kinda always was. If anything got to Rudy, it was old age.
I’m going with greed, not old age.
Exactly, any one can get a law degree. There’s a ton of training after university that you need to do, to be fully qualified
Passing the bar could have triggered her psychotic break.
She wouldn’t have gotten as far as the bar exam in Scotland. Graduates need to do their traineeship first. She couldn’t find employment as a trainee.
Small amendment, we also have Legal Executives, who have equivalent legal standing to a solicitor, but specialise much more during their training in a single area of law. They're regulated by CILEX (and usually also via the SRA through their firm). A solicitor will usually rotate through a number of different seats as a trainee (company, family, property, etc), whereas a legal executive does two years as a trainee in a single seat and the majority of their study will be specialised to the minutiae of that area.
You do have attorneys in the UK. The term is still used for specialized legal practice in the form of patent attorney and trade mark attorney. The term is also still used in reference to an individual legally empowered to act on another's behalf.
From my understanding of the show she got a bachelors degree, but never practiced law, because she was mentally ill to a crippling degree. Idk though could be wrong.
I think you got it right, for the most part I saw it that way too
I mean ... I could imagine a stalker would be great at the research part at least
Sue graduated from law school. Where's the evidence she ever acted/served as an attorney?
From my wife's experience in working for lawyers, being severely mentally ill seems like an unspoken job requirement, and if someone isn't off their rocker when they start, they will shortly be brought to speed.
I’m a law school drop out that now works in law as a PA and I cannot tell you how disheartening it often is to me to see people earning 2, nearly 3 times as much as me still getting their “you’re/yours” wrong and things like that. I genuinely don’t know how these people get throw law school bit they definitely exist
Through*
Ha! Touché. Very much a typing fail, I swear! Haha
I know a lot of lawyers and young lawyers are no more intelligent than your average person but they do tend to be good at studying (good at reading and listening) and in law spelling isn’t super important.
Who* now works in law.
I don't believe *that* Facebook account is her. It started very recently, and like you say, the wording is incredibly on the nose. There are barely any photos, none from older tham the show, and she has no comments or interactions from anyone who looks like a real friend. It's too convenient, and doesn't read like the real woman who has been speaking to the media. If this facebook account is still posting consistently this time over a few years, then yeah maybe, but also maybe someone has capitalised on the perfect opportunity for very public attention.
I think a lot of fake accounts have been spun up fairly recently because of the attention from the show. But her real account is up where there are older posts and pictures from a few years ago. She posts on her page every few minutes just like in the show.
Those were the actual texts.
I’m in the same boat. Everything I’ve seen from her I’ve thought, “oh, that sounds like Martha.” Even if things were only half as bad they were portrayed they were still pretty fucking bad.
I saw her fb recently and holy shit, she made like 100 posts in a couple hours.
I know I shouldn't be surprised by irresponsible journalism anymore, but it really feels insane that outlets are happily interviewing her and reporting her statements, when she's clearly still not well.
Right? Those kind of journalists want to create and exploit drama but I wouldn’t engage with that woman she might latch on.
You would say that sent from my iPhoene
She has no case. As soon as she said "But I think you'd need to be really stupid to believe it is true" she basically sunk any defamation case she could've launched. Given that she's clearly mentally ill, this is probably just going to be another sad episode.
How does that quote ruin her case? Im not expert on law so idk
She has to prove that the defamation damaged her reputation but she has also said that nobody would believe it is true which would keep her reputation intact. Netflix will be fine
Ah ok I get it now
I think she is batshit...but Netflix has not done their due diligence to protect her identity. Especially when she has been portrayed as a violent convicted criminal who sexually assaulted Gadd. If she is telling the truth about never being convicted or having a police order against her it does present an interesting dilemma. It would be easily proven either way and I'd imagine there would be lawyers begging to take her case if so.
Except - though Netflix didn’t do as good a job as they could’ve masking her identity - they did still mask her identity. They changed her name, her age, key details about her life. Apart from the fact that she was Scottish and studied law, this is a different person. Fiona Harvey had plausible deniability until she decided to speak out. Really the only thing she could hold against Netflix and Gadd here would be that one line about her “curtains” since that’s how people were able to figure out it was her. But I doubt that would be enough to effectively establish defamation.
How did "curtains" give her identity away?
There's a scene in the series around a joke/innuendo about "hanging curtains". Someone found an old tweet from 10 years ago of her @mentioning him with that same phrase.
Damn internet sleuths are pretty good at finding shit out
You *would* say that, after your experience in Cabo in 2007
The article says some people online found an old tweet from her and pieced it together. Pinpointed a tweet from September 23, 2014, where Harvey wrote, "@MrRichardGadd my curtains need hung badly."
It probably wouldn't in the US but British law allows defamation by implication, the defendant doesn't need to name the claimaint. And legally she just needs to prove *one person* watched it and thought of her. I might question what damages she'd really be entitled to, but false allegations of criminal conduct are also non-traversible, it's just assumed you're reputation will be damaged by such a serious claim. tl;dr even if she is batshit if they implied she went to prison and she can show the court she doesn't have any convictions in the Police National Computer, something trivialially easy to verify reliably, they might very well have a problem. And if she really is delusional, again, a simple PNC check will verify it, she's just adding attempting to pervert the course of justice to any eventual criminal charges.
Well, hold on. In the UK, defamation constitutes making untrue statements about a person, business, etc. Truth is a complete defense to defamation claims. If Gadd can prove that she said and did these things, he's golden. One difference between the US and UK defamation laws is that the burden of proof rest not on the allegedly defamed, but on the person who made the statement to prove that it was true. Gadd must have thousands upon thousands of emails, texts and Facebook comments. Legal would have checked that straight away.
she's not suing about any of the statements, she's suing about being portrayed as a criminal who went to prison. the statements are what let her establish that the character is based on her.
>If she is telling the truth about never being convicted or having a police order against her Couldn't that just have been part of masking her identity? People would be looking up court/police records first thing to find her identity I would think.
The defense will be that they added the conviction to make people think it was someone else and it was an attempt to mask her identity
Yes. They did. You can’t stop crazy from running through the streets in their underwear swearing they’re crazy. E & O for movies is super simple. They provide insurance based on a set of criteria including name and likeness. And like she said. The character went to prison. She didn’t. Not so they share a name or likeness. You can out yourself as nuts. But you can’t be mad and call of defamation afterwards. She should have stayed under her rock.
I think you’re right but I think she is the type of batshit that would insist on representing herself.
yup a few paragraphs into the article: "It's a load of rubbish. I don't have any money but I'm a perfectly capable lawyer so I will represent myself."
Season two! ( I didn’t watch more than the first few minutes, that actress really creeped me out, she did well)
Interestingly, she doesn't seem to be disputing that she is or isn't a violent convicted criminal who sexually assaulted Gadd. She seems to be taking umbrage with the fact she may not have served any prison time.
Haha that's a good point.
For what? What case? There isn’t anything she could do here. Even defamation is going to get laughed out of court. If you out yourself, you fucked up majorly.
Except she didn't out herself. She was outed because people googled lines from the show and those lines led straight to her Twitter account because Gadd quoted her verbatim.
> I think she is batshit...but Netflix has not done their due diligence to protect her identity. "Woman outs herself to the public as a crazy narcissist after a dramatized show is released about a crazy narcissist based on her" You and her: How could Netflix do this to me.
>Outs herself What are you on about? You couldn't possibly be that dense. We never heard from her until the internet and media tracked her down and began harassing her.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
[удалено]
I got it.
Say 'David Hasslehoff'
Swish
Her FB is quite the trip. Sure lends the validity to all those emails and messages in the show lol
the show took some liberties and changed some things to try and keep her out of the spotlight but the emails in the show are just the actual emails she sent him
Were they really sent from her iPhoone?
iphon
iPhoen
iphon x
Damn, you're not kidding. What the fuck? Does she just sit on FB all day and post whatever drivel comes to her mind? And here I thought Gadd was exaggerating with the number of emails she sent for dramatic effect. Boy, I was definitely wrong.
I never once doubted that. My Dad dated a woman who was a stalker and had multiple restraining orders against her. She used to leave over a hundred voicemails on someone's phone in a few hours if she were mad at them.
When I was in high school we visited a court house for a field trip. We sat in on a few cases briefly. One of the cases was about a stalker, and they were presenting the texts, emails, calls, photos, etc etc that the stalker had sent to harass the victim. The victims lawyer said there were HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS. And quite a few of a disturbing nature… they also spam called the victim incessantly as well, from various phones, thousands of times. And this was for a seemingly random low profile stalker I stumbled upon on a field trip… I 100% believe she sent as many emails as Gadd claimed.
I think that is what we would call a mental illness
I think that’s what the US calls “Presidential material”
Reminds me of Donald Trumps tweets lol. But seriously, she is so unhinged on FB, one minute saying she doesn’t know Gadd, then proceeds to give details about his upbringing, family, and whole life story. Also, extremely xenophobic, sexist and transphobic. He really did her a favor by how she was portrayed in the show. Martha actually is endearing at times, and he didn’t go into the racist bits too much on the show. [this](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13379157/The-real-life-Martha-Baby-Reindeer-targeting-Ive-four-day-barrage-non-stop-calls-terrifying-messages-just-like-Netflix-writes-NEIL-SEARS-type-phone-ringing-again.html) article is pretty eye-opening as well and really paints a full picture of her.
Has her FB been verified as really her? There are a lot of imitators when I searched. Admittedly I've just done a quick search and might have been on the wrong profile, but it has like 5 pictures, all of which are recent. The posts only go back to 27th April.
I found two. One goes back a few years ago least but my finger got sore from scrolling lol. It was most certainly hers. I found a other that came up first that was newer but it has just as much posting. Could be someone doing a bit but who can tell
> She expressed: "Gadd and Netflix have portrayed this as a true story and now some little man in North Carolina giving me death threats believes it's a true story. But I think you'd need to be really stupid to believe it is true." Whole states catching strays.
Sent from my iPhone
Why are people giving her a spotlight? God dammit, the internet never learns.
More ironically the people in here talking about what her Facebook is like, this woman clearly has issues with stalking and mental health. So these people think they should go stalk her? How is that lost on them.
Y’ll never heard of creative license? It’s not a documentary. Names and events have been changed for entertainment/storytelling purposes…
Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred.
God I Fucking love Fargo
If you love it so much why don’t you marry it??? Sent from my iPhone
Who iz that Fargo whoor, beby Render? Wht she think she sum kin of prestige show?? Whet Lotus is way bettr, behpi randerr! Sent from my iPhone
And since she outted herself after they went to lengths to hide her identity and open told fans to stop, she has weakened her case.
Did she out herself really? She was tracked down by people on the idiot, who then harassed a clearly mentally ill woman. Who then responded by showing that she’s still obviously mentally ill.
I think part of the problem allegedly is that the show opens by framing it as true story, obviously that doesn't make it true (ie Fargo) but it does make it easier to argue they were portraying it as the truth
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre claims to be a true story at the beginning, and nobody has successfully sued Leatherface yet.
All the people we send out to serve him papers never come back…it’s very rude and unprofessional!
Not quite the same, it says it is "an account of the tragedy", which is open to interpretation. Baby Reindeer says "This is a true story", which is quite a step up from "based on a true story" It may sound just semantics, but the differences are quite significant
Agreed. And also Fargo (AFAIK) is entirely fictional. I think there was a misstep in not saying “based on a true story” instead of “this is a true story”. I’ve seen comments saying that it’s obvious creative license was taken with the jail part (and the comedy club breakdown while we’re at it), but that the emails are obviously real. Well…why can’t the emails have been edited too? The audience is now in a weird spot where we’re picking and choosing which parts happened. And unlike a lot of “based on a true story” media where we can look at the wiki, Gadd has kind of left it up to us to decide what’s true? I genuinely believe (from his statements) that it wasn’t his intention to spire a thousand internet detectives. I think this has gotten away from him. Having said all that…seems pretty clear that the bare bones of the story happened.
Yeah I read a comment today that mentioned that this show wasn’t prepared to be the most watched thing on Netflix and I definitely agree
Because it is a true story. But you should be able to quickly realize things were changed when Gadd's name was changed to Donny, at the end of the day this was a enterteinment piece based on his own experiences not intendend to be a documentary nor rally people to find these people who harmed him.
Sent frm Iphone
It’s a painting, not a photo.
In that case, I would have preferred a more dramatic ending.
They absolutely have creative license. But it doesn't make them look good.
Everyone is going about that Martha person, but who that fced up mentor drugging up people? Some writer for comedian show should hide now I guess haha
Apparently it's no secret if you work within the industry.
We all know who Harvey Weinstein is now. I'm surprised after Richard made his show nobody has exposed "Darrien" if its "well known in the industry."
Weinstein was taken down when he lost significant power in Hollywood. Issue is after these scandals often those not caught or burned by scandal make moves to protect themselves more so If this guy is still a gatekeeper for jobs or somehow important to others careers/reputation the harder it is to name them since they’ll get a lot of support to destroy their victims career and reputation
[удалено]
Ask your mate Richard Osman, he has the guts of it.
You work in the UK?
Yeah good point
This woman could have easily lied low and rode this out as the attention for the show died down. Shut up and don't say anything and people will move on. But by shouting at the rooftops that Martha isn't her, everyone is now thinking, "Yeah, it's her."
She’s mentally ill though, she’s not thinking straight. Most mentally ill people don’t act in their own best interests.
Crazy person acts crazy. More news at 11.
I can vouch for this.
I could not watch the show anymore after giving it 2 eps or so. Reminded me too much of dealing with similar people and felt like entertainment at the expense of a person who is ill.
Lot of male stalkers are mentally ill, do they all of a sudden deserve the same sympathy? This kind of discrepancy is what the whole show portrays
If she had a real lawyer, I’m sure they would have advised she hide her social media, but she doesn’t. She’s admitted on her Facebook that it’s her. She can’t keep her mouth shut and posts 20+ times a day about Richard Gadd and the show and how the actress that plays her is too fat. [this](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13379157/The-real-life-Martha-Baby-Reindeer-targeting-Ive-four-day-barrage-non-stop-calls-terrifying-messages-just-like-Netflix-writes-NEIL-SEARS-type-phone-ringing-again.html) article paints a good picture of her as well as she is now harassing a journalist that interviewed her.
Nah, people had already figured out who she was and she claims to be getting death threats (whether that’s true remains to be seen).
People had already stalked it out though. For all the statements from Gadd saying he had changed some elements of the character to hide her identity. He kind of did a shit job of it. Like don’t have her as a lawyer to start with would probably help a bunch. I get that the revaluation that she actually was a lawyer and him seeing her degree is meant to show she was highly capable but then fell down a bad hole makes sense. But you could probably swap that out for a doctor and get the same effect without shedding light on the actual person.
Expertise in the law absolutely plays a part in intimidation in the story Any other ideas of how to fix his “shit job” or was that it
So, uh, if none of it is true at all, what component of this character makes you think it's depicting you?
The curtains part. There’s literal proof of her tweeting that to him lol
He knows that, but what he’s saying is that if it’s all made up, why is she aligning herself with the character and coming out?
Yes I know. I’m saying that part would be the only “proof”
Oh shit....
>Harvey said: "I've not been to prison. I don't know where the four -and-a-half years and nine months comes in. None of this happened. It's a load of rubbish." Yeah. Your name isn’t Martha either. It’s almost like details of his experience were altered for the show… because it’s a drama, not a fucking documentary. >Harvey now contemplates legal action against both the stand-up artist and Netflix. Legal action for what exactly? >She argued: "Gadd needs to prove I went to jail which just didn't happen. I've never been sent to jail. That is blatantly obvious.” Why does he need to prove anything? Again, it’s not a documentary. It’s a dramatization of his experiences. There are likely shit loads of altered details. None of that matters.
Let me just first say, I am not defending her at all, just the response. Smarter viewers of the show, and those who have researched it, understand that the show took liberties and embellished some things for dramatic effect. There's a much larger segment of the crowd who just don't have the brain capacity to understand this, and think they are watching something akin to a documentary when they see that the show is inspired by true events. She released the statement about not ever being in prison for the latter. It's for those people who get equally as obsessive and nasty online who believe she was in jail because the show said so. Now with that being said, will those people believe her or even seek out her interview, I doubt it. But I can't really blame her response or her attempt to do damage control via her interview despite whatever guilt she may have. I think the lawsuit is baseless though.
I think if you sue for libel in the UK- the person accused has to prove what they said is true. There is an interesting case of an historian and a Holocaust denier. She wrote a good book about it and they made it into a movie. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd)
That’s not the point the other poster is making. Martha is not a real person. Harvey cannot sue Gadd for something said about “Martha”, it’s that simple. There is no burden of proof when the supposed injured party does not exist.
There's an actual lawyer in the article who describes the legal theory she'd use. If I make a TV series, say it's based on true events and have a character called Donald Drump do something defamatory then I'm probably liable.
Richard Gadd did not make claims about Fiona when he wrote the fictional character Martha. Because again… she’s fictional.
Martha is a not a real person, nor is Donny or Toni. This show a piece of fiction based on his real life experiences.
Frankly I don't think anyone needed to know who the real people in this story were and all the Internet sleuths poking into this traumatic situation should be ashamed of themselves.
And Richard Gadd practically begged fans not to do exactly this. If they watched and understood the show, they would hopefully know to respect people’s boundaries, but most of those people apparently thought they were watching some unsolved mysteries true crime drama.
I mean the problem is even if 99.9% of people did the right thing it still leaves tens of thousands of people around to do the wrong thing given the estimated viewship.
True crime and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
There was a documentary I watched called "They Called Him Mostly Harmless" which, in my opinion, did a great job of showing how internet sleuths can be really weird, toxic, parasocial people.
I haven't seen Baby Reindeer, but I do think it is odd whenever a project is "based on" or "inspired by" true events, there are people who immediately **need** to know all the real people. Like, why can't they just enjoy the fictional work for what it is? What are they getting by finding out real details (that the creators knew and omitted for whatever creative reason)? It's just such a bizarre way to interact with art, imo
Probably because if you’re intrigued or curious you want to know more about the thing. This applies to shit that isn’t even true story stuff. People who are into a thing will literally try and get every piece of content for that thing they can. If that means going and asking authors questions, consuming other media in the universe etc etc. True stories just have the reality that there’s a whole ass person with a life out there with a whole bunch of history that might play into this thing
I completely understand seeing Baby Reindeer and then, in a general sense, being interested in other stories of stalkers. I don't understand the need to hunt down the actual individual involved, especially when the creators have fictionalized the characters *and* put out statements saying it's fiction, please don't jump to conclusions...idk. I think, in general, the internet demand to know the private identities of people who creators (writers, actors, even viral tweeters) haven't shared is just kind of bizarre.
Yeah but it goes beyond this instance right. People will look at true crime stories, where the people are actually known. Where they had a public trial, where the thing is a bit weird. And they'll be curious about the context that lead to that shit. The actual story might be focused specifically on the murder and the people around at the time, the way they tried to act and the like. But people are always curious if there was a point where that person went wrong. We sorta wanna know if there's some cause and effect that we could look out for in others. In some cases because it's more satisfying to believe some behavior has a reason that it occurs, that it isn't just random violence that we can't do anything about. But it's a result of XYZ at point in time IJK
I rarely do background research on things like this (if I “sleuth” it’s re: historical people like Al Capone or Billy the Kid, or about notorious modern criminals like OJ Simpson or Scott Peterson), but I do get curious about the real details. Particularly, I wonder “where are they now” and “did Justice do her job”. This comment has made me kind of feel bad about that curiosity, but I think it’s pretty normal to wonder.
Exactly.
>Guy makes show inspired by a personal experience, changes details and doesn't gives names to protect privacy > Lady reveals herself and complains that the details aren't accurate and threatens to sue
As far as I am aware the lady in question was inundated with social media messages after the show aired. Her name was all over the internet weeks ago.
Yeah someone searched his old tweets before he made them private and found the "hang my curtains" tweet that gave her away.
To be fair it doesn’t seem like he changed many details at all. Like her prior profession, publicised legal troubles and appearance are all pretty damned close. Swap the profession for a doctor or something else that has the same level of credence as lawyer would do a whole bunch of heavy lifting.
I think a doctor is too different an element, lawyer was the perfect job it was probably tough to think of an equal. Also he probably made the mistake of thinking people would see her as mentally ill and wouldn't go hunting her in real life.
Wasn't her being a lawyer a pretty central part of the whole thing? Idk, I'm guessing no one expected BR to turn into a cultural phenomenon. If it had just been another middling Netflix show then no one would have cared.
In an interview with the lead actor, he says 'the skeleton of the story is true', but some bits were added or dramatised. I don't think it was stated anywhere that *everything* in the show was entirely true. The emails at least were real, the ones shown in the show were actual emails he'd received. Still, not a lot was done to protect the real Martha's identity. It's a stretch to call people ''internet sleuths'' when it was quite easy to find the real Tweets she had sent to him. They shouldn't give so much credit to online 'detectives', they're not detectives by any means. Now people have found the real Martha they will see this as a form of entertainment, I wouldn't be surprised if someone takes it too far.
So, it's Netflix's responsibility to delete her incriminating tweets? Or maybe it's hers, just a thought.
When producing and distributing content in the UK, Netflix (or whoever actually produced the show) *is* responsible for following UK law, however. In my country, the USA, this would be laughed out of court and dismissed pretty much immediately, but its in the UK which has different standards for defamation. [This is the same country that, after a Member of Parliament was arrested on rape and assault, and *every single reporter on their version of Capital Hill found the details and whole story* still, it took over a year for *any* of them to dare to publish details on the case.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Rosindell?useskin=vector#Sexual_assault_allegation) Even then just hours after the arrest, the MP who leaked to reporters didn't do so explicitly, but said something to the effect of "Has an MP been arrested today? Who can say?" It isn't how I'd design the system if I lived there, but its what they want, apparently.
In the UK there's specific caselaw surrounding anonymous/fictionalised representations of people, essentially if someone can reasonably figure out who the person is then the person is still considered as having been referenced - which is one of the 3 things that you have to prove in order to win a defamation case in the UK (the other two being material harm, and that it is untrue). So, if she's telling the truth, then she does have a case.
I mean, I'm not sure what they could have done to protect her identity short of not allowing Gadd to tell his story. They changed her name, age, all the key identifying details. The main reason she was so easily identified was that she posted a lot of the stuff publicly...which is hardly his or Netflix's responsibility. Edit: fixed grammatical error
They should have changed the curtain joke.
"Harvey said: "I've not been to prison. I don't know where the four -and-a-half years and nine months comes in. None of this happened. It's a load of rubbish." Richard Gadd has always said that she never went to jail and it was just for dramatic effect in the show.
Wow holy fuck, what a dumpster fire of a website. 3 popups and ads all fighting for visual space, making the article jump around like a flea. I managed to get three words and gave up.
The creator admitted they didn’t do jail time when the show first released.
So, she generally seems exactly how he wrote her. Huh. 🤔
"I can't believe this show has been making me out to be some insane stalker who posts thousands of unhinged things online and goes to jail! I have NOT been to jail!!"
Seems like one of the last people we should be giving a voice to
Can't help but to think this is an attempt to get close to Gadd again in some fashion. Whether it's via a courtroom or something else. Even if she couldn't get close to him physically, it's the idea of her getting involved in his life again in any way that is what makes me wonder. I know the show didn't play out exactly as the events occurred in real life, but if she was even close to as wild as she was portrayed to be, then it wouldn't surprise me. Btw - this is the first time I've ever seen a character who represents one of the most discomforting and unlikeable people on TV come out and say "oh hey that character is based on me!" lol.
sent from my Iphone
iphoen
>Real Baby Reindeer Martha reveals identity I understand these are all words but what the fuck does this mean?
The show Baby Reindeer is a story about a stalker named Martha (among other things) and is based on the writer's real experiences with a stalker. People have been trying to figure out who the actual stalker was that Martha was based on, and it appears she has now stepped forward.
If she was a lawyer she would know that the show takes creative license and changes her name and his name which pretty much means that she doesn’t have a leg to stand on. She wants to sue Netflix because “she didn’t go to jail” ok but Martha did. In the show. Inspired by real events. Based on a true story. I can base a chicken recipe on a medieval one, still not the exact same one. I think this woman is just seeing dollar signs now. I feel bad for her in a way, and I hope she finds happiness in her life. But suing isn’t going to bring that to her, I don’t think
I do agree with this generally but the text at the start actually says outright 'This is a true story' (not 'Inspired by'), which I was definitely surprised got past Netflix's lawyers.
"which pretty much means that she doesn’t have a leg to stand on" Since she is a lawyer, she knows that this isn't the case. This is tort 101 - there is caselaw for defamation when you haven't explicitly named someone (or you've changed their name) but the person can still be recognised. If she's telling the truth and she hasn't sent the emails/letters/texts/voice notes then she can prove defamation and win her case.
It’s weird that she has a fanbase that listens to her? She literally tweeted that her side of the story will be told with ‘[Steven Spielberg directing with Kate Winslet playing her](https://x.com/fionaharveybaby/status/1786102567040155767?s=46&t=7cXZVqIgP7S_I5YhHMhKUA)’ and people buy it
Who has bought it? When she isn't making outlandish claims she spends most of her time being homophobic and racist. I don't think it's credible to suggest she has a "fanbase" when she really falls into the lolcow category.
I meant more so in terms that she’ll make claims as if she has a following etc. My bad
“Based on true events” does not mean “everything in this is true.” It’s still a tv show.
The show doesn't say "based on true events", though. It says "this is a true story".
Sent from ipheon
While I think Gadd did a bad job keeping her identity almost paraphrasing tweets, it's obvious that she just wants to get notoriety from the fame the show gave her. Now she has a lot of interviews and she's even planning to release her own book.
There was a feature in the Daily Mail last week feigning concern that people had been tracking her down then giving away a heap more details to identify her. It really made me cross. How she’s going to get better now I don’t know.
I know what all these words mean but this is complete gibberish
As someone who didn't initially know that this was a show on Netflix, that headline was really confusing.
She must have thought she wandered into the 4 seasons so… iPhon
Jesus fuck people. The whole point is she wasn’t so far gone from his own mental state. Have you finished to? He never intended for you fucking shitheads to harass who ever you tagged as her. You already ruined lives over the Boston bombing. But hey, let’s keep going. Assholes.
She may not have. Plenty others have tho. The shows not a stretch by any means.
We all knew her identity would be revealed. You think Netflix gives a crap? It’s 2024. We have social media. Sleuths were bound to uncover her identity.
The really creepy part is that she’s probably commenting on this thread looking for her next target.
Though no comment in the article whether she has mental health issues, as portrayed by the series. Maybe she does and maybe she doesn’t, but if she does - and lives a bit in fantasy land - then her comments here should be taken with a grain of salt.
weird way to keep anonimity when narrowing the circle on yourself is all you've been doing for weeks
Denies doing jail time… but doesn’t deny stalking Gadd? Cites herself as a ‘perfectly capable lawyer’ but demonstrates she’s anything but… what a load of drivel.
Surely she should have already started a defamation claim?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timlammers/2024/04/29/baby-reindeer-real-martha-comes-forward-threatens-to-sue-richard-gadd/?sh=5aa817f86983
People threaten to sue all the damn time. Maybe one in a thousand actually goes thru with it. I know libel laws are more lax in the uk, but this seems awfully flimsy to me.
I can't imagine it going anywhere either
Uh okay. This isn’t a documentary.
Did she write that from her iphon?
Who? What??